UPNetwork

UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/index.php)
-   UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Aposteriori/DT/EG Part ∞ (http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=7995)

Jerichi 04-08-2017 07:41 AM

Aposteriori/DT/EG Part ∞
 
Hi all!

You might notice that both Aposteriori and EmeraldGoblin have been banned again. I'm sure to many of you this comes as no surprise. For a little background, EG/DT (suspected to be alts) were originally banned from the ASB (and later WF) for numerous attempts to game the system and generally take advantage of people and the game, as well as some bad behavior and less-than-mature conduct. While they were not totally at fault, their presence became incredibly disruptive, which resulted in their eventual ban. I had originally only given them both temporary though lengthy bans (perhaps out of some misguided benevolence), and allowed them to continue their presence on the forums after it was lifted, though without access to ASB/WF.

Of course, once they were unbanned, they turned their focus to FB, where their MO persisted in their constant attempts to game the system, hording Pokémon and bugging longtime members who had amassed a Pokémon on their own accord to try to coax them into trading them to be used as fodder. I will admit to not being entirely privy to all their actions, but the patterns I've seen through my research and having been informed of some of their actions are consistent with having not learned any lessons. The recent events in the FB TO only serve to show that they are not particularly suited to continuing in this community. As such, they have received a permanent ban. (regarding their Pokémon, the FB community can do with them as they see fit)

As an aside, I do want to apologize to the FB community for not taking action earlier and for not giving an appropriate ban originally.

As always, please let me know if you have any questions on the matter. I'd be glad to answer them privately or in this thread.

Thanks!

~Jeri

Snorby 04-08-2017 04:25 PM

Hallelujah.

Can we give away their SP?

In all seriousness, good call Jeri. I'm glad to see we're rid of them (him?) once and for all.

Zelphon 04-08-2017 05:13 PM

I never had a problem with him *shrug*

Doppleganger 04-08-2017 10:21 PM

Global ban wasn't appropriate. You could have simply banned the two from Clubs & Social Projects and restricted them to the main forum. If you were going to global ban, it should have happened after the inappropriate PASBL behaviour. Either of three scenarios play out after a Clubs ban:

1. The two, not wanting to leave UPN and what friends they have here, shift interest to the other forums
2. Without access to RP, they lose interest and withdraw from the community
3. They form alts and try to reenter PASBL/FB (justifying permanent ban)

Also I dislike discretionary bans on principle. Lines exist for the very reason to set boundaries on what you can and cannot do. Being unfun to play with or annoying to talk to is grounds for being ignored, not banned. Users should enforce community etiquette while mods enforce the rules.

Rangeet 04-08-2017 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 786886)
Global ban wasn't appropriate. You could have simply banned the two from Clubs & Social Projects and restricted them to the main forum. If you were going to global ban, it should have happened after the inappropriate PASBL behaviour. Either of three scenarios play out after a Clubs ban:

1. The two, not wanting to leave UPN and what friends they have here, shift interest to the other forums
2. Without access to RP, they lose interest and withdraw from the community
3. They form alts and try to reenter PASBL/FB (justifying permanent ban)

Also I dislike discretionary bans on principle. Lines exist for the very reason to set boundaries on what you can and cannot do. Being unfun to play with or annoying to talk to is grounds for being ignored, not banned. Users should enforce community etiquette while mods enforce the rules.

It's kinda funny.

I fundamentally agree with your basic point on public bans and discretionary bans which is why I sent a rather childish and scathing PM to Jeri after he did it in ASB.

But in retrospect, considering what he's done to the community (fun fact: Several people in he ASB was on verge of boycotting EG, basically saying they would not ref or battle with him, and some wanted to extend that to anyone who did ref or battle with him too), considering he's been manipulating everyone around him for years, considering he's been completely unapologetic for his repeated attempts at power grabs...I think this is perfectly justified.

UPN is a pretty tight-knit community and the major rule of UPN is "Don't be a massive dick." DT broke that rule, time and time again. This is no more of a discretionary ban than banning ObviousUser2010 was. This is a fully justified ban of someone who's been given a shitton of chances and pissed off everyone in power and often those below several times.

What's the point of banning him just from Clubs, then? He broke the main UPN-wide rule. Not just Clubs rules.

Doppleganger 04-09-2017 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangeet (Post 786889)

But in retrospect, considering what he's done to the community (fun fact: Several people in he ASB was on verge of boycotting EG, basically saying they would not ref or battle with him, and some wanted to extend that to anyone who did ref or battle with him too), considering he's been manipulating everyone around him for years, considering he's been completely unapologetic for his repeated attempts at power grabs...I think this is perfectly justified.

UPN is a pretty tight-knit community and the major rule of UPN is "Don't be a massive dick." DT broke that rule, time and time again. This is no more of a discretionary ban than banning ObviousUser2010 was. This is a fully justified ban of someone who's been given a shitton of chances and pissed off everyone in power and often those below several times.

What's the point of banning him just from Clubs, then? He broke the main UPN-wide rule. Not just Clubs rules.

Disclaimer: I know pretty much 0% about either poster. I don't know EG and only recognize Aposteriori by name and, if I recall, some insightful posts in the debate forum. That's it.

I'm objecting ONLY based on the justification that Jeri provided, which is consistent with my long-held stance against discretionary authority and long-held belief in community policing.

"being a dick" isn't really a rule because it is so subjective. There are attitudes or approaches that different posters take which set other people off, but are not intentionally malicious. I don't think UPN wants to be a community that is perceived as endorsing one set of views or one set of behaviour, since what brings us together is Pokemon, not politics or religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangeet (Post 786889)

UPN is a pretty tight-knit community and the major rule of UPN is "Don't be a massive dick." DT broke that rule, time and time again. This is no more of a discretionary ban than banning ObviousUser2010 was. This is a fully justified ban of someone who's been given a shitton of chances and pissed off everyone in power and often those below several times.

What's the point of banning him just from Clubs, then? He broke the main UPN-wide rule. Not just Clubs rules.

ObviousUser2010 was not a discretionary ban. He repeatedly engaged in trolling, baiting and was suspected of illegal alts. He may/may not have been warned multiple times (need confirmation). He would drop ad hominems too, which damicatz considered to be rule breaking (under abuse). He was openly malicious in every way from his topics to his username.

Blastoise was not a discretionary ban either, as he was engaging in trolling/baiting/abuse. I always believed that the feud between him and Talon could have been reduced by self-policing because Blastoise was more than capable of restraining himself. So far, I seem to have been proven right.

unownmew was a discretionary ban, but it was one that was more or less agreed upon by referendum. He didn't break any particular rule, but everyone who weighed in on the pedophilia topic agreed that it was a good justification for ban. The only objection was not to pedophilia but to baiting him into commenting on it, since baiting/trolling is a rule violation and his personality was very predictable while his extreme views widely disliked. But that was still UM's fault, since it takes two to tango (see the Blastoise case).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangeet (Post 786889)

What's the point of banning him just from Clubs, then? He broke the main UPN-wide rule. Not just Clubs rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger
If you were going to global ban, it should have happened after the inappropriate PASBL behaviour.

I don't know what rule you are talking about specifically, but Jeri's logic doesn't make sense and he admits as much in the OP. At no point was there any option for rehabilitation during the ban period because the two were permabanned from PASBL, removing any incentive to change their behaviour. So they set their sights on FB as a blank slate, rinse and repeat.

The proper courses of action were: a permanent forum-wide ban (most severe), a Clubs & Social Projects subforum ban (moderate severity) or a long temp ban with the option to return to PASBL (least severe).

#2 makes the most sense because FB should not have accepted players who got themselves permanently banned from PASBL. If you are Canada, do you accept an immigrant with a murder/rape conviction in the US? If they could not clean up their act in the game they were already vested in, why would they do so in a new one?

Jeri's ultimate choice was pretty much the worst option. The main forum loses a potential contributor, FB was terrorized, and the banned posters received inconsistent treatment regarding their transgressions in different RP which sets a bad precedent as it moves the ban into vaguer discretionary authority.

I understand that Jeri made a mistake, but from my POV this is the next step forward in the erosion of the rules from the UM situation five years ago, and such an erosion was the exact reason I disliked that decision back then.

Connor 04-09-2017 06:17 AM

Without trying to sound rude, Dopple, had you been involved in any of the situations these users caused over the years they have been here, you would know that a good deal of their behaviour falls squarely within your definitions of what justifies a ban.

Their behaviour absolutely baited other users into reacting in poor ways in an attempt to paint themselves (DT/EG) as the victim in the scenario, they regularly engaged in trolling other users for the sake of furthering the former. The ASB leadership received a number of complaints of them "cyber bullying" other users. Not to mention, if I'm being brutally honest anyone who interacted with them both and couldn't tell they were the same person (i.e. EG created the DT account as a means of circumventing his very first ban) then I don't know what to tell you because I could probably sell you a spoon under the pretense it was a knife.

I imagine Jeri didn't mention these reasons because the vast majority of the forum have either directly interacted with the banned member(s, if you want to believe that) and as such would already know what the more vague aspects of the reasoning allude to. It was a slight oversight to exclude that reasoning but in no way was this ban a mistake.

Lady Kuno 04-09-2017 07:04 AM

Having received a laundry list of complains about him over the years, I feel like Jeri made the right choice here.

Jerichi 04-09-2017 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 786886)
Global ban wasn't appropriate. You could have simply banned the two from Clubs & Social Projects and restricted them to the main forum. If you were going to global ban, it should have happened after the inappropriate PASBL behaviour. Either of three scenarios play out after a Clubs ban:

1. The two, not wanting to leave UPN and what friends they have here, shift interest to the other forums
2. Without access to RP, they lose interest and withdraw from the community
3. They form alts and try to reenter PASBL/FB (justifying permanent ban)

Also I dislike discretionary bans on principle. Lines exist for the very reason to set boundaries on what you can and cannot do. Being unfun to play with or annoying to talk to is grounds for being ignored, not banned. Users should enforce community etiquette while mods enforce the rules.

To me, it seems like you're assuming that ASB/FB/WF exist in some separate realm from the rest of the greater UPN community. I'm not sure if that's your intended implication, but it definitely reads that way. Since you're not an active member of any of these three communities, I don't expect you to understand their specific dynamics or understand the specific motivations and reasons for my ban, but I dislike the implication that I am only making this ban in the interest of these communities and not UPN as a whole.

Like it or not, a majority of our member base centers around these three games and having someone acting inappropriately and skirting the rules in them impacts the forum as a whole and our ability to retain members and have the kind of community that we pride ourselves in.

I also think you're dichotomy of mods as rule-enforcers and the community as conduct-enforcers is a false one - I too am a member of the community and as I hold power on the forum higher than that of the community, I must sometimes act outside a traditional moderator role to enforce the community's will. The fact of the matter is, outside of the Debate Forum, UPN has no real formal rules, so when I need to make decisions to benefit the community, these decisions must more often than not be discretionary.

I understand your concerns on principle, but frankly, you don't know enough about the situation (and have admitted as much) to judge my actions as right or wrong. I'd also like to remind you that, while we try to act as democratically and fairly as possible, this forum is not beholden to any formal structure or democratic system. While I strive to be fair and un-tyrannical,
I do ultimately have a fairly wide breadth of responsibilities and must sometimes go beyond the traditional role of a moderator to ensure things are kept civil and fun for everyone on UPN.

Doppleganger 04-09-2017 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Kuno (Post 786908)
Having received a laundry list of complains about him over the years, I feel like Jeri made the right choice here.

Complaints are an awful reason to justify a ban. That merely means the poster was disliked, not that they broke the rules.

For example, I am the most complained about employee at my workplace, by far, despite receiving the highest ratings on my performance evaluation. The reason is simply that I don't participate in the petty complaint pissing contest, so the totals for the other employees are lower, while mine look higher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 786909)
To me, it seems like you're assuming that ASB/FB/WF exist in some separate realm from the rest of the greater UPN community. I'm not sure if that's your intended implication, but it definitely reads that way. Since you're not an active member of any of these three communities, I don't expect you to understand their specific dynamics or understand the specific motivations and reasons for my ban, but I dislike the implication that I am only making this ban in the interest of these communities and not UPN as a whole.

I do consider Clubs & Social Projects a separate world but I do not believe that you are banning them only for the benefit of that subforum. I never shied away from the forum ban option in either scenarios I offered on your decision, only that you picked that option after what I felt was the weakest impetus for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 786909)

Like it or not, a majority of our member base centers around these three games and having someone acting inappropriately and skirting the rules in them impacts the forum as a whole and our ability to retain members and have the kind of community that we pride ourselves in.

Here I am getting mixed messages, as Connor outright accuses Aposteriori of rule-breaking offenses but your implication is that he merely rode the line, which is "evil" but "lawful". So what is it? I can't tell if you're trying to be diplomatic and let the audience speak for you or if Aposteriori, like UM, was merely a disliked poster who the community was hunting for an excuse to get rid of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 786909)

I also think you're dichotomy of mods as rule-enforcers and the community as conduct-enforcers is a false one - I too am a member of the community and as I hold power on the forum higher than that of the community, I must sometimes act outside a traditional moderator role to enforce the community's will. The fact of the matter is, outside of the Debate Forum, UPN has no real formal rules, so when I need to make decisions to benefit the community, these decisions must more often than not be discretionary.

I don't really consider anyone in power (ban authority) to be a true member of the community. You are above it, like a boat upon the ocean. If you take up the responsibility of police, you are obligated to be an officer at all times. Acting any other way makes you look less like police and more like a cowboy, and hurts the authority of your station.

Believe it or not, this is a real philosophy of mine and not merely tongue-in-cheek alignment role play. I am not friends with my sempais, teachers or bosses. How could I be? If they hold authority over me, that is the clear line of separation defining the boundary of acceptable behaviour, and it cannot be crossed.

At my workplace, I am obligated to be a robotic, all-knowing white coat. If one is anything but, the patients think one is incompetent and that creates friction with the community. One of our most talented doctors was fired because he was too friendly with the patients. They live depressing lives, are in the ER for depressing reasons, and have depressing outcomes - someone trying to lighten the mood instead makes them angry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerichi (Post 786909)

I understand your concerns on principle, but frankly, you don't know enough about the situation (and have admitted as much) to judge my actions as right or wrong. I'd also like to remind you that, while we try to act as democratically and fairly as possible, this forum is not beholden to any formal structure or democratic system. While I strive to be fair and un-tyrannical,

I do ultimately have a fairly wide breadth of responsibilities and must sometimes go beyond the traditional role of a moderator to ensure things are kept civil and fun for everyone on UPN.

I don't really care about democracy, only tyranny. Justifying a ban under trolling/baiting/abuse is fair game to me even if there's a fair amount of discretionary judgment involved in that, provided there is either a wide body of unconvincing evidence, a small amount of decisive evidence, or some combination of the two. It sounds like there's grounds for this.

But your language choice is leading me toward a direction that is decidedly not that, which is why I went out and objected to it.

Semantics? Maybe. Let me go into a story.

As a tendency, certain individuals who enjoy riding the line tend to love clearly defined boundaries and dislike discretion. I was banned from BMG because Archaic was jealous of my post count, and I was banned from Anime News Network for actual rule-breaking ad hominems despite months of relentless, venomous trolling. I am still bitter about the former, and I strongly remember being unable to say anything online while September 11 was going on and the rest of BMG went on without me, while I have no regrets about ANN and have closed the book on that chapter in my life.

UPN doesn't have to be an Answerman-ANN, but it needs to be as far away from Archaic-BMG as possible. No Archaic was the original reason I signed up for the Kuno UPN in the first place!

I bought the UM ban after the referendum and I can also buy an argument that a user could be so toxic they're threatening the community's very existence. I would always prioritize the many over the few, and so would support a ban in that case.

But you have to phrase it like that!

Lady Kuno 04-09-2017 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 786927)
Complaints are an awful reason to justify a ban. That merely means the poster was disliked, not that they broke the rules.

You know I'm very laissez faire when it comes to moderating. I try to get people to resolve their own differences instead of stepping in. However this was a case where I felt like I needed to step in.

In regards to your work comparison, if the best employee constantly steals my lunch, I don't care if he's the best employee he's kind of a dick and their being there is counterproductive to everyone else, even if they are the best.

Doppleganger 04-09-2017 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Kuno (Post 786929)
You know I'm very laissez faire when it comes to moderating. I try to get people to resolve their own differences instead of stepping in. However this was a case where I felt like I needed to step in.

In regards to your work comparison, if the best employee constantly steals my lunch, I don't care if he's the best employee he's kind of a dick and their being there is counterproductive to everyone else, even if they are the best.

Isn't stealing a crime though? =3=

With regard to the pissing contest, I should clarify a bit: I am, probably, the only person in the hospital who is liked by everybody across the departments. I know for a fact that my coworkers hate one another because I hear the badmouthing personally behind the other's backs. But that doesn't mean I'm still not a target for the petty things like not buying dish soap or not brewing coffee. My boss didn't let such stupid complaints taint her impression of me during the performance evaluation.

Snorby 04-09-2017 03:08 PM

Dopple, you've said yourself that you know nothing about EG/Apost. You've said yourself that you would have supported banning him several months ago permanently. Your stated reasons for suddenly being against the ban are that he didn't break a forum wide rule (when there isn't a codified list of forum wide rules for him to have broken afaik and if there was I assure you he would have checked loads of boxes on that list), and that... it didn't happen soon enough? Neither of these really make any sense. This magical time limit you're trying to impose where somebody doing a ban-worthy thing is unbannable because they've been doing the banworthy thing for months doesn't actually exist, and the list of UPN-wide rules you want someone to have broken to get banned doesn't actually exist either.

To be perfectly honest you just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and given how volatile a subject this person has been for the UPN community over the past several years it frankly isn't appreciated.

Doppleganger 04-09-2017 03:26 PM

My logic is consistent if you start with the first post.

1. Jeri should have issued the global ban from the very beginning, after the PASBL disaster, if the crimes warranted it. Nobody has outright said Aposteriori was threatening the community's foundations, but if that was the case, he had to go. This is 100% on Aposteriori.

2. Aposteriori repeating the same behavour in FB becomes unfair because, same action, different (more severe) punishment. You can't argue that Aposteriori didn't learn his lesson, thus justifying the harsher punishment, because the temp ban from the whole forum did not offer any guidance for rehabilitation at all. It might as well have never been levied. FB is also traumatized. Jeri had to violate his own precedent (consistency dictating a ban from FB only) to set things right, but in doing so had to exercise discretionary authority.

3. I dislike discretionary authority even if it's done for the right reasons. I view it as inherently bad, and voiced as much.

Heather 04-10-2017 06:33 PM

Jeri was lenient with Apost once, and that proved a mistake as once given the opportunity, they picked up the same old crap. When I see a ping badge on my Discord app with the number 7 on it, I expect to see 7 messages that actually merit my attention, not essentially a towerpost of "come back to this RP that you at this moment have told me you have no interest in returning to because the things you didn't like are gone!! I promise!!" But the latter is what I got from Apost, specifically trying to get me to participate in the FB Pelago event which would have undoubtedly been supposed to land me some Pokemon that Apost would then request I trade to him for whatever so that he could build his stockpile.

That is how Apost works. That is how he always worked. Even if some of the ideas/suggestions he had for things like ASB/etc were semi decent, they all in some way were to his own benefit. If he bothered to do anything, there was some personal gain for him in the end. Furthermore, he had no concept of the meaning of the word "no" and would continue to pester ad infinitium, even if he was refused. Any time we called him out on it, he would blatantly twist words and meaning to paint himself as the poor victim while everyone else, even those just voicing an honestly valid complaint, were the big bullies who needed to leave him alone, because he could never be at fault for anything. So yes, I'm glad Apost is gone because they were objectively toxic. It's entirely fair that they got the more severe consequences by unapologetically repeating the behavior that got them the first disciplinary action in the first place, that's how this tends to go, anyway, because this is the real world where eventually you stop having second chances.

Jerichi 04-10-2017 07:17 PM

I'd like to also point out that not only was EG banned before Apost was for the same behavior (and there is a very good chance that Apost was EG's alt in at least some capacity), but Apost was also given a shorter temporary ban and told why he was banned and how to improve before his permanent ban from ASB/WF. They were told on multiple occasions that their behavior was not welcome and continuing to disregard my warnings would result in harsher punishment.

Surely enough that happened.and I kept my promise on multiple occasions.

deoxys 04-11-2017 12:43 PM

I'm sorry Dopple, I really just don't see the problem with banning someone who has been given multiple chances, over and over again, including slaps on the wrist and short-term sub-forum bans and forgiven a dozen times despite it all -- and yet still persisted in their behavior and taking advantage of the forum's laid-back moderation (which is not surprising, since taking advantage of others seemed to be a pretty common theme here)

Zelphon 04-11-2017 05:05 PM

#BringBackDT

deoxys 04-11-2017 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelphon (Post 787130)
#BringBackDT

Found DT's sockpuppet account

/s

Doppleganger 04-11-2017 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys (Post 787120)
I'm sorry Dopple, I really just don't see the problem with banning someone who has been given multiple chances, over and over again, including slaps on the wrist and short-term sub-forum bans and forgiven a dozen times despite it all -- and yet still persisted in their behavior and taking advantage of the forum's laid-back moderation (which is not surprising, since taking advantage of others seemed to be a pretty common theme here)

I bet you would have been a loyalist to King George, too.

Sneaze 04-12-2017 02:17 AM

...so for the record DT 100% did literally participate in baiting for the sake of causing disarray. Fuck, he did it about a week prior to the ban by coming at me in the middle of a fairly important discussion as to the poor state of FB in FB's TO, going so far as to double post just to call me out as vitriolic after having made a single post suggesting the leadership of said game step down. And this was incredibly blatant baiting, which I admittedly did fall for and go off on him over. He's had a long standing series of issues with myself and after having not responded to the man since his ASB ban a year prior for him to explicitly single me out for the sake of starting an argument was just above and beyond all the things he has been warned about in the past to the same regard. And I am not the only person he has done this to during his time here.

Stealthy 04-12-2017 04:29 PM

In the immortal words of Kush:

GOOD JOB ON TROLLING


RIP EG. May we never see his like again.

deoxys 04-12-2017 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthy (Post 787200)
In the immortal words of Kush:

GOOD JOB ON TROLLING


RIP EG. May we never see his like again.

What if Kush was DT the whole time? What if I'M DT, and also Kush?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 787151)
I bet you would have been a loyalist to King George, too.

That's not a counterargument

Celebii151 04-12-2017 10:26 PM

I personally don't think he deserved to be banned, but I don't disagree that him being banned is better for the greater UPN community. Whether this justifies the ban or not, I'm not certain.

Doppleganger 04-13-2017 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys (Post 787230)
That's not a counterargument

Were you actually looking for one? There's already a lot of words in this topic, please attempt purview them again.

Or, tl;dr - from what has been said here, I don't see Aposteriori's unbanning as a second chance, but rather a completely clean slate, because all of his crimes applied to PASBL and not another RP.

To me, this is like being banned from StarCraft II for cheating, but then being allowed to play (and cheat) at StarCraft. Which Activision-Blizzard actually allows, so it's not like this logic is unique to me.

I don't fault Jeri for punishing a troublesome member of the community, I'm faulting him for a technicality, because I'm very militantly pro-letter of the law.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.