Vogue Ban Discussion

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Locked
Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Vogue »

So, I didn't look into my latest ban because I haven't had the desire to play ladle (and still don't) - but a lot of people have been speaking about/to me about the ridiculous length. A year, 12 months. What I'm wondering is, if so many people(granted most haven't been vocal) were against it then how did it happen?

It's not really relevant I suppose so I'd like to open the discussion for a lesser punishment. Keep it civil because a thread like this could easily turn into a mess.

PS: I'll reply to posts tomorrow as I'm sure the people who want me banned for a year will be vocal.
Last edited by Vogue on Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lowkey
Core Dumper
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Lowkey »

+1
A year is quite long we have such a small community. To let someone be banned for that long seems a bit over the top. I only voted for 3-4 at the time and i would still stand by that. Just my opinion
Image

TheRealTweezy
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by TheRealTweezy »

Lowkey wrote:+1
A year is quite long we have such a small community. To let someone be banned for that long seems a bit over the top. I only voted for 3-4 at the time and i would still stand by that. Just my opinion
I agree, I initally voted for the 12 month ban, but I was also pretty heated at the time.. I still think a ban should be in place.. but i think a 2-3 month ban is better off, what she did doesn't warrant a year ban...but once again vogue is a winner so why not let vogue win.....
Image

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by kyle »

When the new vote options came out I really thought that the 0-12 ladle was not the best idea. I really thought it should be (number of remaining bans)-((number of remaining bans)+(4 * number of infractions))
So in most cases that would be 0-4, for yours that would have been 1-5, as you technically did not serve the ban that you had. However for your original ban there were technically 2 infractions that you made, making that vote be 0-8 ladle bans

That being said, If there would be an option to reduce it, all people who voted in the one to ban you must vote, all team leaders/server owners in the most recent ladle must be able to vote and the vote most be open for 1 month, gives the people who only come around here during ladle week the option to vote, Deadline must also be stated in the initial PM to the voters.(same rules would apply as before as to who actually conducts it and how it is done).
Image

Overrated
Match Winner
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:32 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Overrated »

I will be honest. I wanted a 9 month ban, assuming bowl was still in structure and in place. Even others felt that was too harsh but I think it was fair considering the fact it was not only her breaking her ladle ban but also the third time she has impersonated someone in a ladle setting. This is why I wanted such a harsh ban on her to begin with and still stand by that fact.

It has only been one month removed since her 12 month ban was issued. I would like it to be around for at least one or two more before we even consider a reduced ban again. What was the point of the vote then?
BRAWL dead. RIP.

Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Vogue »

kyle wrote:When the new vote options came out I really thought that the 0-12 ladle was not the best idea. I really thought it should be (number of remaining bans)-((number of remaining bans)+(4 * number of infractions))
So in most cases that would be 0-4, for yours that would have been 1-5, as you technically did not serve the ban that you had. However for your original ban there were technically 2 infractions that you made, making that vote be 0-8 ladle bans
Yeah, I still don't understand why a 12 months was even an option. Who was the one who thought of that?(seriously I'd like to know) My problem with the trial is that if it was anyone else, 12 months wouldn't have been an option. People voted with their personal feelings towards me in mind, I'm sure if you added a 5 year option there would've been people voting for that.
That being said, If there would be an option to reduce it, all people who voted in the one to ban you must vote, all team leaders/server owners in the most recent ladle must be able to vote and the vote most be open for 1 month, gives the people who only come around here during ladle week the option to vote, Deadline must also be stated in the initial PM to the voters.(same rules would apply as before as to who actually conducts it and how it is done).
I figured that was the way.

To answer Over: my intention isn't to rush a reduced ban/re-vote, but merely create a transparent discussion regarding my ban and the fairness of it keeping the circumstances in mind.

User avatar
wap
Round Winner
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by wap »

cliffs:

pre-ban: I can do what I want, they won't ban me from ladle. Operation infiltrate ladle lol. Oh btw I don't care about ladle or tron.

post-ban: Shit, they really banned me for a year. Hmm I actually do want to play again. Hi guys, let's discuss reducing my ban (not that I'm sorry, after all I don't care about tron).

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Vogue »

You're assuming I wouldn't be able to change my IP or use someone else's wifi to play, if I wanted to. I could evade the ban for a year by playing under alias and let it go but that's not why I made this thread. I'm not interested in playing ladle & only recently joined a clan solely for spectator purposes (I'm even banned from SPECTATING ladle! Cool system :stubble: ) The reason of this thread is questioning how fair the sentencing was at the time, considering people's personal feelings towards me and the timing of the vote.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6300
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by sinewav »

Vogue wrote:...my intention isn't to rush a reduced ban/re-vote, but merely create a transparent discussion regarding my ban and the fairness of it keeping the circumstances in mind.
Your intention is to seek attention. You give absolutely zero shits about things like transparency and fairness. It makes no difference if people judge you harshly because you are a repeat offender with a terrible attitude and reputation, and have never shown the slightest bit of remorse for any of your actions. These things count in any formal justice system, so they would certainly count in one as informal as ours.
Vogue wrote:Yeah, I still don't understand why a 12 months was even an option. Who was the one who thought of that?(seriously I'd like to know)
I did. You would know that if you paid attention instead of running your mouth. It was clear the old system did not capture the feelings of the community and needed more muscle. You are correct that some people would love to see you perma-banned and that is why I suggested limits or either 6 or 12 months. When no one showed preference toward a legnth I left it at 12 because this allows for more freedom while still putting a cap on abuse.
________________________

Let's take a serious look at why you have such a harsh ban. We can start with impersonating a player for a second time. No, it doesn't matter that the first offense was years ago. The Internet never forgets, plus you have no remorse for it. Upon receiving a single ban (which is the slightest slap on the wrist) you went on to antagonize the community thusly...
Vogue wrote:U Mad Bro? Overdramatic as hell. No, I can tell you now I already have a new team and will be playing after my ladle ban. Not that I'll be banned from ladle at all, of course.
Vogue wrote:Quit acting like I've been terrorizing the ladle for years and years, you're being completely overdramatic. I've gotten my 1-ladle-punishment, time to put on your big boy pants and move on.
Vogue wrote:Oops, is not giving a **** a rule I broke? If so, add some more warnings to my name as I.. DGAF. :D
You made good on your promise to evade your ban, enraging the community as you planned. This resulted in you receiving the maximum punishment, one that could have been worse had there been no limit imposed. If you are having a hard time understanding why you received the maximum punishment, just think about it in the context of any crime. For example, you shoplift and get caught. The judge gives you one year probation. You scoff and say "I'm just going to do it again." Why would a court go easy on you after you got caught the second time? Pity?

So to recap, you got banned from Ladle 84, then played anyway. You missed Ladle 85 because you "haven't had the desire to play ladle (and still don't)" and for some reason there is a discussion about Vogue's Ban? I'm sorry, I don't see any point in continuing this thread. There is no reason to think the policy is unfair or your treatment is unfair since you haven't suffered. There is no reason to consider a reduction in punishment if no apology exists.

I think we are done here.

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Vogue »

Most parts of your posts are either personal opinions (not facts) or valid points regarding a justice system so there's no reason to respond to that. I'm aware my previous posts would be brought up together with comments like "l0l i thot u dint care???????" but really.. for example me asking tak how mad he is; he suggested boycotting me from joining ANY clan in the game. Yeah, sorry but that was ridiculous and I ridiculed him. If you want to pretend the community responded reasonably after finding out I was Vein, go ahead, but it was extremely excessive and nobody's talking about that. I mention playing as Vein, because at that time I had 2 ladle offenses over numerous years and people were suggesting to ban me from this entire game forever.

Anyway, no I don't think you have the final say in this discussion, Sine. Like I said, I don't care for a re-vote at this current moment in time. I wanted a discussion because I(and many others) felt like a year is too long.

User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by takburger »

lol, you read me with a tone I don't have vogue. You also think you're having effects you don't :)

I agree with over, it seem quite early to reconsider it, even tho I would be willing to reconsider it. Even more early when we seen Vogue taunting people in Ladle 85 thread "I dun curr about the ban i'll play anyway".
Image

User avatar
wap
Round Winner
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by wap »

Vogue wrote:If you want to pretend the community responded reasonably after finding out I was Vein, go ahead, but it was extremely excessive and nobody's talking about that.
One-month ladle ban = extremely excessive?
Attachments
lol.gif
lol.gif (1.25 MiB) Viewed 1495 times

dinobro
Average Program
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by dinobro »

@wap - Vogue rather meant about the community flipout and certain posts that were made. Not necessarily the final ruling.

And before someone bashes me for posting again - I still play this game so I feel like I have right to voice my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, where is rule breaking there has to be a punishment. End of story. But in my honest opinion that "12 months ban" was a result of some people being hot headed, some of them having a personal crusade against the player. But I would like to step back and think, if with such thin playerbase, 12 months bans are really something we, as community, really want.
I really enjoyed watching Ladles, and, I don't know, at least for me Vogue brings healthy amount of rivalry and bickering between the teams, which is really cool to watch and creates much more emotional matches. Sure, she broke the rules, she is cheeky, but is it really worth to ban a player for whole year? I think we should promote that game by emotional, fun ladle matches rather than "how well we can shut a person down". In my eyes we shouldn't focus so much on the offender (that notabene does deserve some punishment for their action) but rather on how did it happen. Because of Vogue's action we implemented new rules about authentication, cheking IPs and so on. And I think that's something we should focus on.
So I do think Vogue did deserve a ban, but do we really want to ban players for ENTIRE YEAR? I do not think so. I think her ban should be substantially for the sake of community and quality ladle matches.

Cheers!

User avatar
Magi
Match Winner
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Magi »

dinobro wrote: at least for me Vogue brings healthy amount of rivalry and bickering between the teams, which is really cool to watch and creates much more emotional matches. Sure, she broke the rules, she is cheeky, but is it really worth to ban a player for whole year? I think we should promote that game by emotional, fun ladle matches rather than "how well we can shut a person down".
Cheers!
But half the time that emotional match she would cause isn't considered fun, it's usually people getting mad or annoyed. There's room for rivalry, and there's room for trolling to an extent. Quite often though Liz takes it to the extreme, which is why she is known as "armagetron's biggest troll". Though that's rather moot to her ban, I actually don't see her trolling in competitions often, just in public games, so whatever.

Do I think 12 months is extreme? Yes, I do. Do I think it should be reduced? No. The team leaders and server owners made their votes, which I assume were based off of what their clan members wanted and 12 months was the overall decision. There's no sense in going back on it now and looking like idiots in the first place. The only thing I can think of now is what do we do if or when she decides to bypass the ban. Adding more time to her ban would just be stupid and give off the feel of "hey they're just gonna keep doing the same thing, no big deal." If she wants to play in ladle while banned, then that's her decision, it's our jobs as team leaders and ladle enthusiasts to keep an eye out and not let it happen. In the event it does though, in my opinion, the best thing that can be done is the team that she plays for is disqualified and the opposing team would advance to the next round. Her ban would continue to go down by another month until it expires next year.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

User avatar
wap
Round Winner
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by wap »

dinobro wrote:@wap - Vogue rather meant about the community flipout and certain posts that were made. Not necessarily the final ruling.

And before someone bashes me for posting again - I still play this game so I feel like I have right to voice my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, where is rule breaking there has to be a punishment. End of story. But in my honest opinion that "12 months ban" was a result of some people being hot headed, some of them having a personal crusade against the player. But I would like to step back and think, if with such thin playerbase, 12 months bans are really something we, as community, really want.
I really enjoyed watching Ladles, and, I don't know, at least for me Vogue brings healthy amount of rivalry and bickering between the teams, which is really cool to watch and creates much more emotional matches. Sure, she broke the rules, she is cheeky, but is it really worth to ban a player for whole year? I think we should promote that game by emotional, fun ladle matches rather than "how well we can shut a person down". In my eyes we shouldn't focus so much on the offender (that notabene does deserve some punishment for their action) but rather on how did it happen. Because of Vogue's action we implemented new rules about authentication, cheking IPs and so on. And I think that's something we should focus on.
So I do think Vogue did deserve a ban, but do we really want to ban players for ENTIRE YEAR? I do not think so. I think her ban should be substantially for the sake of community and quality ladle matches.

Cheers!
Weren't you the guy who was so set on using the rules in the previous threads? After ladle 83 the rules have been changed so that players can be banned up to 12 ladles. She was aware of this, and then not only chose to commit the exact same offense again the very next ladle, but also scoff at the community by openly admitting to this without any remorse.

After this became known, there has been no "hot headedness" whatsoever (judging by the 3-page ladle 84 thread). People were just tired of it. A second, smoothly ran trial was held, in which the community decided a 12-month ban was in order. I'm surprised that, the rule-loving person that you are, you still don't seem to be content?

Locked