2018-10-11 12:59:30 (edited by GauravSharma 2018-10-11 13:41:42)

Ironcross32  raised some really good points in post 66, and in post 69 he  it seemed he got really, really pissed off from that guy who is using blindness to seek attention as well as disregarding the need for professional help! I bet he was trying to help, albeit in post 69 he might've gone kind of extreme in his language due to his anger.

Deep in our hearts is a capacity of infinite good or infinite evil. What path we choose is up to us.
In the end, we all have to meet the same fate-the oblivion of nonexistance, an event horizon from where not even thought can emerge...

Thumbs up +1

2018-10-11 13:03:42

@gaurav wouldn't you be pissed off?

you can't run from the darkness. we are everywhere.

2018-10-11 13:08:49

Of course I will. I never ever use my disability and expect special treatment from anybody, heck I tell people to treat me like they treat normal guys. @Caccio72, you need professional help. Addicting to online communication hasn't helped anybody, and it wouldn't help you, rather it'll toss you in the pits of depression. So, while I agree online communication does has it's merits, but it's only good when kept in a limit.

Deep in our hearts is a capacity of infinite good or infinite evil. What path we choose is up to us.
In the end, we all have to meet the same fate-the oblivion of nonexistance, an event horizon from where not even thought can emerge...

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 13:14:56 (edited by JaceK 2018-10-11 13:17:46)

I'm still arguing Caxio was in the wrong for his attitude to blasting Webl for this and that and crying 'discrimination' when none existed from what we have all been shown. I'll also argue that okay, Iron crosed a line, but I at least understand his anger and frustration. Caxio kept dodging the issue and all but said the staff at Webl 'should have known' what banning him there did. No, they shouldn't because he's not the only  person on Webl, or only

one who got gagged. If he hadn't tirled people up on Webl he wouldn't have got banned.

To adress an earlier point, yes. It may well be a mistake to tell people you're blind, or you 'ddepend' on online communication or it's i'important' to you...when you don't fully know what they're up to, or their minds are at. Or you just give them more fuel to torch you with if you do something to piss them off. Like if Gorav for instance, told me hwas blind then he started pising me off I'd fully use his blindness against him. Would that be right? No. But that's a part of human nature to use weakensses against people. None of us have access to the forums. I'd hope Powerlil would jump back in and clear up things however, but I'm reaching here and let's say for argument's sake Caxio is similar on Webl's forums, especially to people who have differing viewpoinsts..as evidenced by this topic....I'd fully expect people to retaliate against him if he comes out swinging and being all YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!! types really. I'd expect people to fire right back and use what he's told them against him. Because internet and humanity.

EDIT: Something that just came to me. Caxio isn't the only one with issues online. Or the only blind player on Webl or indeed blind person in the internet. Webl shouldn't drop everything to cater to one person, at all. As I've pointed out, their site. Their rules....but Caxio, or anyone cannot hide behind being blind or having 'needs' to excuse a frankly shitty attitude at all.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 13:40:17

The ban is not because of this discussion. Post 69 was the tipping point, not the raison entier. Making it about Ironcross Vs Caccio misses the point of both the ban and this topic.

Some of my games
Keep up to date by following @Jeqofire on twitter!
Ear Ninja?

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 15:02:32

Cae jones is correct as regards Ironcross' ban from the forum, its nothing to do with this particular debate actually, just with Ironcross' reaction to it, and his cumulative reaction to many other situations in the past.

Remember the rules on this forum, disagree with the issue not the person and you will be fine.

With our dreaming and singing, Ceaseless and sorrowless we! The glory about us clinging Of the glorious futures we see,
Our souls with high music ringing; O men! It must ever be
That we dwell in our dreaming and singing, A little apart from ye. (Arthur O'Shaughnessy 1873.)

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 15:11:03

But that last reaction is entirely understandable. It's a cumulative reaction to Caxio's posts in this topic. If Caxio hadn't brought up disability and used it how he had Iron wouldn't be banned however. Iron had enough of Caaxio's attitude and called him out on it. Porly worded? Maybe. Up for debate. Is Caxio innocent? Absolutely not. BUt if he hadn't started this topic Iron wouldn't have gone off on him. Or if he'd have backed down when you'd said in post 60 something about there being no discrimination, Iron wouldn't have had a reason to go off on him though. Iron's blunt and to the point, yes..but.....he's also made a lot of contributions and to be fair nobody on this forum is exactly innocent of geting angry and going off on people however, we've all done it, myself included.

And to get this back to the OP's topic...I'll also point out Webl is actually generally a nice place. Joined up last night with a diferent name and had pleasant experiences talking to people, so I'm still of the opinion if you're a dick on their forums they'll give you what's coming. On second thought that's a good lesson for the whole internet though, Don't be a giant dick and wave cards around and scream about things that don't go your way and don't go making accusations without proof at al then bitch and maon when opposing views are presented that you don't agree with, and don't belittle or bait people into crossing a line.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 20:33:27

I thought for sure the game he was talking about was red spot lol....all the complaining/bitching posts about red spot admins in the past has me a bit paranoid I suppose

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 21:08:11 (edited by Ethin 2018-10-11 21:19:43)

Whether Ironcross's ban was based on cumulative behavior or not, IMO, is entirely irrelevan't; post 69 did not violate any forum rules whatsoever. If your going to ban people based on 'cumulative behavior' because they got pissed off at someone who wouldn't listen, you might as well ban everyone -- everyone on this forum is guilty of that very same thing. No matter how many times you preach civility, you cannot keep civility if you try to help someone, or try to say things, or try to give advice, and no one listens to it. I've been far less civilized -- why haven't I gotten banned? Hell, my post in this topic was far less civil than Ironcross's was. He didn't even get a warning -- it was just an outright ban, for what appears to be no reason at all other than 'cumulative behavior', which is entirely ambiguous. Hell, the rules on this forum are quite ambiguous as is. They state, "Be nice to each other and respect the moderators." According to acceptable behavior in society, and the various rules of social etiquette, what Ironcross did is not only extremely understandable, but perfectly civil: he was trying to help someone, and he told them countless times various ways they could resolve the issues they had, and since the person who he was trying to help didn't listen, he got fed up and was blunt about it instead of being all super duper nice and cuddly. And whether someone admits it or not, anyone else would've reacted the same way. Therefore, I consider this ban entirely unjustified, and quite ambiguous. If your going to be Banning Ironcross for "cumulative behavior" you might as well ban a shit ton of members on this forum, because almost everyone has broken the rules on here, and many of them have been given way too much leeway, and others have been given not so much leeway, and you either need to make up your minds -- either enforce the same restrictions on everyone, no matter who they are, or don't enforce them at all. You cannot ban someone because of "cumulative behavior" and not ban someone else who you know has done the same thing, if not worse, such as myself, and continue looking good. That's not how rules work -- its one or the other: enforce all of them or enforce none of them. Under the "rules" you should be hitting that "ban" button a lot more than you guys are. I won't go naming names, but all you need do to prove my point about rules enforcement is to look about a page or two back, when flames were really hot. Every time there's been flame wars that have gone far beyond the bounds of what's considered civil behavior [anywhere] you've closed topics. Its gotten quite rare when you've actually banned someone for a reason that anyone would find perfectly reasonable and legitimate. And, despite the fact that this post was entirely 100-percent civilized in every way, I suspect that the mods will ban me anyway, which will only prove my point. So mods, please, please go look back at the rules you supposedly enforce and take a look at the reasons you've banned people in the past. I'm not insulting you; I'm trying to help this forum be better, and this constant changing between "oh, lets enforce the rules on x but not enforce the rules on y" or "oh, this guy went far beyond the bounds of civil behavior but we'll just close the topic and not actually do anything about it that enforces our rules other than throw around warnings" needs to end. If you continuously throw around warnings, people will start simply ignoring your warnings and continue acting that way because your warnings no longer have any power or value. Doing that is one way to reduce the amount of influence you have, especially in a large community such as the AG.NET forum, and reduces the value of warnings, and soon enough, people will simply ignore you because your warnings will be entirely meaningless. They aren't right now, but keep this up and they will very soon become meaningless.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +3

2018-10-11 21:58:38

I just read through this entire topic, and I completely agree with Ethin here. Brandon really didn't go that far with his post, and it was a completely just action.  The guy kept on and on and Brandon finally got sick of it. I would have acted the same way, maybe even worse. Ethin's above post and people who have started flame wars in the past including myself were way worse than post 69, so why haven't we been banned yet? If you're going to be fair, you need to ban everyone else who has caused trouble or contributed to the fire, which among the 5 or so people would be Ethin and me.

If anyone wants to add me on Skype, it's garrett.brown2014.

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 22:03:13

I agggree with Ethin. I see it as unfair for Ironcross to be banned purely based on cumulative behavior when he hasn't broken any of the forum rules. It was unjustified. I see that as a dictatorial move suppressing people's right to speech, when he wasn't in the rwrong.

Power is not the responsibility of freedom, but it is actually the responsibility of being responsible, it's self, because someone who is irresponsible is enslaved by their own weaknesses.

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 22:17:48

Uh....Tech, there's no 'right to speech' on a private forum, you agreed to their rules when signing up. However...I'd say this is a fine time to discuss among everyone any possible rule changes really, seems now is as good a time as ever to hash out rules. If anything....I'd still say context is king. PUt Iron's post in the context of the whole thread, Caxio was aggravating everyone and bringing disability in, which he should know will set people off, and Iron was set off. Now if I was a mod I'd have stepped in there and told him with a moderator mesage to stop going on about disability and bringing that up for zero reason, and if he'd have contiued, I would, as a hypothetical mod, have warned him after teling him to knock it off.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up +1

2018-10-11 22:24:54

I'd have done what Dark originally did, close the topic to shut down the flame war, then decide what warnings or other action is called for, and just leave the topic closed.

Any discussions about whether the moderators actions were warrented or not, or about rules and their enforcement could be held in another appropriately titled thread.

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 23:15:34

@88, again, my point still stands -- the ban was entirely unjustified, ambiguous cumulative behavior or not.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-10-11 23:39:37

Moderation!

This topic is also being re-closed before matters become even more acrimonious once again.

With our dreaming and singing, Ceaseless and sorrowless we! The glory about us clinging Of the glorious futures we see,
Our souls with high music ringing; O men! It must ever be
That we dwell in our dreaming and singing, A little apart from ye. (Arthur O'Shaughnessy 1873.)

Thumbs up