[Qent]

I didn't get the sense that he's trying to change anything. More like, "If I bump this 10-year-old thread it will be funneh and I will get b&. " And it was. And he did.

[NGTM-1R]

Thing is, we're not somethingawful and we're not /tg/, we don't want and we're not really equipped for that sort of crap.

[qazwsx]

That is a bit disturbing, really.

And astonishing. An utter surprise to me, until I went to see what was going on in IRC and found myself cornered between 12 year old pricks. Then I understood.

The fact that you were trying your very best to be a prick didn't have anything to do with it, no siree.

Woo, logging: http://pastebin.com/HGFBRXhS

[Luis Dias]

Actually that log speaks to my defense if anything.

[sigtau]

Since I'm back for the time being (as per Zacam's reversal of the affecting bans, since we've all served some time for this anyways), I feel like it's my place to contribute to putting an end to something that I started but was never intended to get this far.

When I first posted the image to the Rule 34 thread, my goal was simple--to get a reaction from the community and viewers of the thread.  The initial post of the thread stated that Rule 34 had not yet applied to FreeSpace, and because I knew otherwise, I thought it would be hilariously ironic to see everyone running in all directions when they realize that rule 34 does, indeed, apply.

However, getting a weeklong ban didn't sit well with me.  I posted the ban message into IRC, where Fury, Snail, and Hades were watching and wondering why the hell such a harsh punishment was employed against me in the first place.  I don't have logs to clarify this (because frankly, there was enough drama as it is, and I don't want to go digging for it), but somewhere in there, many other members in the channel agreed that the punishment was harsh and that the administrator in question was either completely fascist or too trigger-happy to be left in control.

However, for the ones who got banned, they had different ideas.  I don't represent the opinions of all people banned in this ****storm, but I do understand a few things that they agreed upon.

The purpose of reposting the image in the first place, based on what they've said, was:

• to irritate the administrator who banned me in the first place, and
• to prove the point that one single administrator doesn't need to be able to ban without consulting the other administrators first.

Any idea of a petty 'revolution' or attempting to instigate change is totally unrelated to the motivations of those who reposted the image.

Yes, it was immature, and I admit that fully; however, it was only intended to be taken as a joke.  The idea of a 'revolution' in the first place originated somewhere that wasn't the four people who were banned over this, and any other external motivation beyond "we reposted for the lulz" seems to be completely irrelevant.

While I'm here, I'd also like to apologize for being a starting factor in such a ****storm.  I just find it curious how me posting an image to an internet forum can cause such a stormcloud, no matter how you look at it.

[Snail]

I did it for the lulz.


This is no longer lulzy, this is dumb, can we stop now please?

[Luis Dias]

@sigtau: butterflies.

@Snail: .... ahhh just forget it.

[BrotherBryon]

Well if the problem with authority some individuals seem to be having is not just that they got banned but the duration of said ban I propose an idea for the moderators. Banning of any user for more than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. In other words moderators can issue day long bans as they see fit for individuals to cool their jets when they get out of line but any banning period longer than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. That will ensure that no one moderator can go on a power trip of some kind and the user who gets banned knows it just wasn't just one moderator who felt they deserved a prolonged time out.

[Luis Dias]

That's a simple but efficient idea

[Snail]

Actually I think the administration is fine as it is. The expectation is that if someone does something that violates the rules they get banned (which, may I point out, is exactly what happened). A lot of people say it was unduly harsh or whatever, but then the bans got repealed after some internal discussion. The system works because moderators and admins don't need to stick to some arbitrary system and can just moderate as they see fit. If someone disagrees then they can go talk about it and work it out.

Now that this is over can we stop going over it?

[Luis Dias]

Will you stop trying to shut up people? If you don't like a certain conversation, just ignore it.

[Zacam]

Actually I think the administration is fine as it is. The expectation is that if someone does something that violates the rules they get banned (which, may I point out, is exactly what happened). A lot of people say it was unduly harsh or whatever, but then the bans got repealed after some internal discussion. The system works because moderators and admins don't need to stick to some arbitrary system and can just moderate as they see fit. If someone disagrees then they can go talk about it and work it out.

Now that this is over can we stop going over it?

+1 to this. How the Administration "Administers" to the board is up to the Administration. We can check and balance each other and we listen to our Moderators as well.

But at the end of the day, an Administrator is still just a person. And we all have our own ways of viewing and handling different things as they happen. Disagreements are bound to happen just as much as agreements are.

I didn't repeal the ban because I thought Goober was wrong. Just to make that clear. A system that doesn't in some way support it self has larger issues to deal with. I did it because I believed it was a fair thing to do after observing the sentiments in the IRC channel, and I'm glad to see the immediate postings that have taken place since the reversal.

Now I have Gorillaz stuck in my head and must play.

[Zacam]

Will you stop trying to shut up people? If you don't like a certain conversation, just ignore it.

I think you mean to say "Will you stop trying to shut people up".

And it's rather bothersome having to ignore somebody that keeps stirring well after things should be left to rest, so I'll ask you nicely to stop continuing instigating this conversation please.

[Luis Dias]

If you'd bothered to look, you'll see that I've refrain to make much more commentary than the OP. Other ideas have come from other people.... if the admins / mods feel this is no longer an issue, then I propose this thread should be closed.

[Zacam]

If I what?

I wasn't responding to all of your commentary here. I was specifically responding to what I directly quoted, so "if YOU had bothered to look" you would have realized the specificity of my statement with better clarity.

Your original post was actually quite nice. Pity it's all mostly quoted from somewhere else, I was almost ready to applaud. However, we do have our own counsel for how to administrate the board. Suggestions are always welcome, but debate really isn't. Because it's not up to anybody but the Administrators to decide how Administration will be done. Just as it's not up to anybody but Moderators as to how they will Moderate. And when necessary, we (Administrators and Moderators) communicate any differences as necessary or solicit feedback as required.

You like making a lot of proposals. I'm not really feeling inclined to follow any of them today.

[Zacam]

Well if the problem with authority some individuals seem to be having is not just that they got banned but the duration of said ban I propose an idea for the moderators. Banning of any user for more than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. In other words moderators can issue day long bans as they see fit for individuals to cool their jets when they get out of line but any banning period longer than 1 day must be agreed upon by 3 or more moderators. That will ensure that no one moderator can go on a power trip of some kind and the user who gets banned knows it just wasn't just one moderator who felt they deserved a prolonged time out.

Hmm. It has it's points, and it -is- an idea. But an unnecessary one, in my opinion. If somebody DID go on a rampage of abuse, I can guarantee you that it would not last long at all and anything done would be easily reversed. Further, even if somebody didn't go on a rampage, but others felt differently about the matter, or reached a different decision, then conversation and actions already take place as necessary without the need for an enforced mandate or arbitration such as suggested.

Also, to specify, Moderators do not have Ban powers. They can Warn or place people as being "Firewalled". Only Administrators may Ban an account.

[Luis Dias]

If I what?

I wasn't responding to all of your commentary here. I was specifically responding to what I directly quoted, so "if YOU had bothered to look" you would have realized the specificity of my statement with better clarity.

Your original post was actually quite nice. Pity it's all mostly quoted from somewhere else, I was almost ready to applaud. However, we do have our own counsel for how to administrate the board. Suggestions are always welcome, but debate really isn't. Because it's not up to anybody but the Administrators to decide how Administration will be done. Just as it's not up to anybody but Moderators as to how they will Moderate. And when necessary, we (Administrators and Moderators) communicate any differences as necessary or solicit feedback as required.

You like making a lot of proposals. I'm not really feeling inclined to follow any of them today.

Zacam I really don't get you. Have I ever said that it was my "right" to apply any kind of rules whatsoever in this forum? I have never done so. What I did was to put some food for thought. Snail, one of the trespassers gets here and is all like "come on shut up about this". Well I'm no monkey of his, thus my reply. Your comment however was filled with atrition against me as if I did something wrong. Well sorry for being interested. I'll be no more.

[Zacam]

??

Srsly? No. Your initial post was great. All of page 1 was fine especially as "food for thought" as you put it. It was posts -following- sigtau's where deviation began to occur. And that, I think, is more specifically where you were being asked to stop and by one of the members directly affected by the situation that was being discussed, which was really a not-quite-off-topic aside in relation to the Original Post.

So, allow me to be the one that doesn't get where YOU are coming from making these kinds of assumptive statements of yours like you are aggrieved. Because yes, you DID do something wrong. You decided to just walk all over another members polite request to allow -one portion- of the conversation that this thread wasn't even really related to, simply fade off.

Further, the tone of your message (the "if you'd bothered to look" part), though it could just be me as I don't really have all that much interaction with you to begin with, came across as a rather snooty and haughty "lrn2read" in a manner most uncalled for.

It's not a case of who's a monkey for who. I don't get where you think Snail is an outsider in terms of being able to (like anybody else) express an opinion in regards to anything when done in a polite fashion. Especially not in regards to a topic where he is one of the directly affected people being conversed about. I also completely fail to understand how "Now that this is over can we stop going over it?" translate into "shut up about this" or as a high handed gag order. He wasn't requesting a closure of the topic in general or in relation tot he Original First Post, but in regards to other matters related by association.

And as this is supposed to be more about a conversation in regards to the suggestion of the first post or discussion in general about opinions of perception, but instead it's now turning into something slightly mangled and useless, so here is to hoping that a different and more coherent new topic can be created with the purpose of direct and relevant conversation can take place that sticks to the point.