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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Vogue »

Contrary to Wap's post, I actually didn't know the rules were changed after the Vein situation. Dunno but I don't spend all my time on the ladle wiki like Sinewav does for example. It's my fault I missed it, though.

Some of you are mentioning things that have nothing to do with the actual ban itself. In my opinion, if someone other than me did these things, the ban would be less severe. That's why I don't think it's 'fair' and decided to open a discussion which Sinewav promptly tried to silence. I'm not gonna throw a tantrum if the year ban doesn't get reduced, I never expected anything less & was only curious what others would say. Relax.


magi pls stop acting like you're important, i've never done anything to you, you're not even on my radar : (

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by TheRealTweezy »

Next ladle I'll be someone else and see what happens, but in all seriousness why dont we just get on with our tron life, either way you can't stop one person from playing. With or without a ban vogue will do what ever,
Image

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gonzap »

Of course the offender being you had something to do with the length of the ban. You know, maybe you shouldnt have pissed people off for years. On the other hand I personally voted along with the number of offenses you commited, which were impersonating a player for the second time in a row, ignoring a month ban, making fun of the community and showing no regrets.

User avatar
Gazelle
Match Winner
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gazelle »

I am going to be honest here, Liz over the years has done a lot of stupid shit, she used to troll a lot more than she does now, and I feel that a 12 month ban is more because of the fact that she is "liz" and not given based upon the actual consequences. I believe that if wap or someone had done something like this (exactly like this) he would not of been banned for a total of 12 months, it's an absurd ban and I originally voted for the 12 months, but after fully thinking it through and being level headed I think it should be reduced. The time of the vote was way too close to the time of the "crime" and I believe people were way too heated to make a sensible judgment.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Magi »

Her counterargument is an awful one though, if someone else had done the same thing it'd be less of a ban? Well someone else didn't do it, it was you. As many people have said you did not care, you didn't pay attention to the new placed rules and continued to troll and have a grand time of it. Now your ban is too long, despite you apparently not wanting to even play. Repeat offenders will get treated more harshly because they have caused trouble in the past and are likely to do it in the future too.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

User avatar
DaGarBBaGeMAN
Core Dumper
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:22 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by DaGarBBaGeMAN »

Vogue wrote:My problem with the trial is that if it was anyone else, 12 months wouldn't have been an option.
If it was anyone else, they wouldn't have gone out of their way to impersonate someone again right after the ladle you got banned for impersonating someone.

Literally all you had to do was sit out for one ladle. And for someone who cares so little about ladle, I would imagine this wouldn't have been much of a challenge.

Edit: Wow Magi you read my mind or something?

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by wap »

lol, above two beat me to it.

The 'what if it were anyone else' argument makes no sense as there are few to no people who would do something like this.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Overrated »

As I said before. Her impersonation of Shock was not only the second but at least the third time she has impersonated someone in ladle settings. She clearly doesn't care that she impersonated someone since she has done it so many times, enough for the community to vote on a 12 month ban. We voted and it has only been one month since she was banned. Why try and reduce the sentence now? Wait a couple more months and if she can avoid getting herself in trouble we consider reducing it then. It is too early to hold a proper decision on whether to reduce it since she has hardly waited that long.
BRAWL dead. RIP.

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

TaZ
Round Winner
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:46 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by TaZ »

sinewav wrote:
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.
Sinewav brings up a valid point...if the process in which she was banned was based on a procedural justice system. I was a team leader in ladle 84, but was never given the chance to vote. I never received a PM as the other team leaders did. As I look through the Ladle 84 challenge board http://wiki.armagetronad.org/index.php/Ladle_84, I notice that there are a couple team leaders who also did not vote. I'm not here to argue if what Vogue did was wrong or right, I'm just asking that she has a fair trial. Personal vendettas aside, I think there should be a re-vote with a neutral party as the facilitator (I recommend a moderator or CT|Kyle). I feel that anyone who truly respects the justice system would agree.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by wap »

Tazmania wrote:Sinewav brings up a valid point...if the process in which she was banned was based on a procedural justice system. I was a team leader in ladle 84, but was never given the chance to vote. I never received a PM as the other team leaders did. As I look through the Ladle 84 challenge board http://wiki.armagetronad.org/index.php/Ladle_84, I notice that there are a couple team leaders who also did not vote. I'm not here to argue if what Vogue did was wrong or right, I'm just asking that she has a fair trial. Personal vendettas aside, I think there should be a re-vote with a neutral party as the facilitator (I recommend a moderator or CT|Kyle). I feel that anyone who truly respects the justice system would agree.
You had one week to let Soul know you were not sent a pm and you didn't do so. Now, one month after the event, you suddenly decide you had wanted to vote?

Anyone who really cared about a fair trial would have come up with this weeks ago, not when the offender with whom you're on friendly terms finally realizes actions have consequences.

User avatar
F0RC3
Core Dumper
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by F0RC3 »

Your actions both during the ladles and on the forums during the discussion about your banning have completely justified such a long ban being imposed.

You took the name of someone else, had yourself be opped in order to play, and had already played in the ladle for your first offense.

And the second time you played when you knew you were clearly banned. Doing this, while you are banned and in consecutive games, goes against the communities decision to ban you and shows that you have no respect for the community.

In addition to those two, you also have a prior history of breaking ladle rules at least once before. Clearly it isn't very relevant, however shows that the behavior is long standing and that in order to fix such behavior a longer ban may be necessary.

Both cases of your recent ladle rule breaking show extreme disrespect for the community and for the rules of the tournament. And then you have the nerve to go on the forums and essentially brag about what you did and incite animosity toward you on purpose. The votes may have been effected by the mindset (likely anger) towards you at the time, but that doesn't not make the votes fair. You were the one who incited such animosity toward you and in my opinion makes whatever mindset anyone may have had at the time fair game.

You could have apologized in a way that we as a community would have been happy with and you may have gotten a decreased ban. But instead you didn't care, said you have no intention to keep playing, (honestly it's obvious that you want to continue playing from your actions, but that isn't relevant), gave us no reason not to give you the harshest punishment possible to vote for, and you gave us every reason to give you the harshest punishment possible.

If you really don't want to play under alias during ladles or want a reduced sentence, I suggest a nice heartfelt apology to the community that you have treated like trash and disrespected so much.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Vogue »

The fact that at least one of the team leaders didn't vote isn't something to skip over, and if Taz is correct, more team leaders didn't vote? I'm repeating myself when I say I'm not pushing for an immediate unban/lesser sentence per se, I phrased my opening post completely wrong because I was tired :stubble: but with the information that some team leaders didn't vote + at least one (Gaz, idk about any others) have changed their mind since then is a reason to make an attempt. Sine's made it clear he wants nothing to do with that, but he's not the boss of anything so I'd like to ask an impartial person to do this.

/awaits pitchforks :moustache:

User avatar
F0RC3
Core Dumper
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by F0RC3 »

Vogue wrote:The fact that at least one of the team leaders didn't vote isn't something to skip over, and if Taz is correct, more team leaders didn't vote? I'm repeating myself when I say I'm not pushing for an immediate unban/lesser sentence per se, I phrased my opening post completely wrong because I was tired :stubble: but with the information that some team leaders didn't vote + at least one (Gaz, idk about any others) have changed their mind since then is a reason to make an attempt. Sine's made it clear he wants nothing to do with that, but he's not the boss of anything so I'd like to ask an impartial person to do this.

/awaits pitchforks :moustache:
If anyone had any reason to refute the votes of the person who voted for their clan, a team leader for instance, they should have made their intentions clear relatively soon after the trial and not nearly a month after. Soul even asked for confirmation that the vote was up there and that the votes were accurate... Put simply such a thing should have been addressed much sooner by the team leaders if they had any problems with the votes. No such complaints were brought up.

User avatar
ogo
Average Program
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:48 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by ogo »

I voted for 6 months, and was surprised that the majority vote was 12 months. It seems a little excessive to jump from 1 month to 12 months. Perhaps 1 -> 6 -> permaban would be fairer and a little more logical

But should the nature in which Liz provocatively flaunted her disregard for her one-ladle ban lead to a harsher punishment? I don't know, maybe. The contrast between that Liz and the Liz posting on this thread does very effectively capture the nice-liz/nasty-liz dualism that seems to dominate her personality and attitude in the game and community. We shouldn't offer an easier punishment just because nice-liz has shown her face, but equally was the severity of the ban a result of nasty-liz doing her thing? I think so

It's difficult to be objective with a character with whom we've all had negative interactions with
Last edited by ogo on Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Word »

Lizmatic wrote: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...
I for one don't assume that, I'd even keep the ban as long as it is if you knew an easier bypass to play. Why are you surprised about this ban all of a sudden? It's not like you didn't have it coming. I didn't vote, but if you now complain that the vote was biased because it was about you - you've worked for years on your reputation and made clear that you're someone who enjoys pissing people off, I'm not sure in what kind of world you live and why you're not happy that you finally reached the finish line. Magi, sinewav and Gonzap said everything that had to be said.

And of course it's also absurd to defend you by claiming you'd enrich the ladle with your playing style as long as you're intentionally distorting the results and do so at the expense of others. How would you feel if someone did that to your team? Whoever dinobro is, I'd hire someone else...
Last edited by Word on Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Locked