Was I banned? and if so why? - Page 5

Ming · July 7, 2003, 00:34

Remember Ming Math... +1 = -10%

I don't see a need to close this thread... since Sirotnikov was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned that people like him didn't know the rules, it's only fair to leave this as a monument to his ignorance of the rules so that others may learn from it

Chilean President™ · July 7, 2003, 01:10

So... can you answer my question pliz

Sirotnikov · July 7, 2003, 09:42

Quote:

Nahhh.. they are too busy trying to blame somebody else and demand they don't get treated so rudely when they break the rules... typical

You are trolling right now, you realize that?

What rules was tassadar breaking by uploading democracy game content?

There was no reason to ban people, for an innocent minded offence.

Snowflake · July 7, 2003, 09:52

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
Or a lot

That's a high risk route, though.

Agathon · July 7, 2003, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Remember Ming Math... +1 = -10%

I don't see a need to close this thread... since Sirotnikov was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned that people like him didn't know the rules, it's only fair to leave this as a monument to his ignorance of the rules so that others may learn from it

It's becoming more monumental by the day. (Feel free to dock me a post Ming, I don't wish to be credited for this one).

Ming · July 7, 2003, 10:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You are trolling right now, you realize that?

Not when it comes to discussing your restriction. You were the one that broke the rules... and you are the one that started this whine fest

Snowflake · July 7, 2003, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

What rules was tassadar breaking by uploading democracy game content?

I highly suspect that that was me. But I'm not complaining.

Spoiler:

(I'm joking)

DrSpike · July 7, 2003, 11:11

Ming trolling? I think he is just curious to see just how long the same whine can be stretched out. I too admit some curiosity...........either way it's pretty entertaining. The thread should stay.

mrmitchell · July 7, 2003, 12:06

Perhaps he means that others will learn not to spam from our example as well as not to upload from Siro's example.

EDIT: Oh yeah Ming. If +1 = -10%, if I figured out how to delete a post of mine could i get +10%? +1 = -10% so -1 = +10%.

Ming · July 7, 2003, 12:16

rah · July 7, 2003, 17:37

Somebody should suggest to MTG that he really needs to warn people before banning them.

Ming · July 7, 2003, 19:24

Why... He has more fun just banning them. That's the way he works.

Alexander's Horse · July 7, 2003, 19:27

Is +1 now an infraction? I didn't know that.

That is Siro's point.

Ming · July 7, 2003, 19:40

It is if it's considered spamming

And spamming has ALWAYS been against the rules... and that's MY point

Alexander's Horse · July 7, 2003, 19:51

Well you're the site's uber spammer so I guess you'd know spam when you see it.

mrmitchell · July 7, 2003, 19:56

Are we sure Ming can sniff out Spam?

http://www.smalltime.com/findthespam.html

Alexander's Horse · July 7, 2003, 20:05

My personal theory is Siro gets upset about these things because his parents didn't hit him enough or hard enough as a child.

There's nothing like some capricious parental violence to teach you to roll with the punches life dishes out.

Frozzy · July 7, 2003, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Are we sure Ming can sniff out Spam?

http://www.smalltime.com/findthespam.html

I can't find it!

Nubclear · July 7, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Are we sure Ming can sniff out Spam?

http://www.smalltime.com/findthespam.html

That website is disturbing

rah · July 8, 2003, 09:11

Just imagine his outrage if he had received a REAL punishment.

SpencerH · July 8, 2003, 09:25

I agree with Siro. Its the principle of the thing.

geeslaka · July 8, 2003, 10:07

I think Siro was just looking for a reason to complain. If such a thing happened to me I wouldn't complain, I'd assume they had a reason and look back over my activities, compare them with the rules, and figure out which one triggered the ban.

rah · July 8, 2003, 10:24

That would be too adult like.

Ming · July 8, 2003, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree with Siro. Its the principle of the thing.

I agree with the Owners of this private site... it's the principle of the thing. He broke THEIR rules, so they gave him a minor punishment.

Method · July 8, 2003, 11:14

i don't think it's the punishment that's the problem, simply that he wasn't even notified by PM that he was banned. that is annoying as hell

Aramis · July 8, 2003, 19:32

I am very grateful to the site owners for providing everyone with a site where we can post for free. Following their rules seems like the civil thing to do. Rules change (and that is the owners' right) and the users should try to keep up with the rules.
However, civility might also suggest that even a slap-on-the-wrist punishment be preceded by a PM, especially when rule changes appear to have happened suddenly, in the dark of a moonless, foggy night, with nobody around to notice.
We should respect the owners; they should repect the users. Ming should respect everybo--nah, he's fine the way he is (the exception that makes the rules worthwhile).
I hope to see more of this thread. It fascinates me and amuses me.

--rob

Ming · July 8, 2003, 19:36

Let's make the owners do a lot more extra work because somebody couldn't take the time to keep up with the rules... yeah, right...

"civility" is following the rules of a site that you are a member of... not demanding that the owners do even more work just because somebody broke a rule

Sirotnikov · July 8, 2003, 19:37

Quote:

I think Siro was just looking for a reason to complain. If such a thing happened to me I wouldn't complain, I'd assume they had a reason and look back over my activities, compare them with the rules, and figure out which one triggered the ban.

I had forgotten about a thing I did that wasn't even illegal when I did it.

And I recieved no PM.

*goes on strike*

geeslaka · July 8, 2003, 19:40

I think the reason why Ming hasn't closed this thread is because he knows that if he does Sirotnikov will start a new thread entitled "Was my thread closed? If so why?" and Ming doesn't want that to happen.

Sirotnikov · July 8, 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Let's make the owners do a lot more extra work because somebody couldn't take the time to keep up with the rules... yeah, right...

That remains your main arguement and it is still wrong.

Sending a PM to 12 people is probably easier than banning 12 people, and deleting 12 folders.

Furthermore, if instead of a personal PM, a single news post /announcement would have ben posted, then 1 action would have saved 12 bannings and 12 deletions.

See? I save the owners their time, and their civility.

Quote:

"civility" is following the rules of a site that you are a member of... not demanding that the owners do even more work just because somebody broke a rule

"civility" is letting people aware of the rules and making it clear when you are in breach, even if it may (or may not, as I argue) be "extra-work".

If dan and mark suddenly decide that posting their names is a sin and an illegal action, they can ban anyone they want to. But if they start banning people without even updating the FAQ, (not to mention making a news post) I would still consider it uncivil.