Hello, I've just Been banned! (1)

babel
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 04:56

It seems I have been banned for life. A category of ban that has been used for some really vile people, for example a real life criminal who defrauded an OTF member.

Oh and if you agree with me, the implication is the ban would apply to you too. This is what OTF has become.

babel
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 05:05

It msut have been the big red scary letters I used. Yes, well-worth a ban.

You know who broke the rules? HAL. Not me.

Feeble
Moderator

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 05:28

i'm stand on the street with a placcard 'save the endangered species: those with opinions'

polson
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 07:33

I'm not. I'm dabbling in the middle.

babel
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 12:51

The 'misinformation' was based upon the utterings of our C-in-C. He stated that basically if people agreed with me they were free to do so but that 'would no longer be in OTF.' To me that is him saying I'm not going to be alllowed back (I have an IP ban and as I can't use my CC I am locked out) - indeed, not only that but people who agree with me will be treated similarly.

Therefore I stand by the conclusion I arrived at based upon what Hal said. If that is not the case I would advise Hal to choose his words more carefully - and in any case I strongly protest any sanctions that have been visited upon me when I was not in breach of any OTF rules. Indeed - Hal used a level 3 on me when no rule had been broken, nor warning issued. Therefore it is 'questionable' that the correct person was punished.

iain
Moderator

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 13:58

Quoting: babel

If that is not the case I would advise Hal to choose his words more carefully

It is not the case - I am pleased to say.

I absolutely agree with you that it would be completely absurd to issue a ban for something so trivial.

Quoting: babel

in any case I strongly protest any sanctions that have been visited upon me when I was not in breach of any OTF rules. Indeed - Hal used a level 3 on me when no rule had been broken, nor warning issued. Therefore it is 'questionable' that the correct person was punished.

Shall we talk about this in private? As a vaguely neutral party, I'd be happy to mediate. (I have no grudge against either you, Jeremy, or against Andrew.)

~Iain

kayana
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 16:45

On one hand, it distresses me when old friends get upset, on the other I secretly love flame wars because they're all so exciting.

I just had to say that.

Kayana

babel
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:14 · Edited by: babel

Iain - if the sanctions agaisnt me are reversed then I'll talk and not until. Hal has stepped WAY over his bounds here which is why, as you might have noticed, a number of people are up in arms about it.

And Iain , I want you to know I did not, NOT call for you to resign. This was aimed specifically at Hal and any suggestion from him otherwise is simply not true and the chatsave would prove this.

iain
Moderator

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:37

Quoting: babel

Iain - if the sanctions agaisnt me are reversed then I'll talk and not until. Hal has stepped WAY over his bounds here which is why, as you might have noticed, a number of people are up in arms about it.

OK. I have pulled a few strings - and removed the IP ban, and reinstated your CL8 access rights in full.

Quoting: babel

And Iain , I want you to know I did not, NOT call for you to resign. This was aimed specifically at Hal and any suggestion from him otherwise is simply not true and the chatsave would prove this.

I understand.

Quoting: babel

Oh and Hal? I'm not trying to oust you to get your job - I've made that clear to a number of people in private. I want you to step down to let someone *else* have a go as I think you're not up to the job and from the looks of things your teamleaders agree.

May I send you an email?

~Iain

aeon
Member

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 20:34

Just a few quotes from the ISA protocol...

Do not have an arrogant attitude when consulting or warning violators in OTF chats. The fact that you're a security officer doesn't give you the right to bully or intimidate other officers.

Always use diplomacy.

Ensure that the presumed violator is in fact breaking OTF's Prime Directives. You are not permitted to take action against a chatter just because you don't like him/her or don't agree with something he/she says.

iain
Moderator

# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 23:35

Quoting: Feeble

regardless as to whether this was a ban for life or not

It clearly wasn't, because there is no ban at all in place against Jeremy - and he has full CL8 access rights. That's about as far from "banned for life" as it gets.

Yes, the situation could have been handled better. However, given that what happened has already happened, so how can we best and constructively move on now?

Jeremy is not banned for life; he never was.

Yes, this could have been handled better yesterday in chat at the time. I think we all do agree on that. Dissecting protocols isn't a way to move constructively on, though - in my opinion at least.

~Iain

mezoti
Member

# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 00:40

For Merlin's (or $DEITY's) sake. (And that's the extent of my comment, I refuse to get involved in another war.)

(On an aside, you rule Iainjoon. <3)

iain
Moderator

# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:02

Quoting: rpmobsession

Oooh Oooh. Brandi!! Hal misused his laser/phaser/blasting beam things. He should get his ENTIRE armory taken away. All of it. Take it away. Block him out of it.

RPMO, you shot a new chatter out of the room, because the person disagreed with your assertion that "If you George Lucas is on your list of genius, then you should have your tongue ripped out of your mouth. No cares what you say.". Your reasoning for the shot was "She was pissing me off. I don't care."

What else would a responsible ISA Director like Brandi have done, other than remove the armoury access of a person who apparently can't even understand how that was out of line - to the extent that she will bring it up in a completely unrelated thread, just to stir things, that were in the process of being resolved?

I'm disappointed. I thought I knew you better than that, Candice.

mezoti
Member

# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:21

If it disgusts you why are you on the forums?

rpmobsession
Member

# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:31

Iain: Do you want me to pull out the emails that went back and forth? Or to get a hold of chat scripts from the Babel incident? Because posting what I said and quoting me really is nothing compared to what this ADMINISTRATION has said and done. I'm a measly CL6 who once cared about this community. I was grumpy, and pissed off at a newbie who had a very very flawed argument. I think we've all been there. So, yes, my actions were a bit extreme, but hey, I'm not in charge of anything. I didn't want to make this a big thing. All I want back is the ability to freaking throw notes from spycam. So, make me out to look like the bad guy if you must to draw the attention away from our crappy CiC.

Author	Message
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 04:46 I dared ask HAL to resign. I didn't beak any OTF rules. HAL asked for opinions, and I was shot out and later banned for expressing mine. I even said 'resign please'. So watch out. You too could be banned for simply expressing an opinion. I think the word we are looking for is 'repression'. TTFN.
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 04:56 It seems I have been banned for life. A category of ban that has been used for some really vile people, for example a real life criminal who defrauded an OTF member. Oh and if you agree with me, the implication is the ban would apply to you too. This is what OTF has become.
korny Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 04:58 How dare you have your own opinion! You black sheep, you.
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 05:05 It msut have been the big red scary letters I used. Yes, well-worth a ban. You know who broke the rules? HAL. Not me.
polson Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 05:11 I break pretend rules all the time.
Feeble Moderator	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 05:28 i'm stand on the street with a placcard 'save the endangered species: those with opinions'
rpmobsession Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 07:26 To be honest, both sides are playing in the extremes.
polson Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 07:33 I'm not. I'm dabbling in the middle.
iain Moderator	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 12:28 Full disclosure - I was asleep last night when all this was going on. I haven't spoken to anybody since, so this is Iain speaking. Quoting: babel It seems I have been banned for life. I have no idea where this "banned for life" idea came from. There is no "banned for life" status set against Jeremy's account, and I have no emails from anybody suggesting anything of the sort. If it were suggested, I would naturally vehemently oppose such a status. But it has not even been suggested. Straw man. To date, we have used "banned for life" only for people who should be in prison. Think, sexual predators as well as con artists. As things currently stand (from a quick look in the Officer Management System) access rights have been removed from Jeremy's account, but there is no "troublemaker status" set or even proposed. Quoting: babel Oh and if you agree with me, the implication is the ban would apply to you too. Says who? I will personally unban anybody banned under such an insane policy. Fortunately, there is no such policy in effect. And, if I have anything to say about it, there never will be. Again - please note that I was asleep last night while all hell was breaking loose. However, there appears to be obvious misinformation spreading. ("Banned for life" status for a disagreement; bans for anyone who's not "with us"; a general "us vs them" mentality; ...) Now it has been corrected. Doubtlessly, I be writing more later (though not necessarily in this thread); I am well aware that I have not exhaustively commented on all aspects of recent proceedings. This is just an initial post to clear up a few pieces of blatant misunderstandings, for all parties. ~Iain
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 12:51 The 'misinformation' was based upon the utterings of our C-in-C. He stated that basically if people agreed with me they were free to do so but that 'would no longer be in OTF.' To me that is him saying I'm not going to be alllowed back (I have an IP ban and as I can't use my CC I am locked out) - indeed, not only that but people who agree with me will be treated similarly. Therefore I stand by the conclusion I arrived at based upon what Hal said. If that is not the case I would advise Hal to choose his words more carefully - and in any case I strongly protest any sanctions that have been visited upon me when I was not in breach of any OTF rules. Indeed - Hal used a level 3 on me when no rule had been broken, nor warning issued. Therefore it is 'questionable' that the correct person was punished.
daecrist Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 13:46 Jeremy, you aren't banned from the chat room. You are banned from your usual childish histrionics and from trying to incite a full-blown insurrection. This is about you not liking me, and being upset that you aren't the one in charge here and trying to make that right in your own head. So please, enough with the antics and the misrepresentations.
iain Moderator	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 13:58 Quoting: babel If that is not the case I would advise Hal to choose his words more carefully It is not the case - I am pleased to say. I absolutely agree with you that it would be completely absurd to issue a ban for something so trivial. Quoting: babel in any case I strongly protest any sanctions that have been visited upon me when I was not in breach of any OTF rules. Indeed - Hal used a level 3 on me when no rule had been broken, nor warning issued. Therefore it is 'questionable' that the correct person was punished. Shall we talk about this in private? As a vaguely neutral party, I'd be happy to mediate. (I have no grudge against either you, Jeremy, or against Andrew.) ~Iain
bria Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 16:30 I thought this was a joke post! I honestly did, until I saw Iain's reply. Dear oh dear. I need to take things more seriously. I blame Hobbie. But seriously, people, maybe we can calm down a bit? No one banned anyone else. I know power plays a role here, and in fact, for anyone interested in the dynamics thereof: I recently wrote a thesis on this topic, got a 1st for it too, so you're welcome to read that if you want. It might help you understand the "other side" a bit. I don't know. But the offer's there. Also: good luck to any and all mediators in this matter!
kayana Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 16:45 On one hand, it distresses me when old friends get upset, on the other I secretly love flame wars because they're all so exciting. I just had to say that. Kayana
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:11 · Edited by: babel Hal. I did not incite any insurrection. Again you insult me without bothering to let the truth get in the way. I didn't ask these people to take any action, I did not encourage it and credit them with a little more intelligence and backbone. I broke no rules. YOU did, not me. the fact that other people have taken action was entirely their decision, not mine and that reflects on you, not me. I've done nothing wrong here - you're in the wrong, pal, and the fact that your team leaders seem to be in open rebellion against you should tell you that. Open your eyes, man.
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:14 · Edited by: babel Iain - if the sanctions agaisnt me are reversed then I'll talk and not until. Hal has stepped WAY over his bounds here which is why, as you might have noticed, a number of people are up in arms about it. And Iain , I want you to know I did not, NOT call for you to resign. This was aimed specifically at Hal and any suggestion from him otherwise is simply not true and the chatsave would prove this.
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:17 · Edited by: babel Oh and Hal? I'm not trying to oust you to get your job - I've made that clear to a number of people in private. I want you to step down to let someone else have a go as I think things need to change in our leadership. You can twist the facts, insult me, misrepresent me all you want. But the truth will out and that's what's happening now.
iain Moderator	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:37 Quoting: babel Iain - if the sanctions agaisnt me are reversed then I'll talk and not until. Hal has stepped WAY over his bounds here which is why, as you might have noticed, a number of people are up in arms about it. OK. I have pulled a few strings - and removed the IP ban, and reinstated your CL8 access rights in full. Quoting: babel And Iain , I want you to know I did not, NOT call for you to resign. This was aimed specifically at Hal and any suggestion from him otherwise is simply not true and the chatsave would prove this. I understand. Quoting: babel Oh and Hal? I'm not trying to oust you to get your job - I've made that clear to a number of people in private. I want you to step down to let someone else have a go as I think you're not up to the job and from the looks of things your teamleaders agree. May I send you an email? ~Iain
babel Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 17:41 Iain, my inbox is always open.
aeon Member	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 20:34 Just a few quotes from the ISA protocol... Do not have an arrogant attitude when consulting or warning violators in OTF chats. The fact that you're a security officer doesn't give you the right to bully or intimidate other officers. Always use diplomacy. Ensure that the presumed violator is in fact breaking OTF's Prime Directives. You are not permitted to take action against a chatter just because you don't like him/her or don't agree with something he/she says.
Feeble Moderator	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 22:50 Can i please point out - regardless as to whether this was a ban for life or not - it was a flagrant misuse of the armory. The fact that the IP Sanctions and the Command Code were blocked is worse because it was a ban then kept secret from the majority of the community. I'm not meaning to rub salt in the wound, but first, we gotta do what we preach. And if the PDs are what we live by, if ISA is meant to do their job, we need to flag the fact that this was innapropriate and there was no reason for for a) the removal from the chat and furthermore b) the further sanctions placed on Jeremy's account.
iain Moderator	# Posted: 1 Jul 2008 23:35 Quoting: Feeble regardless as to whether this was a ban for life or not It clearly wasn't, because there is no ban at all in place against Jeremy - and he has full CL8 access rights. That's about as far from "banned for life" as it gets. Yes, the situation could have been handled better. However, given that what happened has already happened, so how can we best and constructively move on now? Jeremy is not banned for life; he never was. Yes, this could have been handled better yesterday in chat at the time. I think we all do agree on that. Dissecting protocols isn't a way to move constructively on, though - in my opinion at least. ~Iain
Feeble Moderator	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 00:40 Iain - thank-you for apologising for something that you had no action in and for restoring peace to a certain extent... It's good to hear a voice that is admitting some error in judgement.
mezoti Member	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 00:40 For Merlin's (or $DEITY's) sake. (And that's the extent of my comment, I refuse to get involved in another war.) (On an aside, you rule Iainjoon. <3)
rpmobsession Member	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 00:53 Oooh Oooh. Brandi!! Hal misused his laser/phaser/blasting beam things. He should get his ENTIRE armory taken away. All of it. Take it away. Block him out of it. That's the ISA protocol to shooting someone out of chat when the person is not at fault, isn't it? I mean, that's why I lost MY armory. And I still don't have it. Hal hasn't apologized. I refused to and I don't have my armory. So, it's only fair that either I get my armory back or Hal apologizes to Jeremy. Simple as that. Right? And a sincere and honest apology, isn't that what I was asked to give? To show that I regretted my actions, and I would kiss the inflicted person's ass just so I could be able to throw a note from spycam? Hmmm?
iain Moderator	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:02 Quoting: rpmobsession Oooh Oooh. Brandi!! Hal misused his laser/phaser/blasting beam things. He should get his ENTIRE armory taken away. All of it. Take it away. Block him out of it. RPMO, you shot a new chatter out of the room, because the person disagreed with your assertion that "If you George Lucas is on your list of genius, then you should have your tongue ripped out of your mouth. No cares what you say.". Your reasoning for the shot was "She was pissing me off. I don't care." What else would a responsible ISA Director like Brandi have done, other than remove the armoury access of a person who apparently can't even understand how that was out of line - to the extent that she will bring it up in a completely unrelated thread, just to stir things, that were in the process of being resolved? I'm disappointed. I thought I knew you better than that, Candice.
skevington Member	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:18 One rule for one. One rule for another. Sometimes this so-called community disgusts me.
mezoti Member	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:21 If it disgusts you why are you on the forums?
skevington Member	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:24 Correction : Some of the members of it disgust me.
rpmobsession Member	# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 01:31 Iain: Do you want me to pull out the emails that went back and forth? Or to get a hold of chat scripts from the Babel incident? Because posting what I said and quoting me really is nothing compared to what this ADMINISTRATION has said and done. I'm a measly CL6 who once cared about this community. I was grumpy, and pissed off at a newbie who had a very very flawed argument. I think we've all been there. So, yes, my actions were a bit extreme, but hey, I'm not in charge of anything. I didn't want to make this a big thing. All I want back is the ability to freaking throw notes from spycam. So, make me out to look like the bad guy if you must to draw the attention away from our crappy CiC.


· Outpost 10F · Forums · Statistics · Search ·