Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)

[Word]

@Ratchet: Actually I won't be surprised if there turn out to be just as many ego-cripples in most other capitalist societies...if there's anything they all have in common it's how normal their daily routines are.

[D33P]

In response to comp:

1. This is going…

I agree with most of what you said here, except that I would imagine a better outcome would be letting new people take over the development of Armagetron instead of forking it, as forking it is only going to split the community (though it’s looking like its the only option at this point).

2. First, I am…

I already said that they can do whatever they want. I’m saying what they should do/should have done.

1. He effectively took…

I completely disagree with this forums take over thing. In what way did he take them over? He only posted about mods/PMs in threads about that specific topic, or in response to someone else bringing up the subject in an unrelated topic (like what Word did in my link above). This means that any thread unrelated to Durfs ban would be free of that content, unless someone else forced the issue and brought it up, in which case it’s not even Durf’s fault that those specific threads derailed.

And its worth mentioning again, that you don’t have to read every post/topic. So this renders your point about it being unusable void, because you were never forced to read his posts, and you always had the ability to make your own posts/threads that were unrelated to this ban topic.

And Im glad you mentioned their dev work. If the forums was impeding their time to develop, why don’t they appoint non-dev moderators so they can focus on development? Also, it’s been 5 months since Durf was banned, meaning he wasn’t disturbing them in any way, and I don’t see a lot of progress on .4 in that time.

2. He was warned…

You didn’t see the emails, but Tank said that he was preventing Durf FROM getting cyber bullied, not that Durf was the cyber bully. Thats why Tank mentioned this supposed threat (it wasn’t a threat. Durf was just showing how he was technically being cyber bullied [he didn’t care much about this and wasn’t planning on doing anything about it], and how it’s hypocritical of the devs to punish Durf for being a supposed asshole while people are cyber bullying him and getting away with it.)

And this…

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... to#p289882

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree

3. He never made…

So this is where I’ll address the hacking threat.

This is the definition of a threat, which is similar to what you said: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

So yes, technically Durf did threaten something. However, this definition renders the word “threat” utterly useless. Why? Because it is so broad and encompasses completely legitimate things.

For example, say a teacher told a student “If you skip class one more time, I am going to fail you” The teacher just threatened that student. She said “if you do this, I will do this negative thing to you” I can come up with several more similar examples, but hopefully you get the picture.

An analogy that fits even better in this case is this:

Imagine that someone was trying to kill you, say they had a knife with them and were planning on attacking you. Say that you had a gun with you, and said “If you try to attack me with that knife, Ill shoot you” in self defense. Now imagine you went to jail for hypothetical murder because of this.

So if you removed the specific situation and left just the logical structure, it would look like this:

“Person A says that they will do something bad in self defense to person B, in retaliation for person B doing something bad to person A. Person A is then punished for saying they would hypothetically do something bad to person B, even though person A never actually did anything.”

Now back to Durf’s situation.

Durf said that if the mods kept on abusing him with their moderator power and tried to make him their enemy, that he would stand up for himself and using the forum exploit to end the abuse (potentially by unbanning people who were unjustly banned, unlocking topics, ect.) Durf was then punished for saying that he would hypothetically do this.

If you remove the specific situation and leave the logical structure, its the same as the murder analogy. This means, that if you think that what I said above about Durfs ban is valid, then the hypothetical murder situation is equally as valid, as they have the same exact logical structure.

Therefore, Durf technically threatened the moderators (not the entirety of the forum), but this means nothing, as threat is a very broad term, and you can have a threat be legitimate and justifiable. Just look at the teacher analogy.

And this:

Durf, any further statements on your part which I feel risk the safety of the forums through hacking will result in a permanent ban. This is your only warning in this regard.

Tank says that he would ban to keep the forums safe, which as you have acknowledged, isn’t true at all.

So, to summarize…

Refer to my above hypothetical murder analogy.

TLDR; Durf was Perma-Banned for a combination of reasons that include not just the reasons above listed by D33P, but because he kinda took over the forums in a bad way and the community agreed it was needed.

I already showed how Durf didn’t take over the forums (even if he did, how does that justify the ban? Couldn’t there just have been a ban on talking about the whole Durf topic?).

I invalidated all of the reasons I mentioned above, which means the only reason left is that the community agreed that it was needed. How does a group of people agreeing that someone should be punished, justify the action? If, say back during the Salem witch trials, most of the people in Salem thought that these supposed witches should be put to death, how does that mean that killing the people thought to be witches is justified?

- - -

The arguement that...

Ah, the “world/life is unfair” argument. The thing about this is, it isn’t a justification for an action. A place where saying life is unfair is appropriate, is when something happened that no particular person was responsible for and couldn’t have been reasonably prevented. For example, say someone naturally got cancer. No one could really do anything to prevent it, and no one made the conscious decision to give that person cancer, and so its fine to just say “life is unfair”, accept that you have cancer, and move on.

However, if someone did something to you that directly gave you cancer, when they could have chosen a better option that didn’t give you cancer, that is not a “life is unfair” situation. That's a situation where you question why the person did what they did and try to prevent that kind of thing from happening again. If someone bullshitted you when they had the ability not to, why would you not complain and not try to prevent it from happening to people in the future?

And I don’t get your “not everything should be fair” argument. You seem to be misapplying the word fair to certain situations. How is rewarding a bad thing fair? Fair just means in accordance with the rules or standards; treating different people equally under a certain set of rules. I don’t see how this being always true is a bad thing.

And this was not “Durf's place” for 3 months. Durf could post, and you could post, and everyone else could post. You could easily avoid the threads about Durf's ban. You were not restricted anymore than you are now.

[Word]

Hacking a forum he doesn't own isn't "self-defense". If everyone acted with that mindset, the planet would be more doomed than it already is. And Durf doesn't have the authority of a teacher appointed by the state (or some comparable institution) either. However, Z-Man, Lucifer (regardless if his status is currently suspended) and the other devs do have such an authority here and Durf is like the naked streaker who has to be dragged out in a straight-jacket.

Durf could post, and you could post, and everyone else could post. You could easily avoid the threads about Durf's ban

Not true. When someone asks for support to usurp the powers that be and PMs you his manifesto whenever you deny that support, one can hardly ignore that - especially when it's a conflict that concerns the entire forums and what happens with your own data.

But hey, you probably meet him in "Happy Fun Time" now and already ask him how you should react to that, don't you?

[Light]

If you skip class, I'm gonna fail you ..

Is not the same as ...

If you fail me, I'm going to break the law and ruin your grading system for the entire school.

You can't set all threats equal. Just as a threat to fight is treated differently than a bomb threat.

[D33P]

In response to Words evidence:

The gun analogy. "Pointing a gun to your head" = not a threat, says durf.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24053&p=292321&hilit=gun#p292321

No where in his post did he say that. Please quote specific lines so I know exactly what you’re talking about.

He dismisses what Lucifer and others said because he thinks Lucifer/other people just harass him, then asks them to post all of that stuff again. "I know for a fact that what you say is illogical", no reasons given whatsoever.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24025&p=291416#p291416

Very long post. Please quote the specific lines.

I read through it briefly and all of the places where Durf said illogical, he supported it. When he specifically said I know for a fact that what you posted is illogical. he supported it by showing that Tank program has adding spoiler tags on his todo list, so its illogical that Lucifer is arguing against what Tank is already going to do.

Durf says he can't be banned because it will destroy the community. "I am barely reacting at all".
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23959&p=291130#p291130

Funny that here, you are the one misunderstanding (not sure if on purpose). Durf said that the moderators general actions of abuse, which would include banning him, destroy the community. I agree with him here, and I think it’s a major reason (not the only) why the community is so bad/the game is dying.

And finally: Durf says he doesn't accept anyone else's conditions after trying to have it his way.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23959&p=291038#p291038

The only conditions Durf rejected were Z-man’s (I suggest stop saying “everyone” and “anyone” just to try to strengthen your argument). What do you mean, after trying to have it his way? Z-man gave conditions for posting the PMs, and Durf didn’t accept them. Why does Durf have to comply to conditions he didn’t even agree to?


Also, even if Durf did misunderstand, none of these show that he purposefully misunderstood, and not just by accident. I’m still waiting for evidence.

[Word]

There's no point to drag this conversation any further, you already demonstrated that you're just his sock puppet here. You just posted something like that flawed gun analogy yourself (the self-defense/teacher thing) and, like Durf, seem to think it makes sense. Everything I could possibly say doesn't work as an argument if you don't agree to the underlying values in the first place and are guided by a false positivism that rejects common decency from the debate.
And you don't get it yet: The evidence is that Durf and you post that analogy at all. If he would agree to the same values everyone else does, the thought of threatening the forums (or whatever you want to call it) wouldn't even arise in his head.

[compguygene]

Ok. You have clarifyied points where I was wrong. You have shown a perspective other than what most of us have.
I guess the real question is this: Is the point here to try to end Durf's ban? If so, why is that justified?

Also, as to others taking over the development of the game, Z-man has indicated that he would be very open to turning over those responsibilities to the right person. He also feels that Durf is not that person because of some great incompatibilities in character and morals. So, if you are proposing that Durf take this over, it would be a fork. Don't be afraid of a fork. It would have to be pretty dang awesome to steal players from here. If it does, and it's that good, nobody is going to feel bad about that. That is how things go.

[D33P]

In response to Light:

If you skip class, I'm gonna fail you ..

Is not the same as ...

If you fail me, I'm going to break the law and ruin your grading system for the entire school.

You can't set all threats equal. Just as a threat to fight is treated differently than a bomb threat.

The thing is, the point of analogies isn’t to show that every aspect of two situations is the same. It’s to show how the logical structure is the same, and the logical structure is the important part. Certain aspects of the analogy can differ. Kill vs Fail. Skip class vs Abuse. As long as these aspects are true in their certain situations, and fit into the logical structure, the analogy is valid.

For example, say I had a logical structure of “The addition of number x and number y is equal to the sum of x and y” Pretty obvious, right?

So now I have two different situations.

2+3=5

and

7+8=15

What you are doing is saying “Oh 2 and 7 are different. 5 and 15 are different. Therefore the analogy doesn’t work”. Except it does, because 2 and 3, and 7 and 8, and 5 and 15, all fit into the logical structure, even though they are different.

So the key here is, that if a logical structure doesn’t seem to work/is invalid for a certain situation, than any argument that uses this certain logical structure is invalid, which is why the argument that Durf should have been banned is invalid.

And yes, you shouldn’t treat all threats the same. That’s exactly my point. Everyone, for the past 8 months, has been complaining about Durf making a threat. But the simple act of making a threat means nothing. The threat has to be unjustified for it to be a bad thing.

So the discussion should be about, “was Durf justified in making this threat?” not “oh Durf made a threat. ban.”

[Light]

The way you said it the first time was saying that if you call his threat a threat, you're making the word meaningless because it's basically nothing. It was a straight out threat though. It wasn't small. It wasn't something Tank would be bringing on himself for any wrong doing. Durf was in the wrong, and this is Tank's community. He gets to choose who he wants here and why.

[D33P]

There's no point to drag this conversation any further, you already demonstrated that you're just his sock puppet here. You just posted something like that flawed gun analogy yourself (the self-defense/teacher thing) and seem to think it makes sense. Everything I could possibly say doesn't work as an argument if you don't agree to the underlying values in the first place and are guided by a false positivism that rejects common decency from the debate.

I am not a sock puppet. These are my ideas. If you can't accept that someone besides Durf supports him, than that's you. I supported all of my arguments and counterarguments with logic and evidence.

How have I not had common decency? I don't think I've unfairly disrespected someone. I never called anyone any names (unlike you >.>). I politely asked you to explain yourself when I didn't understand what you were getting at. I never treated you or anyone else differently based on who you are as a person. I simply examined the facts and gave my opinion on the topic. What did I do that rejects common decency?

[Word]

How have I not had common decency? I don't think I've unfairly disrespected someone. I never called anyone any names (unlike you >.>). I politely asked you to explain yourself when I didn't understand what you were getting at. I never treated you or anyone else differently based on who you are as a person. I simply examined the facts and gave my opinion on the topic. What did I do that rejects common decency?

Maybe this: You pretend/actually believe that someone can threaten to hack Tank, Z-Man and everyone else ("self-defense"!), but when that someone gets banned for a day/permanently on those forums (without ANY personal consequences), that's an injustice. You don't try to distance yourself from that behaviour or come here to express that Durf feels any remorse, no, you just reiterate everything that was brought up in that old thread. Not another three months, please.

Leave alone all the insults Durf has thrown at various community members. That alone could have got him banned.

[D33P]

The way you said it the first time was saying that if you call his threat a threat, you're making the word meaningless because it's basically nothing.

I said that the word by itself is meaningless to this conversation, which it is. If you guys had added in the word "unjustified", then there would be a real discussion

It was a straight out threat though. It wasn't small. It wasn't something Tank would be bringing on himself for any wrong doing.

The "size" of the threat is equally meaningless. The only thing that matters is whether its justifiable. Go back to my knife/gun analogy. The person that says "if you attack me with that knife, Im going to shoot you" is making a very serious threat. They are threatening to kill another person! But its completely justified, as you can probably see why.

Durf was in the wrong, and this is Tank's community. He gets to choose who he wants here and why.

I've spent this entire thread showing how Durf wasn't in the wrong; the mods were. If you are going to claim that, please back it up with logic and evidence. I know I'm getting repetitive with that, but logic and evidence is what lets you find the real truth to the matter.

And again, of course he can choose to do what he does. What I have always been talking about, is what he should do, not what he can or can't do.

[D33P]

Maybe this: You pretend/actually believe that someone can threaten to hack Tank, Z-Man and everyone else, but when that someone gets banned for a day on those forums, that's an injustice. You don't try to distance yourself from that behaviour or come here to express that Durf feels any remorse, no, you just reiterate everything that was brought up in that old thread. Not another three months, please.

I think that Durf was justified in making his threat to exploit the forums. Its my opinion. I'm not violating common decency in a discussion by having that opinion. And because I think he was justified in making that threat, I don't think he has anything to apologize for, so I'm obviously not going to call for an apology when I don't think there needs to be one.

If you want to discuss whether the threat was justified, I'm up for that.

[Word]

Maybe this: You pretend/actually believe that someone can threaten to hack Tank, Z-Man and everyone else, but when that someone gets banned for a day on those forums, that's an injustice. You don't try to distance yourself from that behaviour or come here to express that Durf feels any remorse, no, you just reiterate everything that was brought up in that old thread. Not another three months, please.

I think that Durf was justified in making his threat to exploit the forums. Its my opinion. I'm not violating common decency in a discussion by having that opinion. And because I think he was justified in making that threat, I don't think he has anything to apologize for, so I'm obviously not going to call for an apology when I don't think there needs to be one.

If you want to discuss whether the threat was justified, I'm up for that.

No, thanks. I would like to know though whether you would have decided to actively help him, in case he had encouraged you and you had the resources and/or skills that he required.

[D33P]

No, thanks. I would like to know though, would you have helped him, in case he had encouraged you and you had the resources and/or skills that he required?

Relatively off topic, and probably just trying to get me to say something wrong, but I'll answer it anyway. I don't know what the specific exploit Durf was talking about is, nor do I have any advanced knowledge of how forums work behind the scenes. If I did know how, I would probably still let him do it by himself, since he's the one who was being abused, and he's the one that made the threat.

Also, just because I think that making a certain threat is justified, doesn't mean that I automatically think that carrying out the threat is the best possible course of action.