Vogue Ban Discussion

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

Moderator: Light

Locked
Oparachukwu
Average Program
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:15 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Oparachukwu »

theo wrote:
Oparachukwu wrote: armagetron is a free game and everyone deserves to play and participate :D
Mach, Darwin & Linux are free too. Does that mean i can use your smartphone whenever I want without any control?
i dont have a phone at the moment, so your argument is invalid
Karma wrote:Opara : Joined dL in the middle of 2011 , Left in the beginning of 2012 , Clan less atm
More info : started out as a trainee. Then got way better. Somehow He is really good at fort lol
Image

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Magi »

Opara your statement is saying not to blame Liz for doing bad things but to blame the Team leaders for not paying attention? That's basically along the same lines as saying it's not the rapist's fault for raping someone, it's the victim's fault for "asking for it".

#RapeCulture
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

Gravity
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:05 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gravity »

Hahahaha. If the community voted for a 12 month ban originally then why would they even let a troll with a bad reputation like Vogue appeal her ban. She is not sorry, she doesn't care about any of you people so why would any of you want to shorten her ban. This is just hilarious. :lol:

Venijn
Round Winner
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Venijn »

I would suggest that something is written in to clarify that at least (for the sake of example) 25% of the sentence should have passed before the overall ban is eligible for reconsideration. This conversation could been way more fruitful for you Liz maybe 2-3 months down the line.
Click. Image

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by sinewav »

Venijn wrote:I would suggest that something is written in to clarify that at least (for the sake of example) 25% of the sentence should have passed before the overall ban is eligible for reconsideration.
I am not convinced there needs to be any change at all. One thing to realize it that this is the first ban in seven years of Ladle. Getting banned in this game is hard and clearly reserved for those who deserve it. Here, a guilty party announced the decision to evade punishment a full month before a retrial and new sentence. Everyone who voted had more than enough time to contemplate their decisions. Reducing the ban undermines the power of the community, all those directly involved, who made that decision. Besides, if we want to borrow from formal legal systems, appeals go to a higher authority for which there is none. We are the Supreme Court of Armagetron. And finally, why do any favors for the remorseless?

Also, this thread and some of the participants seem motivated by this event on the same day as OP's post.
Last edited by sinewav on Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
theo
Round Winner
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by theo »

Oparachukwu wrote:i dont have a phone at the moment, so your argument is invalid
I can hardly understand why nobody feels like calling you.

MyOwnS
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 11:38 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by MyOwnS »

sinewav wrote:
Venijn wrote:I would suggest that something is written in to clarify that at least (for the sake of example) 25% of the sentence should have passed before the overall ban is eligible for reconsideration.
Also, this thread and some of the participants seem motivated by this event on the same day as OP's post.
Gaz MVPuppet 2k14

Venijn
Round Winner
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Venijn »

sinewav wrote:
Venijn wrote:I would suggest that something is written in to clarify that at least (for the sake of example) 25% of the sentence should have passed before the overall ban is eligible for reconsideration.
I am not convinced there needs to be any change at all. One thing to realize it that this is the first ban in seven years of Ladle. Getting banned in this game is hard and clearly reserved for those who deserve it. Here, a guilty party announced the decision to evade punishment a full month before a retrial and new sentence. Everyone who voted had more than enough time to contemplate their decisions. Reducing the ban undermines the power of the community, all those directly involved, who made that decision. Besides, if we want to borrow from formal legal systems, appeals go to a higher authority for which there is none. We are the Supreme Court of Armagetron. And finally, why do any favors for the remorseless?

Also, this thread and some of the participants seem motivated by this event on the same day as OP's post.
It's hard to argue with that.
Click. Image

User avatar
Renegade
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:44 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Renegade »

Retrial is not an option, and neither is a shorter ban.
Image

Gravity
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:05 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gravity »

Are any of these people defending liz actually posting or did liz get their login information to defend herself? She did it in ladle, who knows if shes doing it now. Just something to think about. Who actually would defend her? Foreal tho.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gazelle »

I was actually defending liz. A 12 month ban is completely absurd.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by sinewav »

Gazelle wrote:I was actually defending liz. A 12 month ban is completely absurd.
You should have voiced your opinion when it was proposed. Where were you? Apparently, 12 months is not absurd since no one flinched when we wrote it into the rules and eagerly applied it. However, you are still free to argue why 12 months is absurd, so fire away. If you can convince the community the change will happen. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the change will be retroactive, if it happens at all.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by ogo »

I thought you voted for 12 months Gaz?

Gravity
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:05 pm

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gravity »

ogo wrote:I thought you voted for 12 months Gaz?
Well now Vogue is in Gaz's clan so why would he want her to be banned.

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

Re: Vogue Ban Discussion

Post by Gazelle »

I originally did vote for 12 months, but now after the fact I can see that the only reason I voted 12 months was solely based upon the fact that it was LIZ. If it had been anyone else I probably wouldn't of voted as harsh. With that being said I've also come to the realization like I stated previously that I didn't vote with a level head, I was pissed about ladle and other shit and when the voting process was brought up I immediately turned to the worst possible scenario which looking back on it now wasn't a right thing to do, yes Liz is stupid at times and ***** up, but that doesn't warrant a 12 month ban, her bringing down ladle servers or destroying arma forums probably warrants a 12 month ban, but impersonating someone (yes i understand she was banned prior to the second offense) But shouldn't it progressively get worse, maybe add 2 more months? Then double it every offense after? But jumping straight to 12 is pretty absurd imo..

Locked