Durf’s Ban (and other related topics)

[Word]

and probably just trying to get me to say something wrong

Well, you answer whatever you want and already said lots of stuff that I find rather wrong, so that bit doesn't add much info...so I take it, if you got banned and "abused" the way Durf did, you would at least think that threatening to hack the forums is an option, even if not the best one (assuming that you have that knowledge), and wouldn't regret doing it? We already disagree here about what civil behaviour is.

[Z-Man]

So I give the moderators an ultimatum

Not how this works.

let this thread continue and let the community discuss something that it wants to discuss

I get the impression that the community does not want to discuss this again. This thread will be locked tomorrow morning, European time. It already ruined one evening for me and I haven't even read all of it (y'all write faster than I have time to read), I won't let it ruin another.

Also not how this works: Demanding we counter ALL your arguments. If it would work that way, you could add "And he did not burn down that orphanage!" and would win because (I hope) we can't refute that. Durf was permabanned for threatening to hack the forums. I don't care how you call it. Call it an announcement, a promise, a statement of intent, call it gaining access or liberation. He was not banned for the words we give it, he was banned for the action. I also don't care whether you think his announced form of attack is illegal (it is in most jurisdictions, I'd bet). Nevertheless, I'll briefly address your TL;DR points.

1. Yep. Sue us. If you want precise rules because you lack common sense, read the Steam/XBL/PSN agreements and assume we apply them here, too.
2. Nope, hacking threats are a pretty valid reason.
3. That's nonsense. So if I tell you I am going to defecate on your front lawn, you still invite me to your party? Because I can do that whether I am invited or not. We simply do not want someone around who would compromise the forums if he does not like how they are run.
4. Naughty boy's argument. "BUUUUUT He did something worse and was punished less!!!" Plus, nope, entirely IMHO. Nobody I can think of did anything worse on these forums and was not permabanned. Liz had her fair share of loooong bans on various occasions. They seemed to work well enough on her.

Yes, I'd also love if someone so obviously talented and busy as a contributor could be allowed back here or even into the development team. But in light of what he did, I currently simply do not see a possibility for that to happen, ever. Reserving the right to change my mind, of course, maybe Durf can surprise me.

[D33P]

Not how this works.

Already responded to this in a previous post. What I gave wasn’t even much of an ultimatum/demand. It was more of a description of the only two possible things that could happen (either gets locked or doesn’t) and the implications of each potential decision.

I get the impression that the community does not want to discuss this again. This thread will be locked tomorrow morning, European time. It already ruined one evening for me and I haven't even read all of it (y'all write faster than I have time to read), I won't let it ruin another.

If they don’t want to discuss this, why are they even responding to me? Also I refer to my first statement about what locking this thread truly means.

Also not how this works: Demanding we counter ALL your arguments. If it would work that way, you could add "And he did not burn down that orphanage!" and would win because (I hope) we can't refute that.

Poor logic. I said that you have to invalidate all of my major arguments because each one of those (1, 2, and 4 specifically. 3 is more just a counterargument to what Tank posted on the forums as a warning) show that the ban was unjust. Even if you proved 2 of those invalid, the last one remaining would still show that the ban was not just.

The example you gave of an orphanage is also poor. Not burning down the orphanage doesn’t prove how Durf’s ban was unjust, and so that wouldn’t need to be invalidated, even if it was one of my arguments.

Durf was permabanned for threatening to hack the forums. I don't care how you call it. Call it an announcement, a promise, a statement of intent, call it gaining access or liberation. He was not banned for the words we give it, he was banned for the action. I also don't care whether you think his announced form of attack is illegal (it is in most jurisdictions, I'd bet)

I’ll talk about banning him for threatening to “hack the forums” on your other point below.

1. Yep. Sue us. If you want precise rules because you lack common sense, read the Steam/XBL/PSN agreements and assume we apply them here, too.

I won’t sue you. Ill just let the community realize how awful the rules are, and let them do what they think is best. I addressed why having to get the jist of what the rule maker is trying to say, makes for shit rules.

I’m pretty sure everyone has a different opinion on what specifically is common sense and what it isn’t, which obviously doesn’t make it easy to know exactly what the rules are.

2. Nope, hacking threats are a pretty valid reason.

You, nor any mod, has even said why or how this threat was unjustified. Refer to my previous posts on how just because it’s a threat/hacking threat/exploit threat, doesn’t mean it’s automatically bad/wrong.

3. That's nonsense. So if I tell you I am going to defecate on your front lawn, you still invite me to your party? Because I can do that whether I am invited or not. We simply do not want someone around who would compromise the forums if he does not like how they are run.

First of all, my point still stands that banning Durf did absolutely nothing in terms of improving security. The person could just as easily go to your house and poop on your lawn whether they were invited or not (assuming you don’t have security).

So then it becomes a question of whether you want the person, not their action, there. If you didn’t invite him to the party, it’s not because you want to prevent him from pooping on your lawn; it’s because you personally don’t like a person that threatens to poop on your lawn. And why is that? Because pooping on your lawn is unjustified, in most cases. However, Durf feels that what he said was justified. You obviously do not.

The “right” thing would be to work it out with Durf, and see why he felt the need to say what he said. Instead, Tank decided to ban Durf because he didn’t immediately retract his threat, which again, he didn’t have an opportunity to explain himself, because he was banned.

4. Naughty boy's argument.

Call it whatever you want. It shows the hypocrisy of the moderators, and it guarantees (assuming its valid) that Durfs ban was unjustified because he was handled differently than other people; was handled in accordance to a different standard.



Again, I’m willing to dive deeper into these topics if people want to, which would require the thread staying unlocked. If it’s locked, I refer to my original post.

[compguygene]

I think we should talk more about cats....
But D33P:
If you are trying to prove that the rules are too vague...the rest of us accept them.
If you are trying to say that Durf either didn't threaten to hack the forums or was justified...we are saying he did and he is not justified in doing so.
If you are trying to get the ban lifted...I doubt this is the way to do it. Your demanding debate has brought it. Not so much a desire on our part to debate it at all. You should consider that a lock is not applied now but room is being left for discussion/debate as a mercy and room for whatever is left that you are trying to accomplish.

Maybe this really should be about cats...

[D33P]

If you are trying to prove that the rules are too vague...the rest of us accept them.

Doesn't matter who accepts them. Its unjust to punish someone for something they couldn't have known they did wrong due to the rules being terrible.

If you are trying to say that Durf either didn't threaten to hack the forums or was justified...we are saying he did and he is not justified in doing so

And I'm willing to discuss this. However, that requires time, and for the thread to be unlocked. If you want to discuss it now, state your case as to why you feel his threat was unjust.

If you are trying to get the ban lifted...I doubt this is the way to do it. Your demanding debate has brought it. Not so much a desire on our part to debate it at all. You should consider that a lock is not applied now but room is being left for discussion/debate as a mercy and room for whatever is left that you are trying to accomplish.

I am not only trying to get the ban lifted, but I also want the community to be informed about the wrong decisions the moderators have made, so the community can make informed decisions in the future about what to do with the game. And if you don't have a desire to debate, why are you responding? I never said "you have to respond to me". Its complete up to you to choose to discuss with me. There are no requirements. But people are still choosing to do it, aren't they.

Any lock before a resolution is reach, assuming no large amount of trolling, would be the mods impeding the communities ability to find the truth.

Also, I need to know what other peoples specific counter arguments are so I know what I have to address. Blindly giving out arguments and not letting people respond (because the thread is locked before they can be given) isn't going to help anyone out.

[Ratchet]

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.

Dude. You remind me of the damn sales guy that you see on those commercials.

"for only $19.99 you can have this brand new oxy-clean magic toilet scrubber! never clean your toilets again!.... BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! order within the next FIVE MINUTES and I'll throw in a second magic toilet scrubber FREE! just pay separate shipping and handling!"

In your case it's just like word said: sit down with a dictionary and nitpick posts until you run across a definition that you can't properly twist into something else.

A threat is a threat. Stop trying to downplay it.

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.

In this scenario, the teacher is the authority figure who, at her discretion, can fail a student.

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.

In this scenario, hypothetical murder? Do you mean that you actually did shoot them? Because, if you didn't, you wouldn't go to jail for murder. You'd have to explain yourself, sure, but you wouldn't go to jail over threatening to defend yourself. The government/police officer is the authority figure in this case.

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.

In this scenario, the forum OWNER (Tank Program) is the authority figure.

So, to recap, let's plug this into the formula.

Durf (the student who is skipping class) threatens to [fire? kill? kidnap?] the teacher if the teacher fails him for skipping class.

Now, I mean, as long as the teacher doesn't fail him no harm done right?

Wrong.

The student is now expelled and/or going to jail.

If you go to an abortion clinic and you tell them that you're going to bomb the building if they don't shut the facility down and stop abortions, what the hell do you think is going to happen?

[D33P]

Dude. You remind…

So you’re criticizing me for using evidence (the dictionary) to show what people’s words actually mean? This is a discussion based on evidence and logic. If you don’t support the use of evidence, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

In this scenario, the teacher is the authority figure who, at her discretion, can fail a student.

The authority isn’t what makes her threat justified. Also, if you want, just use my hypothetical murder instead, where there’s no authority figure (one person isn’t automatically higher than the other).

In this scenario, hypothetical murder? Do you mean that you actually did shoot them? Because, if you didn't, you wouldn't go to jail for murder. You'd have to explain yourself, sure, but you wouldn't go to jail over threatening to defend yourself. The government/police officer is the authority figure in this case.

You almost understood the analogy, just didn’t fully connect the dots. Yes, it doesn’t make much sense to put the hypothetical murderer in jail. That’s the point. I’m comparing Durfs ban to this, and if the logical structure fails in the hypothetical murder situation, then it fails in all other situations that use the same logical structure, including Durfs ban.

In this scenario,...

Again, the authority of the person who made the threat doesn’t matter. The justification does.

In your scenario, you added on another threat; an unjust threat. So yes, if the student threatened to kill the teacher if she failed him, that would be an unjust threat, not because the student doesn’t have the authority, but because the original threat of the teacher was justified.

[Ratchet]

There's simply no way you can be the same kind of stupid as Durf. I thought that shit was one in a trillion and yet I've found a second one.

You even repeat yourself the same way. You two must share a common water supply or something.

[Light]

Comp, I agree. Genie, a sand cat living at Big Cat Rescue. (:

[aP|Nelg]

Stop the cat posts. This is a forum about Durf's ban, not a forum about cats. Post your cats elsewhere.

There is presumably a reason why this topic keeps coming up. Obviously, some people in this community are not satisfied with the ban. I don't agree with his banning either. I have made some arguments, but I was apparently "trolling" on those arguments.

I see that you guys want to avoid the discussion by posting some cats. Create a "cat" topic or something.

[S0lutai]

"I have no arguments regarding the ban, so I'm just gunna keep posting stupid cats"
Don't take it personal, but there's nothing I hate more than mockery. Stop ******* running away from problems and face them already.

[aP|Nelg]

"I have no arguments regarding the ban, so I'm just gunna keep posting stupid cats"
Don't take it personal, but there's nothing I hate more than mockery. Stop ******* running away from problems and face them already.

Good point.

[Light]

The topic is already being locked, so any further discussion of the topic is gonna come to a dead stop soon enough anyways. The topic of Durf has already been beaten to a pulp, so we can do without that. Feel free to go read the billion other posts if you miss it, or create a Durf forum rather than a game forum. Cats are cute and are more deserving of this space.

As far as Durf goes, people seem to generally agree for the most part. There's the few of you that want to make Durf more right than he ever was, but mostly people agree he should be given a chance to come back. Most of us also agree that we don't want this stuff here arguing about how right or wrong he was.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/ ... meow-o.gif

[Z-Man]

You, nor any mod, has even said why or how this threat was unjustified.

Yes, we did, in the original ban thread. Similar analogies like you brought up to his threat were put forward, you said nothing fundamentally new. I hate repeating myself: They're no good. They don't reflect the simple fact that the threat happened on and affected Tank's property. The one and only legitimate action he could have taken if he truly believed we were going to abuse him (we would not have, but he got really paranoid) would have been to walk away. Threatening someone when you clearly have the option to walk away is never justified. Heck, that's even in the (German) laws about self defense: It's not self defense if you could have easily avoided the confrontation. But despite several peace offers on my part (in the PMs you did not see because Durf did not want you to see, mostly), he chose escalation.

Sorry, no own cats here, and posting other people's cats would feel like stealing.

[D33P]

As far as Durf goes, people seem to generally agree for the most part. There's the few of you that want to make Durf more right than he ever was, but mostly people agree he should be given a chance to come back. Most of us also agree that we don't want this stuff here arguing about how right or wrong he was.

This is more than just letting Durf back onto the forums. This is about seeing whether the moderators were "just" in banning him in the first place, or if they abused their power and treated him unfairly. I think I've already done a decent job of this, but the community should be informed about what the truth of the matter is.

"A few of you". And that's so much less compared to the other few people posting? You have no statistical evidence that shows that most tron players think that Durf deserved his ban, and that doesn't even do anything to validate it because its a logical fallacy to think that general agreement equates to validation. So I suggest you guys stop with "Everyone except a small, loud minority agrees" as it only weakens whatever argument you're trying to make.

My claims have still not been invalidated, and until you, or someone else, can do that, you aren't in much of a position to say that the matter is settled and I'm wrong.