Feedback On This On-The-Fly Craftiness....

Im not exactly sure what you want to call this.... But, I refuse to sit back and watch this. Ok for one I have the freedom to voice thie HERE because it IS feedback after all. Now with that settled, let us take a walk for a minute.

Ok Right HERE you will notice how somehow a NEW rule just popped up out of no where. Quaint and peaceful sitting there, making its statement and moving on. But underneath this nifty little "Update" lies the truth. It was a RESPONSE to an Admin closing and deleting a thread! Said Admin could have EASILY moved the thread to the appropriate place and KEPT it open, as it was fair talk. Also, to add to the happy chaos, the same said Admin who posted above thread was also the one who closed the scam report as well.

I do believe there was a time when Steph said a long time ago, and I don't see why it should change even IF she is gone, that whats on the Rules Thread, IS THE RULES. So now it's become a discrepancy because HACKED Msn's were not listed on the rules. BUT, as you see in several random threads that even the MSN is included... On the fly as well I would say.:huh:


Listen to your feedback, figure it out the oppresive behavior isnt something a community really enjoys. All of you that support me on this, please be kind and voice your opinion. After all it IS your community.


HERE Is the Deleted Thread Too BTW (Yes I know Its a Dead Link)

 

Agreed.

 

I agree.

 

Also, to further my Point....

Here is a good example as well.... At least put it IN the rules if you're gonna enforce the unsaid.


ALSO: For those of you who are having trouble understanding what I'm pointing out...

 

You didn't make much sense. What scam report did I close?

Anyway, the rule that a user is responsible for their Sythe account, as well as the MSN tied to it, has been unstated and upheld for a long time. The rules, as Steph drafted them, are not some ironclad constitution - they are merely a guideline. The clause at the very end (about hacked accounts) was a later addition, that I believe Finn added when we overhauled the rules months ago. It wasn't added in relation to Chase's ban.

If your complaint is with the rule against protesting particular bans/other staff decisions, that's not new either. Look at any feedback along the lines of "Ban/Unban so-an-so," and it will be locked with the reason that it is not for discussion. Such threads place pressure on staff to release information, in order to explain our decision and why we came to a different conclusion - and we can't always restate or release comments or proof that we post in the staff lounge (sometimes to protect those who submitted the information, other times because we aren't yet sure of its validity).

 

If you are talking about the scam rule, it's only logical.

If your account is hacked, it's only logical that the victim of the scam, who would have every right to think it's you, because of the legit e-mail, would be repaid, since you obviously play a part in not keeping your own materials secure.

Feedback isn't judging staff actions, and staff decisions.

 

Sin, seriously? I never stated it was ADDED, I'm saying as you can obviously tell from the rules thread is that it (A New or Plausible Rule) has NEVER went "unstated and upheld" in what I've known in the past 4 years. If there WAS a discrepancy it was added, down to the minute detail, and said Mod who DID update the rules posted therein. I don't care about the scam, and I meant reply (will fix momentarily).

Also, as a nice side note, there has never been an Admin straight up post a stickied new rule in regards to a particular event; from SMR to Pen to Unknown to Kingblade to Jansen to DaRk_KniGhT to Sythe Himself. From the way its been, a rule or stated set of "guidelines" was first discussed with the entire staff. x9 posted my dispute 2 years ago in the Mod Lounge, but a new rule can't be??

The whole thing with Chase is just a PRIME example, it isn't the subject at hand. I agree the Thread was in the wrong place, but it didn't have to be deleted. It doesn't preassure you to do anything... We don't hold guns to your heads and demand reasoning to a ban, and if someone, as a friend, feels the need to voice his opinion, he should be allowed to. Remember when Atomic was banned or Miklman or even Jewsus.... They had threads others had posted that weren't closed... I know because I posted in them all.



Tr1bal let me easily point something out

Now I am not judging anyone I am voicing my opinion. BUT even if I was I do recall the Topic of Feedback is:

 

Yet still, the staff have no obligation to do as you wish. Sure, the problem is being dealt with, though all the thread was, was questioning the authenticity of a decision that the staff had decided upon already.

 

Did you not just read what I said. Chase is NOT the first person to have a thread made on his behalf, (Read My Above Post), and his ban was not even on the same level as Miklman's or Atomic's.

You're not obligated? Forums have moderators to ensure that the community is in an enviroment suitable for stability, not to ensure oppresion is the key to upholding it bearing.

 

Re-read your post before you submit. You're still not making much sense. A discrepancy can't be added "to the minute detail" - a discrepancy is an inconsistency, and the addition of "if you get hacked, you are responsible" is by no means inconsistent with the rules.

"Said mod who updated them posted therein?" Well, if a mod updated the rules, I assume he would have had to post therein... I don't really know what you're getting at with this. Don't try to dress up the writing, because it distracts from the point you're trying to make.

Are you talking about the sticky I just added? It wasn't posted because of one thread - but, this happens EVERY time someone in the community gets banned. I was going to infract Jcash for the thread, before I realized there was really no formal rule in this section against it. So, I made one; as I said, it's not a new rule, it's just newly stickied.

If you're still talking about the rules thread, the addition about hacked accounts WAS discussed by staff (and approved by Sythe) before being added.

 

Read what Sin said - firstly, i'm sure if it was somewhere like in the spam forum, it would be left open, and secondly feedback isn't to discuss the details and credibility of people's bans.

 

I quote myself

Sin this is in regards to the MSN counts as ban-worthy

Ok. So, next..

A discrepancy being an INCONSITENCY, like you said. I will spell this little line out. If something came up that was causing problems it WAS added to the rules. BUT, it wasnt vague or misleading in ANY form. I gurantee a lot of people who read the end of the Rules post misunderstand it. Chase is a mod and he did. And that wouldn't even be the first time a rule was misunderstood because it was not spelled out. Yet again, miklman by example. And this rule that was added WAS annotated to the thread.


Now it's time to quote you:

Yes that sticky. You didn't. Well that's just convenient that Chase gets banned, JC posts and the thread got attention. Next thing you know a invisible member pops on and closes and deletes it. Two minutes later you post a Sticky. Now, I can honestly say that I have rarely ever seen a "unban XXXX Member" Thread in feedback. So that doesn't even justify making Feedback Guidelines in response. If it's such a problem, yet again I suppose a update to the rules would be necessary, right? I've seen way more of these Threads in General or Off-Topic, yet there's nothing in those stickies on it.

YES lol hacked Accounts I am sure, but you are going to try to convince me and 180,811 members that the MSN clause was also discussed, either at the same time, or indivdually, and that was somehow NOT put in the rules. Outrageous

That's Just it TR1BAL, I'm NOT discussing either subjects regarding someone's ban. I said "The whole thing with Chase is just a PRIME example, it isn't the subject at hand." This is about the rules.

 

you're a fucking idiot tribal. do you even read the subtitle under feedback?


lol the hand-me-down mod wants to feel imporant

 

Yeah, these times are bad for the black man. You're oppressing us like a mother fucker.

But seriously, we should be allowed to say what we need; it says so on the description, as pointed out above. You can't just throw rules around like a Swedish whore, either. This shouldn't be a joint-dictatorship, in any way. This is only to turn out as a totalitarian state, whereas you, as the administrators, control everything we do.

And you can't just post a rule, and say it's a rule; you must remember the grandfather law, where we as members should be informed of such and not be taken accountable of what happens before the rule is put into place; not this on-the-fly shit you're pullin' down here.

 

Chase didn't misunderstand anything, he just looked at the rules and was trying to find a loophole. I find it extremely unlikely that, had the rules been "clearer" he would have acted any differently - he should have been careful with his passwords regardless of whether he's "officially" considered responsible for them or not.

It's not a coincidence that I posted it when I did, as I've already explained. But, it's nothing against Chase either. There was a thread protesting Inventor's ban. There was one for Darren's ban. There was one for Macroman/Jethr0x's ban. Search any well-known banned member in the Suggestions or feedback forum, and you'll find someone complaining about it.

Unban Jethr0x/Macroman: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=694414
Unban Darren thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=666024
Ban Inventor: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=696740
Ban Inventor (old): http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=624867
Promote Venom: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=692439

Etc. There are plenty of these (and similar) threads, and you'll note that all such threads were locked.

 

Um yeah they were locked but you can also tell how long they had been open. The ban Inventor (old) One: 18 hours
The ban Inventor One: Doesn't Even Exist
Unban Shred: 30 minutes, but you were on it
Unban Macroman: 30 minutes, yet again you were on it.

Ok fair enough for those. Now searching for old ones... Miklman doesn't exist. Atomic doesn't exist. Kingblade doesn't exist.

You say:
" Etc. There are plenty of these (and similar) threads, and you'll note that all such threads were locked." Well it seems the most notable ones who were banned don't even exist or the thread doesn't one.

This statement is not even fair. You are basically accusing your own mod of being deceitful and justifying why he shouldn't be banned. If that's how you feel about his character, why is he even a Moderator???

Is Isn't?? You must've missed the part where I said

NOTE: IN FEEDBACK.
All these threads about ban protests yet no "Rule" against it?

And it's nothing against Chase, really, after you just basically ran his character and name in the mud with your statement, ALONG with Pen's??

 

You're looking too far back - threads on Miklman, Atomic, and Kingblade would all be in the archives by now. Although, they wouldn't be relevant anyway. I didn't post a sticky because of a problem I noticed years ago, I did so because of a recent influx in topics debating issues that should not be posted in this forum.

I don't know if I'd call it deceitful, necessarily, but I won't pretend that I'm not disappointed by the way Chase has chosen to handle this.

Chase made it clear that he had no absolutely intention repay those scammed either way. That's why he was banned, without being given a grace period to repay those scammed. So, do I think he was looking for an easy way out? Of course. But, once again, YOUR assumption - that he would have cared more about a hacker scamming on his MSN if he knew he'd be held responsible for the debt later - is more sinister.

You are welcome to ask Chase yourself, but I've never had any grudge against him. The reason I made the sticky was the sheer predictability of Jcash's thread. And where did I mention Pen in any of this?

 

No, no, no Sin don't get me wrong I don't think that lol. I don't think he would be. I've already stated THREE times this thread IS NOT about THAT. It's about the RULE(S) themselves.

Ok you said and I quote:

at 1:23pm CST.

Now, it has changed:

at 2:43pm CST.

These two do not equal whatsoever. You're saying you didn't post it because of the thread, you just posted it because you thought it did, pointing it back to the same thread. Meaning you didn't post it b/c of it, but you posted it instead, because you didn't want Jcash posting again, thus pointing back to the original Thread we are talking about.

And I never seen where he made it "clear" he had no intention of repaying. And wait, "those" scammed? There was only one (reported), to my knowledge who claims he was scammed 27$.

And what I meant by Pen you would have got had you actually fully read the previous post(s) but it's too late now because the Post has been edited. Disregard that part.

 

That's part of why we don't allow threads disputing bans -.- The post I'm referring to was made in the Staff lounge, so no, you wouldn't have seen it. That's where the other proof is as well.

Both are correct, and they are not inconsistent. Had this been the first time that a complaint had been made about a specific ban, I would have simply locked the thread and moved on. But, it wasn't; there were a lot of similar threads that have been made in the past - hence, the sticky was not the result of any one thread.

But, why this particular thread, and not the others before it? Because this time, it was predictable. I knew someone was going to post such a thread, and the fact that they did indicated that it was a consistent enough problem that it needed to be addressed.

The rules are not going to change. The reason we require those "hacked" to repay debts is to discourage users from faking it. If we excluded MSN addresses from this clause, then members would simply scam, say someone else was on their MSN, apologize, and do it again. Such a rule also discourages corrupt mm's/members/mods from accepting bribes to "borrow" their MSN for a while.

Obviously, there are many other ways for "being hacked" to be abused. Although I know that's not the case for Chase, we cannot favor his situation simply because he's staff, or because we happen to believe him. The rules must apply equally to all members.

If you believe that he would have acted no differently regardless of how the rules were stated, then the phrasing of the rules don't matter, and the fact that the rules are MEANT to be stated as "Sythe account/MSN account" is the only relevant fact, making the argument for his unban moot.

 

You can't just simply clearly state it in the rules? I Don't get that..
When Phising became a big problem, it was put into the rules. This MSN freezing shit has been going on for a WHILE, but its still yet to be specifically pointed out in the rules. I'm not asking you to exclude it lol, quite the contrary, point it OUT.

If it wasn't for examples like THIS, it WOULD be abused, then you would have even more headache from more than just me trying to implement a mere proposal to a situation. They would scam, claim its not specifically in the rules, and you would be at Square one once more.

Quite Simply put, you simply mention the MSN crap in the rules, problem solved. Someone has it happen to them and disputes, you quote a couple lines from the rule and close it. Easy. I don't think that you or any other Mod is doing a bad job, It just isn't fair that I have seen (and yes I Have) so many times, rules and regulations constructed when a Mod or Admin feels it benefits the situation and keeps you from unwanted stress.