Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
D33P Pls KSI '_'
-
compguygene
- Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 2346
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
In honor of those waking up to this topic:
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy 
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
Now for the actual discussion.
TL;DR
These are the main reasons as to why Durfs current ban is unjustified. If you don’t feel like getting involved, you can read these and move on. However, if you are planning on responding to my argument(s), you should read the explanations below, otherwise you won’t even know what my argument is about.
1. The rules at the time of Durf's ban are vague, subjective, arbitrary, and contradictory. They also make no mention of what results in a ban/perma ban.
2. All of the reasons Tank gave Durf for the ban (those are below) are invalid reasons to perma ban someone.
3. Even if Durf made a “hacking threat” (he didn’t), banning him doesn’t help forum security at all (he could easily change IP and get back on).
4. Other people have done “worse” things than Durf and never received bans/perma bans.
END: TL;DR
- - -
Now for the explanations. I will most likely go into more detail with some of these as people respond, but I dont want this one post to be unreadably long, so Im going to be as concise as possible.
1. If you aren’t familiar with the rules, they are posted here. You can ignore the last post on that thread, as it was made after Durf was banned.
Their first 2 rules, which are supposed to be the axioms of all the other rules, already show how useless the rules are. What, specifically, is an idiot? The general definition is someone who lacks intelligence, but that could mean many things. Am I not allowed to be on the forums if I don’t know something specific, or am generally uneducated, or lack the ability to learn well? The second rule says to treat others with respect, as human beings. Showing someone respect can mean many different things to different people, and is a vague and subjective term. Also, I suspect how you would treat someone would change depending on what they did, even though everyone you talk to is a human being.
The rest of the rules are similar to the first 2 in vagueness and subjectivity, and there is no mention of what the consequences are for breaking them. And the last rule basically confirms what I said, in that these rules are utterly useless. No rule lawyering? Meaning you can’t actually point to a rule and enforce it? This removes any point of the rule in the first place.
Now, you are probably thinking “D33P is an idiot. The rules are supposed to give you a jist of what is expected of you” But rules shouldn’t be giving you the “jist” of what to do. People can get different jists of what the rules mean, which makes it unfair to punish someone for breaking a rule they didn’t know they broke because they didn’t get the proper jist of what the author of the rule meant. Rules should be clear and concise, and be as objective, not subjective, as possible, so that people know exactly what they can and can’t do. Durf didn’t have these clear and concise rules to refer to, so its unfair to ban him for something he couldn’t have known was a bannable offense.
2. There are a lot of subtopics in this one, so I'm going to try to be even more to the point and not expand on much. I can explain certain points in more detail if needed.
Here is the email that Tank sent Durf (part of a long chain of emails between the two) explaining specifically why he banned Durf from the forums:
*note that the list Tank emailed was originally not numbered, but had *s instead. I numbered it so it was easier to refer back to.
1. Durf never pressed Lucifer or Z-man to do anything they didn’t want to do. I recall Lucifer told Durf to stop PMing him about the topic, and Durf stopped PMing him. In fact, Z-man pressed Durf to accept his guidelines for posting the PMs, which means that it would be hypocritical for Durf to face punishment for this and Z-man to not. Also, even if this was true, how does this justify a perma ban?
2. Durf never apologized for anything, and what should he apologize for? Lucifer hasn’t apologized for unjustly (refer to this link) banning Durf for a day (and then having that ban magically extended to a week >.>), and Vogue hasn’t apologized to Durf for the cruel things she’s said to him and others in the past. And neither of them were perma banned. Again: how does not apologizing for something justify a perma ban?
3. This ties into Durf and Tank’s previous email exchange. Durf only talked about how using an exploit was legal to contrast it to hacking, which is illegal. I can go into more detail later about how what Durf said was technically a threat but it means absolutely nothing regarding whether he should be banned or not. Again: how does someone wrongly assuming this as justifying an action, justify a perma ban?
4. This also ties into previous emails. Durf only brought up how he was technically being cyber bullied to show the hypocrisy of going after Durf and not those cyber bullying him. Durf never felt bullied or planned on pursuing legal action for it. Besides that, this reason is utterly ridiculous. Think about it. Someone is being bullied, and instead of punishing the bully, you punish the person being bullied. Tank said that he wanted to remove Durf from that situation. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban the bully? Or to forbid this bullying on the forums and enforce this? It like if a kid is being bullied in school, and the principal decides to kick the student out of the school to protect him from the bully. Makes no sense.
5. This tension would have never existed if 1. there were good rules in place 2. the moderators were fair to Durf from the beginning (I can show how they haven’t been fair in future posts) 3. they did their job as moderators instead of letting topics get off topic. And none of these things are Durf’s fault. Also, how is causing tension reason for a perma ban?
6. Durf is the kind of person that gives how much respect he receives. Durf felt he was being disrespected (part of this was the mod unfairness), and let people know that the level of respect he showed them would go down if they continued to not be respectful towards him. Also, Durf will tell you himself that he’s not the best communicator in the world. So he should be perma banned because he doesn’t talk/write like most people and sounds like he’s browbeating to some people (which many others on this forum also do)?
7. This is similar to the first reason. You could easily argue Z-man didn’t know when to let go by pressing for the PMs to be released. Again, this could have been quickly resolved (or never have happened in the first place) if the things that I mentioned in #5 had happened. And if you were in Durf’s position, why would you not stand up for yourself. For a moment, pretend that you are in Durf’s shoes, and you have just been banned for what you feel is an unjust reason. Wouldn’t you like to know why you were banned? Wouldn’t you like to clear things up so that future issues/bans can be prevented? Again: how does this justify a perma ban?
8. This seems to be like the only actual reason for the ban. And it’s not a very good one. If Tank didn’t have the time to deal with Durf, shouldn’t he have put another mod in place to handle it? If he doesn’t have time to moderate, why is he even a moderator? As a member of a forum, don’t you want your moderators to moderate? Tank could have also just called for a total ban on discussing anything related to Durf’s ban, which would have been just as effective. Again, refer to my points in #5 as to how this taking so long is not Durf’s fault.
So when you add up all of these reasons together, you get “You deserved a perma ban because I don’t like the way you talk and I’m not going to take responsibility for the mess that I’ve let happen” Doesn’t sound like solid reasoning to me.
3. This one is pretty simple. As I said before, I can go into how what Durf said about using an exploit isn’t anything serious. But that doesn’t even matter for this point. Even if Durf wanted to hack the forums, banning him does absolutely nothing to prevent that. Changing IPs is one of the easiest things you can do, and I’m not even sure you have to be on the website itself to perform the exploit that Durf mentioned. So you can’t say Durf should have been banned for security reasons.
4. This one is also pretty simple. Even if you think Durf is an asshole, how can you say what he has done deserves a perma ban, but what other people on this forum have done does not? Vogue (not trying to pick on her specifically, she just happens to be the case I’m most familiar with) has said cruel things to people in the past, worse than anything Durf has said in the past. No perma ban. Lucifer banned Durf for misinterpreting his posts as sexist, and then extended his ban to a week because he was still mad at Durf. No perma ban. These kinds of things really make me question what the moderators care about: the game/community or themselves.
- - -
If you are going to respond to this, please use evidence and reasoning, not emotion and hate.
TL;DR
These are the main reasons as to why Durfs current ban is unjustified. If you don’t feel like getting involved, you can read these and move on. However, if you are planning on responding to my argument(s), you should read the explanations below, otherwise you won’t even know what my argument is about.
1. The rules at the time of Durf's ban are vague, subjective, arbitrary, and contradictory. They also make no mention of what results in a ban/perma ban.
2. All of the reasons Tank gave Durf for the ban (those are below) are invalid reasons to perma ban someone.
3. Even if Durf made a “hacking threat” (he didn’t), banning him doesn’t help forum security at all (he could easily change IP and get back on).
4. Other people have done “worse” things than Durf and never received bans/perma bans.
END: TL;DR
- - -
Now for the explanations. I will most likely go into more detail with some of these as people respond, but I dont want this one post to be unreadably long, so Im going to be as concise as possible.
1. If you aren’t familiar with the rules, they are posted here. You can ignore the last post on that thread, as it was made after Durf was banned.
Their first 2 rules, which are supposed to be the axioms of all the other rules, already show how useless the rules are. What, specifically, is an idiot? The general definition is someone who lacks intelligence, but that could mean many things. Am I not allowed to be on the forums if I don’t know something specific, or am generally uneducated, or lack the ability to learn well? The second rule says to treat others with respect, as human beings. Showing someone respect can mean many different things to different people, and is a vague and subjective term. Also, I suspect how you would treat someone would change depending on what they did, even though everyone you talk to is a human being.
The rest of the rules are similar to the first 2 in vagueness and subjectivity, and there is no mention of what the consequences are for breaking them. And the last rule basically confirms what I said, in that these rules are utterly useless. No rule lawyering? Meaning you can’t actually point to a rule and enforce it? This removes any point of the rule in the first place.
Now, you are probably thinking “D33P is an idiot. The rules are supposed to give you a jist of what is expected of you” But rules shouldn’t be giving you the “jist” of what to do. People can get different jists of what the rules mean, which makes it unfair to punish someone for breaking a rule they didn’t know they broke because they didn’t get the proper jist of what the author of the rule meant. Rules should be clear and concise, and be as objective, not subjective, as possible, so that people know exactly what they can and can’t do. Durf didn’t have these clear and concise rules to refer to, so its unfair to ban him for something he couldn’t have known was a bannable offense.
2. There are a lot of subtopics in this one, so I'm going to try to be even more to the point and not expand on much. I can explain certain points in more detail if needed.
Here is the email that Tank sent Durf (part of a long chain of emails between the two) explaining specifically why he banned Durf from the forums:
*note that the list Tank emailed was originally not numbered, but had *s instead. I numbered it so it was easier to refer back to.
Here's why each reason doesn’t justify a perma ban:Tank wrote:It's my responsibility you're banned. It's both of our faults though.
You were banned ultimately for several reasons:
1. You appear to be unwilling to leave Lucifer and Z-man alone, and
unwilling to wait for there to be a better moderation framework in
place.
2. The only time you've actually apologized for anything wasn't until you
were actually banned. Example: even if your "threat" was a
mis-understanding, you could have apologized for that mis-understanding.
3. You argued that utilizing an exploit was legal. This did not give me a
nice feeling, as it felt like justifying an action.
4. Your legal threat effectively forced me to take action to prevent
cyber-bullying. The most effective way to prevent it in your case was to
remove you from the forums.
5. You've been causing a lot of tension on the forums for quite a while
now which I feel has been detrimental all around. Overall, you're being
more trouble than help.
6. A lot of your e-mails, posts, and PMs are browbeating. That is to say,
since you're so fond of "abuse", that's what your communications are
starting to feel like.
7. You don't know when to let go.
8. You were eating into my work time.
All of this added up that I felt (and still feel) a practically
resolution can't be achieved, so a ban. It buys me time to at least put
better rules in place. After that I can consider unbanning you because
in the future I'll be able to point to them. Without them I don't feel
like we can make any progress. So yes, I want you gone now.
1. Durf never pressed Lucifer or Z-man to do anything they didn’t want to do. I recall Lucifer told Durf to stop PMing him about the topic, and Durf stopped PMing him. In fact, Z-man pressed Durf to accept his guidelines for posting the PMs, which means that it would be hypocritical for Durf to face punishment for this and Z-man to not. Also, even if this was true, how does this justify a perma ban?
2. Durf never apologized for anything, and what should he apologize for? Lucifer hasn’t apologized for unjustly (refer to this link) banning Durf for a day (and then having that ban magically extended to a week >.>), and Vogue hasn’t apologized to Durf for the cruel things she’s said to him and others in the past. And neither of them were perma banned. Again: how does not apologizing for something justify a perma ban?
3. This ties into Durf and Tank’s previous email exchange. Durf only talked about how using an exploit was legal to contrast it to hacking, which is illegal. I can go into more detail later about how what Durf said was technically a threat but it means absolutely nothing regarding whether he should be banned or not. Again: how does someone wrongly assuming this as justifying an action, justify a perma ban?
4. This also ties into previous emails. Durf only brought up how he was technically being cyber bullied to show the hypocrisy of going after Durf and not those cyber bullying him. Durf never felt bullied or planned on pursuing legal action for it. Besides that, this reason is utterly ridiculous. Think about it. Someone is being bullied, and instead of punishing the bully, you punish the person being bullied. Tank said that he wanted to remove Durf from that situation. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban the bully? Or to forbid this bullying on the forums and enforce this? It like if a kid is being bullied in school, and the principal decides to kick the student out of the school to protect him from the bully. Makes no sense.
5. This tension would have never existed if 1. there were good rules in place 2. the moderators were fair to Durf from the beginning (I can show how they haven’t been fair in future posts) 3. they did their job as moderators instead of letting topics get off topic. And none of these things are Durf’s fault. Also, how is causing tension reason for a perma ban?
6. Durf is the kind of person that gives how much respect he receives. Durf felt he was being disrespected (part of this was the mod unfairness), and let people know that the level of respect he showed them would go down if they continued to not be respectful towards him. Also, Durf will tell you himself that he’s not the best communicator in the world. So he should be perma banned because he doesn’t talk/write like most people and sounds like he’s browbeating to some people (which many others on this forum also do)?
7. This is similar to the first reason. You could easily argue Z-man didn’t know when to let go by pressing for the PMs to be released. Again, this could have been quickly resolved (or never have happened in the first place) if the things that I mentioned in #5 had happened. And if you were in Durf’s position, why would you not stand up for yourself. For a moment, pretend that you are in Durf’s shoes, and you have just been banned for what you feel is an unjust reason. Wouldn’t you like to know why you were banned? Wouldn’t you like to clear things up so that future issues/bans can be prevented? Again: how does this justify a perma ban?
8. This seems to be like the only actual reason for the ban. And it’s not a very good one. If Tank didn’t have the time to deal with Durf, shouldn’t he have put another mod in place to handle it? If he doesn’t have time to moderate, why is he even a moderator? As a member of a forum, don’t you want your moderators to moderate? Tank could have also just called for a total ban on discussing anything related to Durf’s ban, which would have been just as effective. Again, refer to my points in #5 as to how this taking so long is not Durf’s fault.
So when you add up all of these reasons together, you get “You deserved a perma ban because I don’t like the way you talk and I’m not going to take responsibility for the mess that I’ve let happen” Doesn’t sound like solid reasoning to me.
3. This one is pretty simple. As I said before, I can go into how what Durf said about using an exploit isn’t anything serious. But that doesn’t even matter for this point. Even if Durf wanted to hack the forums, banning him does absolutely nothing to prevent that. Changing IPs is one of the easiest things you can do, and I’m not even sure you have to be on the website itself to perform the exploit that Durf mentioned. So you can’t say Durf should have been banned for security reasons.
4. This one is also pretty simple. Even if you think Durf is an asshole, how can you say what he has done deserves a perma ban, but what other people on this forum have done does not? Vogue (not trying to pick on her specifically, she just happens to be the case I’m most familiar with) has said cruel things to people in the past, worse than anything Durf has said in the past. No perma ban. Lucifer banned Durf for misinterpreting his posts as sexist, and then extended his ban to a week because he was still mad at Durf. No perma ban. These kinds of things really make me question what the moderators care about: the game/community or themselves.
- - -
If you are going to respond to this, please use evidence and reasoning, not emotion and hate.
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
I don't think you understand the impact Mr. Hancock has had on music for the last 60 years. He doesn't have a style. He literally plays all styles of music. He's a professional composer who has continually shaped jazz, r&b, rock, electronic, and pop music for decades. "Rock It" was just one of his hits from the 80's.Light wrote:His music ain't really a style I can sit and listen to, but if you like it, seems you won't get it much anywhere else.
My god, this list of musical accomplishments...
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
Knowing that I also posted a picture of derailment and I'm to be blamed too, I personally think everyone should give the thread a little chance to breathe, talk it out even a little bit, there isn't a need for hostilities between anyone here, we all want the same thing, for tron to thrive, and we should think together what's the best possible way to make that happen. Talking to D33P in game I realize he wants what's best for this game, he plays this game a lot and I know he wants it to stay alive. So I think people should actually take some time to give their opinions on his post, and not derail his thread that he finds important.
bye
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
I'm not really going to add anything to this because I would only be repeating things that have already been said.
I do want to ask all of you that are trolling with pictures of cats and whatnot, to please restrain yourself.
D33P has brought up a few valid points, and no amount of cats are going to cancel them out.
Let's try to just keep it as questions and answers.
I do want to ask all of you that are trolling with pictures of cats and whatnot, to please restrain yourself.
D33P has brought up a few valid points, and no amount of cats are going to cancel them out.
Let's try to just keep it as questions and answers.
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
That is a pretty nice list. I had no idea. Sorry, I kind'a came into that one completely ignorant of him, as I'm pretty sure you've seen. Now I feel the need to try and find that super mario bros movie and give it a try. Never heard of it.sinewav wrote:I don't think you understand the impact Mr. Hancock has had on music for the last 60 years. He doesn't have a style. He literally plays all styles of music. He's a professional composer who has continually shaped jazz, r&b, rock, electronic, and pop music for decades. "Rock It" was just one of his hits from the 80's.Light wrote:His music ain't really a style I can sit and listen to, but if you like it, seems you won't get it much anywhere else.
My god, this list of musical accomplishments...
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
D33P, the only point I could see you making, and it seems that's the way you've gone, is that he shouldn't be banned for good. I would likely agree with you on that, but the cases have already been made, and it's up to the mods if or when that happens. I believe they've said before that it probably won't be permanent.
From how he was before though, it seems likely as soon as he's allowed back, he'll be back to trying to argue a point. If he, over the course of months, at some point just stopped arguing with the mods and admin, I'm sure he'd still be here. You can disagree with people, but once you start calling them out, talking down on them, and providing threats .. you're no longer taking that high ground you seem to think he is.
The mods didn't treat him too badly. He was given more chances than he ever should have to present his case. He was an annoyance to a large part of the community here, and things have gotten better since he left. People don't like coming here for the same arguments months on end. A lot of the activity on here dropped other than those involved with the fighting, and people were purposely avoiding the forums.
Hell, I was one of them that stopped bothering to come on for a while. I came on after like 2 months and it still didn't end. It was pretty sad to come back to that instead of having a place that should be enjoyable.
So, if he wants to come back and be a regular part of the community, I'd be up for that. I think giving him another chance now that some time has passed would be a decent idea. Though, if he wants to come back and start back arguing, I think he should be knocked back right where he is now without a chance to come back.
From how he was before though, it seems likely as soon as he's allowed back, he'll be back to trying to argue a point. If he, over the course of months, at some point just stopped arguing with the mods and admin, I'm sure he'd still be here. You can disagree with people, but once you start calling them out, talking down on them, and providing threats .. you're no longer taking that high ground you seem to think he is.
The mods didn't treat him too badly. He was given more chances than he ever should have to present his case. He was an annoyance to a large part of the community here, and things have gotten better since he left. People don't like coming here for the same arguments months on end. A lot of the activity on here dropped other than those involved with the fighting, and people were purposely avoiding the forums.
Hell, I was one of them that stopped bothering to come on for a while. I came on after like 2 months and it still didn't end. It was pretty sad to come back to that instead of having a place that should be enjoyable.
So, if he wants to come back and be a regular part of the community, I'd be up for that. I think giving him another chance now that some time has passed would be a decent idea. Though, if he wants to come back and start back arguing, I think he should be knocked back right where he is now without a chance to come back.
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
I agree with what Light said for the most part on I'm fine with him coming back as long as there's no arguing involved over something from 8 months ago, I think he can contribute development and help the game progress, and I think his talents shouldn't be wasted bickering over nothing, and at the same time no one should have to withstand that bickering nonstop. I'll post more as I see fit.
bye
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
Like in the case of a cute kitty needing posted?Magi wrote:I'll post more as I see fit.
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
You can go back into my post and replace “perma ban” with 5 month ban, or just ban. It’s all the same. None of what Durf did deserved a ban.
First of all, not taking the high road doesn't equate to banning someone. Also, the mods didn’t take much of a high road either. I recall Lucifer unjustly banning Durf multiple times, and Z-man constantly avoiding Durf’s argument and treating him unfairly (How is this justified? How come Word was never punished for things like this where he derails a topic about art and uses it as an attempt to bring back in the then-current PM debate and call Durf stupid? Isn’t this a clear example of “not letting go”?).
Durf did present his case; most people just didn’t realize it. If you go back and actually read all of his posts and PMs, you can see he laid out his case very thoroughly. At the time, however, everyone said TL;DR! and assumed he was just “filibustering”.
“Things have gotten better since he left” Right. Tron becoming even less active and Durf having fewer resources to help develop the game is better. Durf has probably done the most for tron out of anyone on this game in the past few years, and he could have done much more if he was given the proper resources and wasn’t shut out of the community.
You don’t like reading the arguments? Don’t read them. I don’t get why people keep on saying this. If you don’t want to read it, just don’t read it. There is no requirement that you read every post.
As to what he would do if he gets to come back, the only thing I know he would do is post on some development topics where he knows he can help. Also, he’ll have no reason to continue arguing if the community can actually address my points and come to a true resolution. Which none of you have done yet (saying “I agree with you” on some irrelevant topic and then repeating your previous point is not addressing my arguments).
So I welcome someone to try to invalidate my argument. And not just one piece of it that you think you can get me on. On the entire thing, as points 1, 2, and 4 are all arguments that, even by themselves, show that Durf’s ban was unjust.
First of all, not taking the high road doesn't equate to banning someone. Also, the mods didn’t take much of a high road either. I recall Lucifer unjustly banning Durf multiple times, and Z-man constantly avoiding Durf’s argument and treating him unfairly (How is this justified? How come Word was never punished for things like this where he derails a topic about art and uses it as an attempt to bring back in the then-current PM debate and call Durf stupid? Isn’t this a clear example of “not letting go”?).
Durf did present his case; most people just didn’t realize it. If you go back and actually read all of his posts and PMs, you can see he laid out his case very thoroughly. At the time, however, everyone said TL;DR! and assumed he was just “filibustering”.
“Things have gotten better since he left” Right. Tron becoming even less active and Durf having fewer resources to help develop the game is better. Durf has probably done the most for tron out of anyone on this game in the past few years, and he could have done much more if he was given the proper resources and wasn’t shut out of the community.
You don’t like reading the arguments? Don’t read them. I don’t get why people keep on saying this. If you don’t want to read it, just don’t read it. There is no requirement that you read every post.
As to what he would do if he gets to come back, the only thing I know he would do is post on some development topics where he knows he can help. Also, he’ll have no reason to continue arguing if the community can actually address my points and come to a true resolution. Which none of you have done yet (saying “I agree with you” on some irrelevant topic and then repeating your previous point is not addressing my arguments).
So I welcome someone to try to invalidate my argument. And not just one piece of it that you think you can get me on. On the entire thing, as points 1, 2, and 4 are all arguments that, even by themselves, show that Durf’s ban was unjust.
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
You're obviously not kidding, so I'll say this because I suspect the devs are too polite for that: Don't be an arrogant pain in the ass. Durf threatened to hack the forums and got his chances, but didn't retract his claims. Twice, over the course of many weeks, if not an entire month. So everything else his his problem. His PMs were emotionally draining and just purposefully misunderstanding the arguments of everyone else, so no, you're not in a position to hand out an ultimatum and demand forgiveness for a guy who didn't signal any willingness to amend his wrong-doings, or even recognize them as such at a time when he still could.So I give the moderators an ultimatum
As I'm reading this, I can't help wondering: Did Durf tell you to write this? Or are you here on your own account? You're still defending him by his actions and claim what he did isn't a sufficient reason to ban him because it's not in the rules. Are you people that dependent on written rules so you don't know how to behave decent whenever written rules are absent?1. The rules at the time of Durf's ban are vague, subjective, arbitrary, and contradictory. They also make no mention of what results in a ban/perma ban.2. All of the reasons Tank gave Durf for the ban (those are below) are invalid reasons to perma ban someone.
Wrong.3. Even if Durf made a “hacking threat” (he didn’t), banning him doesn’t help forum security at all (he could easily change IP and get back on).
You know that Darth Vader/Voldemort/Donald Trump/[...] isn't part of the Tron universe, right?4. Other people have done “worse” things than Durf and never received bans/perma bans.
Yeah, my father had an old audio cassette of that albumsinewav wrote:The song is called "Rock It" and I posted "Lock It," so like, you know, that. I actually find the video pretty frightening, but the album artwork is super TRON. (I used to have a copy on vinyl!) The song is from Herbie Hancock's album "Future Shock" which was released not long after the movie Tron came out.Light wrote:I don't think I understand...
I have every Hancock album that was ever available on the internet, I think...
Last edited by Word on Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
Basic psychology shows that you opened the argument by outright saying to the moderators: "you are wrong and I am right." As far as I am concerned, that has completely invalidated anything important you may have tried to present. You seem to be forgetting that it is not you who is in charge of these forums.D33P wrote:So I give the moderators an ultimatum: either 1. let this thread continue and let the community discuss something that it wants to discuss, something of importance (as this topic has broader implications than just Durf) or 2. lock this topic, and show the community that you care more about saving face/preventing someone from potentially showing wrong-doing by you, than about what the community wants/doing the right thing.
Uh, how about posting your "argument" in the opening post? It's kind of dumb to say "HEY GUYS I'M FIXING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT'S COMING. HOLD ON."D33P wrote:I'm trying to have a legitimate discussion (my actual argument post will be coming shortly; takes time to write/think) and you guys are just trolling me to try and get this thread locked.
I think this is exactly what you don't understand. Did you know that, here in America, when a cop pulls you over for doing something wrong you can drive away without a ticket? Did you know that, even though you were breaking the LAW you can go without being punished? That's because HUMANS have EMOTIONS. That's how this forum is ran, with emotions. Not everyone gets equal treatment because not everyone is equal. That's why women are not required to sign up for Selective Service here in America. For example: /dev/null is a blabbering idiot, but everyone knows it. He's not too annoying because he shuts up when he's told to and he doesn't keep pestering people when the mods demand that he stops. And, if he WERE to keep pestering people after the mods told him not to, he'd be banned. Same thing with Durf. He got his own version of the rules tagged to him by his actions and he suffered the consequences of not listening to the mods. And, those very same mods just so happen to be the ones who developed this game and PAY TO HOST EVERYTHING REQUIRED FOR YOU TO ENJOY THE GAME.D33P wrote:1. If you aren’t familiar with the rules, they are posted here. You can ignore the last post on that thread, as it was made after Durf was banned.
Their first 2 rules, which are supposed to be the axioms of all the other rules, already show how useless the rules are. What, specifically, is an idiot? The general definition is someone who lacks intelligence, but that could mean many things. Am I not allowed to be on the forums if I don’t know something specific, or am generally uneducated, or lack the ability to learn well? The second rule says to treat others with respect, as human beings. Showing someone respect can mean many different things to different people, and is a vague and subjective term. Also, I suspect how you would treat someone would change depending on what they did, even though everyone you talk to is a human being.
The rest of the rules are similar to the first 2 in vagueness and subjectivity, and there is no mention of what the consequences are for breaking them. And the last rule basically confirms what I said, in that these rules are utterly useless. No rule lawyering? Meaning you can’t actually point to a rule and enforce it? This removes any point of the rule in the first place.
Now, you are probably thinking “D33P is an idiot. The rules are supposed to give you a jist of what is expected of you” But rules shouldn’t be giving you the “jist” of what to do. People can get different jists of what the rules mean, which makes it unfair to punish someone for breaking a rule they didn’t know they broke because they didn’t get the proper jist of what the author of the rule meant. Rules should be clear and concise, and be as objective, not subjective, as possible, so that people know exactly what they can and can’t do. Durf didn’t have these clear and concise rules to refer to, so its unfair to ban him for something he couldn’t have known was a bannable offense.
Last edited by Ratchet on Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Dream as if you'll live forever,
Live as if you'll die today." -James Dean
Re: Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)
In response to Word:
Actually, I can demand whatever I want, to whoever I want. I can demand the president do something. He can ignore me, sure, but I have the complete freedom to make the demand. And in this case, it's not even really an ultimatum. The devs will either lock or not lock this thread. It was more pointing out to the community what the implications of locking the thread were.
Durf hacked the forums? I would love it if you showed me how/where/when. Ill talk about how his "hacking" threat later, when people actually address that part of my argument.
I assume you have proof that Durf purposefully misunderstood others arguments. Also, Lucifer and Z-man had their fair share of misunderstanding what Durf was saying (sexism and hacking, for one). Also, how does misunderstanding what someone said mean they deserve a perma ban?
Ill assume you haven't had time to read my actual argument, but Ill say it again. Don't respond to a single piece of my argument and feel like you've "won". My argument stands until someone can invalidate the entire thing.
Actually, I can demand whatever I want, to whoever I want. I can demand the president do something. He can ignore me, sure, but I have the complete freedom to make the demand. And in this case, it's not even really an ultimatum. The devs will either lock or not lock this thread. It was more pointing out to the community what the implications of locking the thread were.
Durf hacked the forums? I would love it if you showed me how/where/when. Ill talk about how his "hacking" threat later, when people actually address that part of my argument.
I assume you have proof that Durf purposefully misunderstood others arguments. Also, Lucifer and Z-man had their fair share of misunderstanding what Durf was saying (sexism and hacking, for one). Also, how does misunderstanding what someone said mean they deserve a perma ban?
Ill assume you haven't had time to read my actual argument, but Ill say it again. Don't respond to a single piece of my argument and feel like you've "won". My argument stands until someone can invalidate the entire thing.