Repentless's Dispute

[coach thorpe]

After Thorpe announced his new "verified market system," I was extremely angry- and rightfully so. Thorpe and others had ripped Zamorak.org's idea.

I made a topic about this, and was subsequently banned. Why? Well, let's see what the ban reason had to say.

Quote:
Easy thur killa
Thorpe's thorough and descriptive ban reason gave me absolutely no reason for why I was banned. Why? There was no good reason.

First, let's look at the Sythe.org rules, located at http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=148431 . The rules state:

Quote:
Users will receive 2 infractions for the following:
Flaming: excessive cursing, insults, and/or derogatory comments towards another user
Well, infracting me for flaming was a stretch. Here's the only thing I said that counts as flaming:

Quote:
*****.
Yes, that's right, I called Thrope a *****. Oh dear. 2 infractions, technically, if you stretch it that far.

Shortly after this, The Ancient Ankh made a thread calling for me to be unbanned. In this thread, Thorpe was hypocritical, and actually flat out lied several times.

Let's see what good 'ol Thorpy had to say.

Quote:
He PM'd me accusing me of 'scamming' without proof (i.e. ripping his stuff)
Err.... I sent you a pm that said "Why don't you get your own ****ing ideas instead of ripping ours." Now, it says in the Sythe.org rules that you can only get infracted if you accuse someone of scamming WITHOUT proof. I provided proof.

Quote:
and he called Ughster a '*****'...
No, I called YOU a *****. So what? 2 infractions, no biggie.

Quote:
I don't have to prove ANYTHING to you, I have the PM saved. etc etc...
OH! About that! Here is the response he sent me in said PM, I have the screenshot if it is needed. He said "I thought of this myself you cum guzzler." OH EM GEE. I thought flaming was 2 infractions? Unbecoming of a global mod.

I finally confronted Thorpe on MSN, and he was just stubborn and refused to consider the FACTS I gave him.

Quote:
[14:00] R: Bant.
[14:00] R: Reason.
[14:00] thorpe: You called Ughster a *****, and you accused me of taking your ideas
[14:00] thorpe: which it was 100% my idea
[14:00] thorpe: its a broad idea
[14:01] thorpe: anyone could have thought of something like that
[14:01] R: I called YOU a *****, and accusing you of taking my ideas is not a bannable offense.
[14:01] thorpe: yes
[14:01] thorpe: it is
[14:01] R: Calling you a ***** is 2 points.
[14:01] thorpe: You called me a ***** which is flaming
[14:01] thorpe: accusing of scamming (taking your ideas) is another point or so
[14:01] thorpe: I dont give infractions I just temp ban people for a peirod of time
[14:02] R: And no, if you knew the rules, accusing of scamming is only against the rules if you don't have proof.
[14:02] R: It's not my fault you don't know the rules of the very site you moderate.
[14:02] thorpe: You don't have any proof I was ever looking at your VU
[14:02] thorpe: thread
[14:02] thorpe: so therefore you cant prove that i took it
[14:03] R: I still posted legit evidence, even if it wasn't "good enough."
[14:03] R: Again, it's only against the rules if you accuse without evidence at all.
[14:03] thorpe: im not arguing wit you
[14:03] Meebo Message: thorpe is offline
That is all. There's nothing you can say against that.

 

[Sin666]

Thorpe, Repent had good reason to be upset; he tried to create the same site you are: a secure site, with required personal information and background checks, etc. That was what distinguished Zammy from others.

You're taking that distinguishment from him, intentionally or not, with the added support of being Sythe's affiliate site. And it is his idea, whether you thought it up yourself as well or not. If a man lived in seclusion all his life, and suddenly thought up the concept of the wheel, it would be no more "his" than a man who'd seen one before and copied it.

However, I don't think Repent has any grounds to prevent you from creating a safe site. I also don't think he should have received an infraction, because bans are not supposed to be used to settle disputes. I think the two of you can find a better way of working this out between the two of you; either by allowing him to help with your site, giving a link to his, offering him some sort of credit, or something along those lines that would create a truce.

 

[Yakov]

I honestly think that this "market forum" will not be successful, so you have nothing to worry about anyway. And although a ban is harsh, modifying an existing idea into new one is not wrong, just unethical.

 

[coach thorpe]

One yakov shut your mouth, I did not take his forum idea it was original. If you look at his idea its not really like something new, people have been doing it.

I unbanned repentless, it was not harsh. If someone called you a bitch what would you do?

 

[Shinoda]

One yakov shut your mouth, I did not take his forum idea it was original. If you look at his idea its not really like something new, people have been doing it.

I unbanned repentless, it was not harsh. If someone called you a bitch what would you do?

The same thing that you always do.

 

[durial20]

Yea bit uncalled for on the ban.
I dun think ya ripped his idea but I guess he got angry cause it seemed like it which is reasonable.
And a ban for just calling you a bitch.


oh and btw to answer the question is some1 called me a bitch. I'd give em five across the eyes and make sure he/she was never able to speak again. But a ban for just an insult?

 

[Yakov]

One yakov shut your mouth, I did not take his forum idea it was original. If you look at his idea its not really like something new, people have been doing it.

I unbanned repentless, it was not harsh. If someone called you a bitch what would you do?

Dude, I'm NOT SAYING YOU RIPPED IT, I'm saying the ban was uncalled for. Calm yourself.

 

[Atomic]

It was flaming, no matter what the ethical details that intertwine, it was flaming, but it was nothing more.

Flaming is two infractions, Thorpe, you don't seem to want to follow the rules and give the proper amount of infraction points, I quote, "I dont give infractions I just temp ban people for a peirod of time."

I don't believe this is fair, you are going against the rules here... Why do you think that we have the infraction system in the first place? It doesn't say in the rules "You will receive two infractions for this (Oh and Thorpe may ban you for it too):" and the rules is what we are supposed to be upholding.

Two infractions for flaming, as calling someone a "bitch" obviously isn't needed under any circumstances and flaming can always be averted by using a proper argument, and the ban will be removed.

Thorpe, I'm not higher than you, so I am not someone to order others around who are on the same level as me, but I do urge you to simply use the infractions that are provided and are stated in the rules, rather than going off on your own banning tangent.

That's the end of the matter.