What's this thing with these childish mods ?

[Robert Plomp]

MichealTheGreat: Defensorfidei: You're still banned as CivNation. Of course, I'm sure you knew that, or you wouldn't have created a new DL to get around the restriction.

See you when CivNation is unrestricted, which is July 12, IIRC.

Vaya con Dios.

There comes another MOd into a discussion he's not involved in, just to destroy the discussion again !

We didn't got any good answers on the CN banning, but the mods continue and act this childish way.
Again, didn't you guys really not learn anything from black saturday ?

The arrogant way mods claim that they're infallable (not by words but by acts) makes me sick. There are no good arguments but the "I said so thus you should" ones.

The point to CN has been made.
If you don't say things that are allowed by mods, shut up.
CN has learned his lessons (and got banned eventhough)
didn't show up for one week, but saw that we were debating while he couldn't react. Of course he made a DL. He had to defend his opinion against MUCH people.

And of course it's easy to get into a discussion, to not add any usefull word to the discussion, but just remove one of the sites from it.

childish childish childish.

I 'm going to quote my text out of the other thread, since that didn't got answered, and it still seems to be applicable.

CyberShy:
No, I think MING didn't understand the position of CN at that moment.
EVERYONE was against him, shouting at him how stupid he was, insulting him etc. etc. etc.
His ideas were completely shot down by everyone.
This made his complete identity to become silly.

Now even one of the mods came into the thread, and this mod only warned CN !
CivNation was a cat in problems, and couldn't do anything but post in non-offensive, non-insulting language his opinion, to defend it against everyone that's against him.

That's acomplete normal way of reacting by people that are attacked form all sides.

If he would have been testing MING, his post would've been more offensive, or near the border. In that case he wouldn't have posted his opinion in these clear, non-offensive and legal words.

And THAT's the problem, he's not banned for insulting, hate post etc. etc. (he said 'faggot' once, which isn't a valid reason to ban, since he should've have done it again then)
he's been banned for voicing his believe

I'm not waiting for MarkG to defend Ming and MtG.
I understand that Markos will backup his mod, whatever they do.

I want an explanation from Ming for his childish behavior, and from MtG for spoiling the discussion again.
And a good description about what can be said about homosexuals, and what can't. (and for that reason why that what CN said after Ming's warning was wrong)

CyberShy

[Ming]

I'd still like to understand how the mods are "childish" since you offer no proof in your above tirade... but what the heck, I guess you are welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong.

Civnation was warned to stop... he didn't... a clear violation of the rules. He was restricted.
He then created a DL to get around a restriction... an equally clear violation of the rules... His DL was restricted. And, If he creates another DL, he will indeed have more time added to his restriction. He should be happy MtG didn't add more time on his restriction for his DL creation.

So, what is your point again?

[SlowwHand]

Point? He's got about as much point as a broom handle.

(That's none, for the slow-witted among us)

[MarkG]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The point to CN has been made.
If you don't say things that are allowed by mods, shut up.
CN has learned his lessons (and got banned eventhough)
didn't show up for one week, but saw that we were debating while he couldn't react.

if he had learned his lesson as you say, he would have waited for his login to be unrestricted.

creating a DL in the middle of his "vacation" to start posting the same stuff that got him banned is hardly similar to what i consider "learning your lesson"....

[Winston]

I'd say about half of the old timers here have created DL's during a restriction at least once - without the mods taking action unless it was painfully obvious. Heck, even one of the most prolific posters in the entire OT has been a DL for the past two years, which has been openly accepted by everyone including mods and admins.

However, it seems certain rules are enforced more vigorously for some posters than for others.

Childish? No. Inconsistent? Yes. (Best case scenario...)

If you want to keep the flag flying high wrt DL's, you should enforce the rules equally and not just towards specially select posters.

Will save you a lot of criticism, don't you think?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Winston
I'd say about half of the old timers here have created DL's during a restriction at least once - without the mods taking action unless it was painfully obvious.

unless you can prove that we knew at the time and didnt act, what you say has no base

[Winston]

Oh come on Mark.

I just made an observation. I'm not going to name posters - I'm sure you can think of a few without my assistance...

Double standards have always been implicit in the way DL's are dealt with. It doesn't suit the authority here when certain posters are singled out and punished for it while others are not. That's all I'm saying.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Winston
Heck, even one of the most prolific posters in the entire OT has been a DL for the past two years, which has been openly accepted by everyone including mods and admins.

who was that?

I'm not here long enough to guess myself.

.....


Wait, don't think that!
I'm not a DL!
Eli Taurus Yoav and Dr. Tzuri can prove it!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Winston
I just made an observation. I'm not going to name posters - I'm sure you can think of a few without my assistance...

so you're not going to be specific, you'll post generic accusations....

ok.....

[Ming]

What... there are some DL's here

But seriously Winston... When it comes to DL's... in almost every case, if we can prove it's a DL, action is taken. When somebody now registers, we do a "casual" look over.
If we suspect foul play, we look harder. But as you know, some DL's are impossible to prove. And frankly, unless the person gives us a reason to check them out, we generally have better things to do with our time.

Now I'm sure you can come up with "AN EXAMPLE"... as you know, so could I.
But I think you understand the reasons why a blind eye is applied in the case you are talking about. And the fact that you don't want to mention a name tells me that you do understand. For that, I say thank you

[Winston]

I don't disagree Ming, and naturally I won't name posters (well maybe just a little - see below for a harmless example ). I just think that in the case of Civnation, indeed hard and swift justice was applied to an apparent DL - while scores of others in the past have been allowed to slip past, and still are from time to time. Why is that? Don't tell me you've acted as swiftly with the Truppen des Todes for instance...

[Ming]

Actually... it comes down to "proof". Thinking somebody is a DL is not anything like proving it. There have been MANY cases where I JUST KNOW it has to be a DL... and I can't prove it. Without proof... For that reason, it must seem like we are inconsistant. When we have proof, we move fast and take care of it. But again, it is easy to create a DL which leaves no "trail".
We only catch those when the person does something stupid.
And as I said before, if somebody is using a DL, and doesn't attract any attention to themselves, we don't really look that hard at people who aren't causing problems

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The issue being raised here is that the mods treated CivNation2001 harshly. However, seeing as he's a DL, I think he's doing quite well personally.

Questions to consider. CivNation announced late last year that he was going away and would probably have little time to post here. Then, early this year, CivNation2001 appears.

Why didn't he use his old account?

Why has he stopped plugging the sites he used to promote mercilessly?

Why has he stopped inviting people to contact him and provided an e-mail address to do so?

Why has his entire style of writing changed?

Why, when he used to adopt a pitying tone on the unbelievers, does he now shriek "DEMON!!!!!" like some sort of hysterical pantomime villain?

Why has he stopped demonstrating his (undeniably impressive) command of biblical knowledge?

You tell me. I know what my own theory is.

[Robert Plomp]

Civnation was warned to stop... he didn't... a clear violation of the rules. He was restricted.
He then created a DL to get around a restriction... an equally clear violation of the rules

If you say it that easy........... it sounds good.

But in fact did CivNation stop after you warned him.
He didn't insult gay people, he didn't use the fagg. word anymore.
All he did was voicing his believe, in a very non-insulting way (what you had warned him from)

I still don't see how the post you banned him for was against the rules. It's a post I disagree with, and for that reason I was (and I still am) debating with him.

The point is that it's the 8th or something time that someone gets banned when I'm in a debate with him / her.
It drives me completely nuts !

And did you read that where I quoted myself ?
Are you mods just 'banning-machinges' ?
Every parent knows that every teenager you tell to stop do this and this they'll do it once more to not lose their face, and then they stop.

And if you guys are that strict on the rules, then I still wonder why Eyes weren't banned when he putted a big insulting-gay message on this board few days before.
The discussion CN was banned from was filled with hate and discriminating quotes by MUCH people. Why only ban CN ?

The reply you gave MING, is the standard reply you always give in these kind of cases. You haven't answered my question.
You didn't told me WHAT CN said that was against your warning / rule.

Do you have an 'admit' mode ?
Or are you sure that you're infallable ?
Why don't you earn my respect by just saying you're wrong ?
Or at least give a good reaction ?

thanks for ruining my debate again.

CyberShy

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny Questions to consider. CivNation announced late last year that he was going away and would probably have little time to post here. Then, early this year, CivNation2001 appears.

Why didn't he use his old account?

Why has he stopped plugging the sites he used to promote mercilessly?

Why has he stopped inviting people to contact him and provided an e-mail address to do so?

Why has his entire style of writing changed?

Why, when he used to adopt a pitying tone on the unbelievers, does he now shriek "DEMON!!!!!" like some sort of hysterical pantomime villain?

Why has he stopped demonstrating his (undeniably impressive) command of biblical knowledge?

You tell me. I know what my own theory is.

Maybe... he went away, was so utterly changed by his experienc that he switched social groups, site visits, changed his personality, and corresponding online personality, forgotten his bible, lost all pity and...

What am I saying, he's a DL, DL, DL

[Ming]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
What am I saying, he's a DL, DL, DL

Maybe... I sure think so. But as I said above, if we can't prove it...

[Immortal Wombat]

Try harder then
Or don't, his posts are quite amusing. (The non-hateful ones at least) Though I sure would like to know who it is.

[Robert Plomp]

no reply ?


thanks again, but now for proving my point.
you won't give any answer that matter. Just only the 'I told him but he didn't' excuse.

[Ming]

Originally posted by CyberShy
you won't give any answer that matter. Just only the 'I told him but he didn't' excuse.

Uhhh... that's not an excuse... just a fact. What don't you understand

[Robert Plomp]

I don't understand why CN's post was against your warning.

In the big discussion CN used the word 'faggot'
that's the only negative word he used against homosexuality untill you warned him for it (muuuch later)

Then he posted his believe that Jesus doesn't accept homosexuality. That's his faith.

I don't see how that line went against your warning.
Your warning was against hatefull posts, against insulting / name calling to gay people. (for some reason you're not allowed to call gay people names, but you are allowed to call ie. christians like CN names, but that's another story)

And that's not what he did.
You banned him eventhough.

Are you going to answer right now ?
Or will I get another one liner ?

CyberShy

[Ming]

He was told to stop his assult on homosexuals. He didn't.
He uses Jesus as a straw man. No difference. Telling people they will go to hell and that they are sinners because of their lifestyle is an insult. Calling it a belief doesn't make it right or any less insulting. Complaints were received... and I acted.
You are welcome to disagree... that is your right. But I'm welcome to my opinion too. And that's how I called it.
And I would do it again in a second. And if he continues his anti gay tirade when he comes back, it will be a short stay!

[Robert Plomp]

Thanks for your answer.

He was told to stop his assult on homosexuals. He didn't

You asked him to stop his hate post.
His reaction to you was very different, and ways more polite then all his stuff before. He really tried to say nothing but his faith.

I think it's your, and this sites, right to put up rules like this.
Since again, I dislike his way of 'debating' very much.
But the warning you gave him didn't applie on the msg he made after. (eventhough I think it's valid the way you describe it overhere)

[quote]Telling people they will go to hell and that they are sinners because of their lifestyle is an insult.[/quoter]

Pherhaps, but what's over the edge then ?
people that commit millions of murdering without having any sorry will go to hell. Is that an insult worthy to be banned for as well ?
And what's the line ? Majority of this world thinks homosexuality is no good. Should we take that as a line ? Majority of the world ? I hope not.

You are welcome to disagree... that is your right. But I'm welcome to my opinion too. And that's how I called it.

that's right, I'm sorry for naming you childish.

And if he continues his anti gay tirade when he comes back, it will be a short stay!

like I said, it wasn't really an anti-gay tirade. In the biiig discussion he mentioned only ones briefly. The rest of the participants dared him to speak more about it. And so did your warning in fact.

But again, thanks for your answer.

CyberShy

[Urban Ranger]

As I demonstrated to you elsewhere, CyberShy, using some book or some person as a basis for hatred is still hatred. It doesn't matter. It also seems to me that you didn't repond to that message of mine.

I also don't understand why is there a problem with restricting "Defensor." It's quite clear that it's a DL of a DL.


Winston,

Just because somebody looks like a DL doesn't mean that person is one. Real, non-DL, accounts have been closed before, so the admins are becoming more careful.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Most of the "real" non-DL accounts are in fact commonly accessed open proxies used by the smarter DLmeisters.

When there's not a very high degree of proof, they get the benefit of the doubt.

CivNation, in all their incarnations (there's at least three "personalities"), has been given far too much slack in the past. Justification of slavery, anti-semitism, native American genocide, trolls about stoning of children, "Asian barbarians" anti-Catholic bigotry - the list of his trolling BS goes on and on.

If there's a question, the question ought to be why we didn't handle him earlier, and that was primarily (for me) because his obvious trolls were not taken seriously by people, who got their stress relief debating or flaming him, as the case may be.

Cybershy - your bit about how he "had to" reply in an on-going debate is BS. If he really wanted to, he could have talked privately with Ming and asked that his vacation be reduced. He decided, up yours, I'm just going to create a new logon, so too bad.

[Robert Plomp]

As I demonstrated to you elsewhere, CyberShy, using some book or some person as a basis for hatred is still hatred

my debate is still ruined

It also seems to me that you didn't repond to that message of mine.

Really ? In what thread ?
Heck, sometimes I should be banned so I can avoid answering all those silly questions

I also don't understand why is there a problem with restricting "Defensor." It's quite clear that it's a DL of a DL.

He's a unique person to debate with

he really wanted to, he could have talked privately with Ming and asked that his vacation be reduced

sure sure sure, I won't say that CN is nothing to blame.
ack, he's much to blame.
But sometimes I expect.... mods to be more mature then the silly users, and understand the situation he's in.

He decided, up yours

I think he didn't even think about the contact ming way, (I wouldn't do either, since I'm sure it won't be reduced anyway, but that's my low trust in the mods ) and he didn't at once, it took one week before he did.

CyberShy

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ming
What... there are some DL's here

But seriously Winston... When it comes to DL's... in almost every case, if we can prove it's a DL, action is taken. When somebody now registers, we do a "casual" look over.
If we suspect foul play, we look harder. But as you know, some DL's are impossible to prove. And frankly, unless the person gives us a reason to check them out, we generally have better things to do with our time.

Now I'm sure you can come up with "AN EXAMPLE"... as you know, so could I.
But I think you understand the reasons why a blind eye is applied in the case you are talking about. And the fact that you don't want to mention a name tells me that you do understand. For that, I say thank you

I'd be more on his side if the behavior had changed rather than worsened...

[DarkCloud]

1. How long is CivNation banned for now?
2. Here's a new argument to put to him... He lied, broke the covenant... Defensor was supposedly living in NewYork, Civnation was living in the Carolinas..

[Dr Strangelove]

Personally I support the banning of CivNation, he was giving protestants a bad reputation, and yes his arguments often degenerated into volumes of bile. Sometimes arguments between various posters on the forum will degenerate into irrational name-calling. When the persons involved in the fight obviously know each other and keep their greivances from spilling over to innocent third parties I think the mods have a right to use their discretion. This hasn't been the case with CN, so it's right to send him to the cooler.

[Provost Harrison]

Maybe he didn't use the word faggot a lot. But the context was quite extreme. We all know he is a biblethumping bigot, and his tirades achieve nothing, with the exclusion of a good battle. But it is old stuff. You see his thread and you just think 'here we go again'. Maybe we cannot teach people new morals and tolerance. But we can make it quite clear that intolerance and bigotry is not tolerated by whatever means we have at our disposal.

[Darkknight]

Ah Wow! Aren't we just one big happy family these days.
Every day almost I see a thread here giving out about mods doing this and that and mods replying with a teensy bit of anger and getting even further withdrawn from the community. This site is by civ players for civ players why must people always find something to fight over! Why can't people just talk about civ and whatever else, and why can't the mods join in as people not as gods towering over everyone else.(Don't quote! ) If somebody is constantly spamming or whatever and giving no useful imformation or whatever then fine restrict him for a while. But the good side must be weighed up with the bad side.
In this case CN was in a debate and was contributing something to the community. SO WHAT if he was using a DL !?
Again you have to weigh up the good with the bad, how much has he given to the community and how much has he *taken away* by means of cursing etc.

Of course that would only happen in a perfect world, mods are bound to hold personnel grudges against some people but if you do the least you could do is either point out the thread to an unbiest mod and ask him what he thinks and/or hold a simple poll saying CivNation Stay or Go. People who care ( the people who either know him or hate him vote) and you decide from that.

Just my two cents,

Shane