Was I banned? and if so why? - Page 6

Aramis · July 8, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
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

Okay, point taken. I agree with you--they shouldn't have to do extra work. Would it be possible to create some kind of an all-purpose PM from owners/admin (something they could just click on) that informs users that they've been banned? Being somewhat of a technophobe, I don't know about these things.
And I don't want to make more work for anybody--just something to think about on a rainy day or a sleepless night?--

r

Ming · July 8, 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

That remains your main arguement and it is still wrong.

Last time I checked, you were the one that was in the wrong.

Quote:

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

No... the files STILL had to be deleted... people broke the rules and had to be restricted, and a PM is not easier... it's MORE work.

Quote:

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.

Uhhh... the rules WERE posted... again, you want extra work.

Quote:

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

No... you've added work, and you are whining about it.

Quote:

"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".

No... the rules are clear, and posted... If you don't understand them or don't bother to read them, it's your problem... a little extra work on your part would have saved your fate. But no, you want the owners who already slave their butts off for you to do even more.
Why don't you do your share for a change...

Quote:

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.

But the rules are there... in black and white... so your example isn't even relevent...

You continue to be uncivil by asking them to do more work so you can be lazy and not do anything yourself...

So stop your whining... you were guilty of breaking a posted rule... it's that simple.

mrmitchell · July 8, 2003, 23:03

Ming, couldn't a little code (Markos would know...I don't know jack **** about php or vB) add an option in whutever ban page you have that says "Send PM" with a little box where you can type the reason?

It would create a form like:

You have been banned because of _______ from (date) to (date).

Frozzy · July 8, 2003, 23:17

MtG prefers the more personal touch

Ming · July 9, 2003, 00:55

Personally... so do I. I alway like to let the person know EXACTLY why they are banned. But it takes time... and when you are banning 12 people... it takes A LOT of time. And that's the point. It takes so little time to read the rules and be familiar with them...

And mrmitchell... to set up a hack also takes time... and who knows how it might mess things up... like some of the hacks have. It takes time to test them to make sure they are actually working right and not effecting anything else.

So who are the ones being rude and uncivil... the owners who work hard to give us this great free site, or the whiners who didn't take the little effort to know the rules... You be the judge

DrSpike · July 9, 2003, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
But it takes time... and when you are banning 12 people... it takes A LOT of time

How much time does it take to write the same message out like 5 times without repeating yourself verbatim?

In retrospect you would have saved yourself a lot of time by PM'ing him. But then we would have all missed the whinefest.

Rasbelin · July 9, 2003, 05:36

I just don't get why Siro himself didn't take any initiative to contact e.g. Ming by e-mail or with a PM to ask why he was banned, if so. Gee, would have saved time and that would frankly have been a more pro active manner to investigate why you are banned (if so), rather than wait and then start a new thread.

Ming · July 9, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
In retrospect you would have saved yourself a lot of time by PM'ing him. But then we would have all missed the whinefest.

I'm not the one responsible for that... The owners do the bannings for the uploads

I consider the time spent defending the owners honor from whiners well worth it

Alexander's Horse · July 9, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

*goes on strike*

Er, point of order - you can't go on strike unless they are paying you to post.

Thanks.

rah · July 9, 2003, 11:43

Can you imagine being his father and having to explain "WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY" every time you had to kick his A**?

Aramis · July 9, 2003, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
I consider the time spent defending the owners honor from whiners well worth it

It is not going too far to ask the owners (without whom the site would not exist) to do the civil thing and inform the users (without whom the site's existence would be pointless) why they were banned. It's not a question of creating more work--it has to do with inherent obligations.
It is not going too far to ask the users to keep current on rule changes--another inherent obligation. Sirotnikov had a legitimate gripe and expressed it. Ming came to the owners' defense but declared S "lazy." Sirotnikov should be satisfied with the initial explanation and drop the subject. Ming should understand that he is not conducting a 'defense of honor' by using "lazy."
Both sides made their points long back in this thread.
--

to both sides, rob

Ming · July 9, 2003, 12:08

But the whiners are in the wrong. The rules are posted... and "somebody" is making the owners out as non civil people because they didn't get a PM when they were banned. That is just crap. They want the owners to do even MORE work just because they didn't follow the rules... The whiners are responsible for their own actions... if they had taken the small amount of time to check the rules... but they didn't. And now the owners honor is being attacked because somebody else was lazy

Aramis · July 9, 2003, 12:18

Sirotnikov uploaded certain files prior to it being against the rules, right? He was banned later for having done it, after he'd forgotten. A slap on the wrist was justified. A PM letting him know would have been polite, and the owners not having done that is not an indictment that they are "uncivil people."
What honor is there to defend? Only the decision need be defended, and that's been done.

Ming · July 9, 2003, 12:23

Siro is calling his treatment UNCIVIL... so it IS an indictment that they are uncivil. So I am defending their honor from a whiner who was too lazy to check the rules.

Snowflake · July 9, 2003, 13:10

If one broke the rules, one shouldn't complain about being punished accordingly. And one should remind himself that he should be more careful in the future. Now a suggestion about a reminder before the punishment is understandable, and has its own merit. However, it has to be a suggestion, not a demand or request. The rules didn't say that a warning or explanation has to be issued accompany with the punishment. It will be some nice extra work if the owners do it. We would all appreciate it. But if they didn't do it, because they're busy, or any other reason, we should accept it. When we come to Poly we have accepted whatever rules the owners have. If we don't accept the rules, then we shouldn't even be here.

Harry Seldon · July 9, 2003, 13:24

Quote:

If we don't accept the rules, then we shouldn't even be here.

Those who don't like it can go to prospero. Maybe I should email my avatar around; it looks like there are some prime candidates for it.

Sirotnikov · July 9, 2003, 15:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Last time I checked, you were the one that was in the wrong.

I was breaking the rules but was not wrong.
You aren't breaking rules but are wrong

Quote:

No... the files STILL had to be deleted... people broke the rules and had to be restricted, and a PM is not easier... it's MORE work.

Not so because once a news piece (or a PM) were posted, all the 12 people would have known the rules are changed, and would have checked to see their files, and deleted them if need be.

I'm also a bit troubled because you think the people "had" to be restricted. I wish to remind you that restrictions or punishment in general, aren't the goal, but rather a method of getting the rules enforced.

Where a "hi, please remove your files" message would have sufficed, there is no reason to ban people.

Quote:

Uhhh... the rules WERE posted... again, you want extra work.

please refer me to a news item or an announcement about the update to the rules, that could be seen in the top of each forum, or in the right-side news bar, in the forums index.

Anyway, let's go over the added work of the PMs.

"hello dear user. you appear to have illegal files in your directory. please remove them."

12 x (copy + paste)

Quote:

No... you've added work, and you are whining about it.

You assume it's added work because you assume that the news or PMs would have done nothing to help.

I on the other hand believe that the pms or news posts would have alerted people breaking the current rules, and they would have removed their files themselves, adding a "sorry" note.

Quote:

No... the rules are clear, and posted... If you don't understand them or don't bother to read them, it's your problem... a little extra work on your part would have saved your fate. But no, you want the owners who already slave their butts off for you to do even more.
Why don't you do your share for a change...

The rules were not as clear when the feature first appeared. Furthermore I wasn't aware I had a file there.

If I had met a message warning abotu the rules change I would have checked to see if I wasn't by accident hosting illlegal files.

Since no announcements were made, and the rules changed, and given the fact I do not randomly check the uploading rules and regulations, I wasn't aware of breaking the law.

Quote:

But the rules are there... in black and white... so your example isn't even relevent...

It's great that they are there, but it's irrelevant.
The rules as they are now IIRC were rewritten after my postnig of the file. If they indeed apply retrospectively as well, people should have been made aware of it.

There's no point in making new laws, if no one knows about them.

Quote:

You continue to be uncivil by asking them to do more work so you can be lazy and not do anything yourself...

Not at all. My suggested way demands them only to post a news item or a PM. Once I encounter such an announcement the responsibility to check if I'm in line with the new regulations and to delete the files, lies on my shoulders.

However, since no announcements were made on the rules change, or about the fact that I infact host files in the upload section, I see myself as exempt from punishment by banning due to these mitigating circumstances.

Quote:

So stop your whining... you were guilty of breaking a posted rule... it's that simple.

A rule which was posted long after I had performed the actions breaking it, when I had already forgotten about the incident, and which was not brought to public knowledge using minimal announcement measure.

I was breaking the rules under these circumstances, yes.

But I wasn't clearly, knowingly and intentionally breaking a rule.

Thus, a simple "get rid of your file" message, would have done the trick, and the file would be history in a matter of 24 hours.

Sirotnikov · July 9, 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Can you imagine being his father and having to explain "WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY" every time you had to kick his A**?

I wish to remind you that corporal punishment of kids is illegal in Israel

Quote:

if they had taken the small amount of time to check the rules... but they didn't.

That would have been correct, in the case that the rules and regulations were intact when I had posted the file to the said service.

But that was not the case, at the time.

Had I posted a file in the recent weeks, without checking the rules, you would be correct. But the rules when the service was created, were not as clear.

DrSpike · July 9, 2003, 15:23

Ok it was funny before but please stop it now. Please.

Harry Seldon · July 9, 2003, 15:38

Ch***t! You'd think you were banned for weeks! It's one day! For the love of god, let it go!

Ming · July 9, 2003, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I was breaking the rules but was not wrong.

You were breaking the rules... You were WRONG... PERIOD

Quote:

Not so because once a news piece (or a PM) were posted, all the 12 people would have known the rules are changed, and would have checked to see their files, and deleted them if need be.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... remember, the rules were there for you to check... but you didn't. Posting it AGAIN would have been a waste of time... because nobody was bothering to check... you obviously didn't.

Quote:

I'm also a bit troubled because you think the people "had" to be restricted. I wish to remind you that restrictions or punishment in general, aren't the goal, but rather a method of getting the rules enforced.

Uhhh... obviously, just stating the rules wasn't enough... because you and 11 other people in this wave (and this was the second wave of restrictions) weren't playing by the rules. So a restriction SURE GOT YOUR ATTENTION, because the rules didn't.

Quote:

Where a "hi, please remove your files" message would have sufficed, there is no reason to ban people.

Maybe they were sick and tired of people that were ignoring the posted rules. A big deal was made when the first bunch were restricted... but that didn't make anybody go back and delete their files... So you do what is needed to get somebodies attention.

Quote:

please refer me to a news item or an announcement about the update to the rules, that could be seen in the top of each forum, or in the right-side news bar, in the forums index.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/misc....aq&page=12#187

It is VERY CLEAR when it states...
"What kind of files are accepted?
Only files related to the games we cover are accepted. NO ILLEGAL FILES will be tolerated. All uploads are logged!"

Seems pretty clear to me...

Quote:

You assume it's added work because you assume that the news or PMs would have done nothing to help.

Why should the owners continually have to remind people of the posted rules. They have better things to do then babysit a bunch of lazy people. The responsibility was yours, and you ignored YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Quote:

I on the other hand believe that the pms or news posts would have alerted people breaking the current rules, and they would have removed their files themselves, adding a "sorry" note.

That's one opinion... The fact is, the rules were posted... the Fact is, people were restricted once before and made a big deal about it... and people still didn't clean out their ILLEGAL files...

Quote:

If I had met a message warning abotu the rules change I would have checked to see if I wasn't by accident hosting illlegal files.

Yeah yeah yeah... you didn't even bother to check... whose fault is that.

Quote:

Since no announcements were made, and the rules changed, and given the fact I do not randomly check the uploading rules and regulations, I wasn't aware of breaking the law.

Then maybe you should check the rules every once in awhile... I don't think that's asking too much considering how much work the owners have put in. Maybe you should do something for a change...

Quote:

It's great that they are there, but it's irrelevant.

No... your excuse is irrelevent.

Quote:

There's no point in making new laws, if no one knows about them.

Do you know EVERY law for the country you live in. If you broke a law, do you think ignorance would be a valid excuse... No... ignorance is NOT an excuse.

Quote:

Not at all.

Bull... you were whining about your "uncivil" treatment.
So you WERE implying that the owners are uncivil. A fact.

Quote:

However, since no announcements were made on the rules change, or about the fact that I infact host files in the upload section, I see myself as exempt from punishment by banning due to these mitigating circumstances.

Right... you were in the wrong, but the rules shouldn't apply to you because you were ignorant... Take some responsibilities for your actions instead of trying to blame somebody else for YOUR MISTAKE.

Quote:

I was breaking the rules under these circumstances, yes.

FINALLY, an admission that he was wrong.

Quote:

But I wasn't clearly, knowingly and intentionally breaking a rule.

Again... your laziness was the cause.

rah · July 9, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I wish to remind you that corporal punishment of kids is illegal in Israel

In my opinion, that's part of the problem.

Agathon · July 9, 2003, 16:56

I smell 500 posts here. The Neverending Whiney.

Is Sirotnikov finished?

Will Ming ban him again out of sheer frustration?

Will Israel's bandwith be exhausted by these mega posts?

Tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel.

geeslaka · July 9, 2003, 17:40

I agree with Agathon, we're going to be reduced to hitting Siro over the head with a bat to shut him up.

mrmitchell · July 9, 2003, 17:53

It would seem that everyone in this thread was uncivil...the owners, by reference of Sirotnikov, for not telling him he was banned...Sirotnikov, as we heard from Ming, because he broke a rule and whined...and Ming, henceforth from me, because he left the goddamn piece of **** open.

However, now that I know it is the owners doing the banning for uploads, I remind Siro that 50% of the owners are in the army

and do not have any time to get on Apolyton....DanQ's doing news and ACSR, etc....do you really want to give them more of a hard time? Maybe you should join the Greek Army so you can tell Markos, because I'm sure he can't get on right now while he's training.

Geez, maybe if ACS were fully staffed the kindness would be a little more appropriate, but give the guys a ****in break, Siro! Mark's working his ass off in the army, Dan's working his ass off for all he can, and even with the new news editors etc. all the mods probably still have to work a little harder to make up for Markos's absence. Congratulations for doing a great job guys, and I hope Markos is having the best time he can in the army.

(Is it possible Markos could develop a psuedo"condition" like that asthmatic thing that Valedictorian ***** had in that thread a while back? Would that get him out? Hm...)

Sirotnikov · July 9, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

You were breaking the rules... You were WRONG... PERIOD

breaking the rules != was wrong in my claim.

Quote:

FINALLY, an admission that he was wrong.

uh-uh, I was breaking the rules - yes. I never denied that I was breaking the rules.

I am not wrong though in asking for better treatment than random restrictions, without being warned or been alerted of the rules.

Quote:

Uhhh... obviously, just stating the rules wasn't enough... because you and 11 other people in this wave (and this was the second wave of restrictions) weren't playing by the rules. So a restriction SURE GOT YOUR ATTENTION, because the rules didn't.

Obviously stating the rules won't get anybody's attention if you state it on a page that no one ever visits.

After I had posted my file, and forgot about it, I had no reason what so ever to visit the pages and see what the current rules for posting files are.

Had the rule changes been published site wide, just like new 'chat' features or something, I might have remembered I was hosting a file. In any case, it would have been more civil than this.

Quote:

Right... you were in the wrong, but the rules shouldn't apply to you because you were ignorant... Take some responsibilities for your actions instead of trying to blame somebody else for YOUR MISTAKE.

I'm not blaming anyone else for me hosting illegal files.

I'm blaming them for not taking steps to ensure people were aware of the new regulations, and having no warning mechanism, or explaining the reasons for the ban.

Quote:

Is Sirotnikov finished?

not until ming admits it would have been better to either publish the changes to the faq (in a place besides the faq, duh!) or send warnings

Quote:

Do you know EVERY law for the country you live in. If you broke a law, do you think ignorance would be a valid excuse... No... ignorance is NOT an excuse.

Quote:

Then maybe you should check the rules every once in awhile... I don't think that's asking too much considering how much work the owners have put in. Maybe you should do something for a change...

This is exactly my point.

I'm sure you don't know ALL the rules in your country, and you don't bother to check the rules book every 2 months.

Instead you rely mainly on the press to cover rules which were important to you.

Since here 'the press' constitutes the news feature and the announcements feature, and neither was used to alert people of harshened rules.

It's terribly funny that you claim that I didn't bother to read an announcement about the rules, when the only place it was published in is the Upload FAQ, and I had no reason to visit it AFTER I had hosted my file.

And when I did put my file, it was not clear it was illegal and what consequences would follow.

IIRC there was even someone suggesting to put large pics of oneself for the pictures thread, in the upload section. That certainly means at the time there was a broad definition of 'forum related files' and not only 'site related files'.

Furthermore, the upload feature seemed to be similar to the 'notepad feature' which was promoted by markg to "put ideas or future posts in".