|
Message Blazinghand if you request a ban please ^_^
Also when the game you're sitting out is over! |
On March 08 2016 04:39 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 04:34 justanothertownie wrote:On March 08 2016 04:29 Blazinghand wrote:
So, it sounds like there's substantial disagreement about whether or not this is reasonably a ban. I am inclined to err on the side of caution and approve a warning. I'll check back after work to see if there's any more input then make a decisino. How about you read the passage in question and see for yourself?! There isn't the slightest bit of doubt that Kush knew fully well that what he did wasn't acceptable. Look at the pm he just posted - if you read this do you conclude that it would be acceptable to quote directly from your qt? No, you wouldn't. Kush claims that he is incredibly stupid but the stuff he posted in the game and the pm prove without a doubt that he knew better. Honest mistake? We are talking about a guy who smurfed into an all newbie game to have an easier time beating up inexperienced people. I'm not calling myself stupid. Of course I realized it should have been illegal. That's why I sent kita the PM in the first place. However, I did not assume that Kita thought it should be illegal. I thought maybe he didn't realize the full power of it.
Cool. Then the case is closed since the pm Kita send you is impossible to interpret like he thinks it is legal. You purposefully tried to break the game with something "you realized it should have been illegal". How is this still an argument?
|
On March 08 2016 04:42 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 04:39 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:On March 08 2016 04:34 justanothertownie wrote:On March 08 2016 04:29 Blazinghand wrote:
So, it sounds like there's substantial disagreement about whether or not this is reasonably a ban. I am inclined to err on the side of caution and approve a warning. I'll check back after work to see if there's any more input then make a decisino. How about you read the passage in question and see for yourself?! There isn't the slightest bit of doubt that Kush knew fully well that what he did wasn't acceptable. Look at the pm he just posted - if you read this do you conclude that it would be acceptable to quote directly from your qt? No, you wouldn't. Kush claims that he is incredibly stupid but the stuff he posted in the game and the pm prove without a doubt that he knew better. Honest mistake? We are talking about a guy who smurfed into an all newbie game to have an easier time beating up inexperienced people. I'm not calling myself stupid. Of course I realized it should have been illegal. That's why I sent kita the PM in the first place. However, I did not assume that Kita thought it should be illegal. I thought maybe he didn't realize the full power of it. Cool. Then the case is closed since the pm Kita send you is impossible to interpret like he thinks it is legal. You purposefully tried to break the game with something "you realized it should have been illegal". How is this still an argument?
You shoudln't be banned for breaking a game if you aren't doing anything against the rules. That's just playing to your wincon.
And I did interpret kita's pm as that he thought it should be legal. The subject of the pm was "Can you clarify?" He clarified the rules regarding pms by saying you can't link to them. So one would assume that because he omitted quoting in his list of things that are illegal, quoting is therefore legal.
|
|
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On June 09 2014 23:31 kitaman27 wrote:
After receiving a ban, players have the opportunity to contest the ban and argue why it may be unfair. It's pretty common for someone to have the length of their ban reduced as a result. However, kush has the unique ability to get his ban extended when speaking on his own behalf.
On February 25 2014 11:35 kushm4sta wrote:
nah i totally meant gay=bad. being afk is gay (read bad/lame), therefore gayfk. Being gay is fine for gay people but for me it's like hell no i would never do that!
User was temp banned for this post.
haha I'm getting flashbacks to this.
REMEMBER KUSH, HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO SPEAK FOR YOU.
|
On March 08 2016 04:45 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2014 23:31 kitaman27 wrote:
After receiving a ban, players have the opportunity to contest the ban and argue why it may be unfair. It's pretty common for someone to have the length of their ban reduced as a result. However, kush has the unique ability to get his ban extended when speaking on his own behalf. Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 11:35 kushm4sta wrote:
nah i totally meant gay=bad. being afk is gay (read bad/lame), therefore gayfk. Being gay is fine for gay people but for me it's like hell no i would never do that!
User was temp banned for this post. haha I'm getting flashbacks to this. REMEMBER KUSH, HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO SPEAK FOR YOU.
Too late now.
|
Kita, that quote just proves my integrity. I won't lie to make myself look better.
|
On March 08 2016 04:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Here you go: Show nested quote +Original Message From kitaman27: yeah that's not allowed. I've updated the PM section of the OP in case it wasn't clear. Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
I couldn't find in the rules, but there should be a rule against showing the thread your qt.
Town could make everyone post their qt then scum would be right fucked. So I thought Kita thought I meant showing the thread your QT as in linking it, which was what he changed the OP to include.
So, Kush thought quoting from the qt should be illegal. He just admitted that. Can anyone explain to me how this pm can possibly be interpreted the way he claims? It cannot.
He asked if something was ok. Kita said it wasn't ok. He therefore concluded something more specific is ok from this pm?! It doesn't make sense.
|
On March 08 2016 04:53 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 04:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Here you go: Original Message From kitaman27: yeah that's not allowed. I've updated the PM section of the OP in case it wasn't clear. Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
I couldn't find in the rules, but there should be a rule against showing the thread your qt.
Town could make everyone post their qt then scum would be right fucked. So I thought Kita thought I meant showing the thread your QT as in linking it, which was what he changed the OP to include. So, Kush thought quoting from the qt should be illegal. He just admitted that. Can anyone explain to me how this pm can possibly be interpreted the way he claims? It cannot. He asked if something was ok. Kita said it wasn't ok. He therefore concluded something more specific is ok from this pm?! It doesn't make sense.
Originally I took it in the general sesne that showing your QT of any kind was not okay. That's why I didn't ask about it more.
Then Marv did it and nothing happened to him.
And Marv showed me the OP, which only referred to linking to your QT.
So that lead me to believe that Kita interpreted my question as specifically regarding to linking the QTs.
|
On March 08 2016 04:53 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 04:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Here you go: Original Message From kitaman27: yeah that's not allowed. I've updated the PM section of the OP in case it wasn't clear. Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
I couldn't find in the rules, but there should be a rule against showing the thread your qt.
Town could make everyone post their qt then scum would be right fucked. So I thought Kita thought I meant showing the thread your QT as in linking it, which was what he changed the OP to include. So, Kush thought quoting from the qt should be illegal. He just admitted that. Can anyone explain to me how this pm can possibly be interpreted the way he claims? It cannot. He asked if something was ok. Kita said it wasn't ok. He therefore concluded something more specific is ok from this pm?! It doesn't make sense.
nh, while i always enjoy a little banlist drama it seems to me that if
- the player in question
- the host
- the other players in the game
- BH
all seem to be fine with just a warning or 1-game ban, after three pages of arguing it's probably time for everyone else to just get out of the way. you've been heard
also...<3! hi jat ^^ pm me when you're playing again so i can play with you? pretty please?
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
i knew it was wrong and bad but i just got really mad and my emotions took over.
You also sent me this one.
Typically if you know something is "wrong and bad" you don't do it, regardless of whether it was explicitly mentioned. You ask the host if there is something that you aren't completely sure about, rather than doing it anyway and posting "lol is this allowed?"
Personally, I don't really care if you are banned and have to miss a week or if you're just warned. Since you're already playing Noir, you could probably just sit out Haunted and by the time both are finished it doesn't impact you at all. It's not like we're deciding whether to lock you up for life or not. It's more important that you understand the effect it has on the game and don't try something that "should be illegal" in the future.
|
On March 08 2016 05:07 rsoultin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 04:53 justanothertownie wrote:On March 08 2016 04:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Here you go: Original Message From kitaman27: yeah that's not allowed. I've updated the PM section of the OP in case it wasn't clear. Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
I couldn't find in the rules, but there should be a rule against showing the thread your qt.
Town could make everyone post their qt then scum would be right fucked. So I thought Kita thought I meant showing the thread your QT as in linking it, which was what he changed the OP to include. So, Kush thought quoting from the qt should be illegal. He just admitted that. Can anyone explain to me how this pm can possibly be interpreted the way he claims? It cannot. He asked if something was ok. Kita said it wasn't ok. He therefore concluded something more specific is ok from this pm?! It doesn't make sense. nh, while i always enjoy a little banlist drama it seems to me that if - the player in question - the host - the other players in the game - BH all seem to be fine with just a warning or 1-game ban, after three pages of arguing it's probably time for everyone else to just get out of the way. you've been heard also...<3! hi jat ^^ pm me when you're playing again so i can play with you? pretty please?
The thing is:
The player in question.
The host.
The other players in the game.
All know that Kush did this knowing better. How can people argue about banning people who aren't voting ONCE and let this guy get away with a warning for doing something far worse? This is bullshit. But I made my point. If BH wants to let this banlist be a joke he can do that.
Sure, I can pm you but since normal minis don't seem to get hosted lately I don't know when I will feel the urge to play again.
|
On March 08 2016 05:08 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
i knew it was wrong and bad but i just got really mad and my emotions took over. You also sent me this one. Typically if you know something is "wrong and bad" you don't do it, regardless of whether it was explicitly mentioned. You ask the host if there is something that you aren't completely sure about, rather than doing it anyway and posting "lol is this allowed?" Personally, I don't really care if you are banned and have to miss a week or if you're just warned, but it's more important that you understand the effect it has on the game and don't try something that "should be illegal" in the future.
It's like back when I used to play Starcraft 2, protoss could do these unstoppable canon rushes on some maps. Do you blame the protoss players, or do you change the maps?
I started out trying to play a macro game but I got raged and resorted to the canon rush.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Ehh, sorry if I'm coming off that way JAT, in general I know people are concerned I'm overzealous with bans so I'm trying to be a bit more cautious if that makes sense? I'm not saying "I, Blazinghand, think a warning is the best here" because I personally do not think that. I don't want to be the one pushing for a ban though because I think the primary concern people brought up about me running the ban list is that I am overeager to ban people for this kind of thing. I want to help, rather than like hurt people and the situation. Which is why I am soliciting comments, if that makes sense.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
lol I think we've reached the point of arguing for the sake of arguing so it's probably time for BH to flip a coin or do whatever he does to decide things. 
|
On March 08 2016 05:11 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 05:07 rsoultin wrote:On March 08 2016 04:53 justanothertownie wrote:On March 08 2016 04:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Here you go: Original Message From kitaman27: yeah that's not allowed. I've updated the PM section of the OP in case it wasn't clear. Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
I couldn't find in the rules, but there should be a rule against showing the thread your qt.
Town could make everyone post their qt then scum would be right fucked. So I thought Kita thought I meant showing the thread your QT as in linking it, which was what he changed the OP to include. So, Kush thought quoting from the qt should be illegal. He just admitted that. Can anyone explain to me how this pm can possibly be interpreted the way he claims? It cannot. He asked if something was ok. Kita said it wasn't ok. He therefore concluded something more specific is ok from this pm?! It doesn't make sense. nh, while i always enjoy a little banlist drama it seems to me that if - the player in question - the host - the other players in the game - BH all seem to be fine with just a warning or 1-game ban, after three pages of arguing it's probably time for everyone else to just get out of the way. you've been heard also...<3! hi jat ^^ pm me when you're playing again so i can play with you? pretty please? The thing is: The player in question. The host. The other players in the game. All know that Kush did this knowing better. How can people argue about banning people who aren't voting ONCE and let this guy get away with a warning for doing something far worse? This is bullshit. But I made my point. If BH wants to let this banlist be a joke he can do that. Sure, I can pm you but since normal minis don't seem to get hosted lately I don't know when I will feel the urge to play again.
AtE
|
On March 08 2016 05:11 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 05:07 rsoultin wrote:On March 08 2016 04:53 justanothertownie wrote:On March 08 2016 04:25 nnn_thekushmountains wrote:Here you go: Original Message From kitaman27: yeah that's not allowed. I've updated the PM section of the OP in case it wasn't clear. Original Message From nnn_thekushmountains:
I couldn't find in the rules, but there should be a rule against showing the thread your qt.
Town could make everyone post their qt then scum would be right fucked. So I thought Kita thought I meant showing the thread your QT as in linking it, which was what he changed the OP to include. So, Kush thought quoting from the qt should be illegal. He just admitted that. Can anyone explain to me how this pm can possibly be interpreted the way he claims? It cannot. He asked if something was ok. Kita said it wasn't ok. He therefore concluded something more specific is ok from this pm?! It doesn't make sense. nh, while i always enjoy a little banlist drama it seems to me that if - the player in question - the host - the other players in the game - BH all seem to be fine with just a warning or 1-game ban, after three pages of arguing it's probably time for everyone else to just get out of the way. you've been heard also...<3! hi jat ^^ pm me when you're playing again so i can play with you? pretty please? The thing is: The player in question. The host. The other players in the game. All know that Kush did this knowing better. How can people argue about banning people who aren't voting ONCE and let this guy get away with a warning for doing something far worse? This is bullshit. But I made my point. If BH wants to let this banlist be a joke he can do that. Sure, I can pm you but since normal minis don't seem to get hosted lately I don't know when I will feel the urge to play again.
the banlist is already a joke this doesn't make it any worse. 
anyways, i stopped caring.
|
On March 08 2016 05:17 Blazinghand wrote:
Ehh, sorry if I'm coming off that way JAT, in general I know people are concerned I'm overzealous with bans so I'm trying to be a bit more cautious if that makes sense? I'm not saying "I, Blazinghand, think a warning is the best here" because I personally do not think that. I don't want to be the one pushing for a ban though because I think the primary concern people brought up about me running the ban list is that I am overeager to ban people for this kind of thing. I want to help, rather than like hurt people and the situation. Which is why I am soliciting comments, if that makes sense.
The banlist isn't a democracy where everyone has to give his opinion. I also don't see anyone besides kush actively arguing against a ban anyways.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On March 08 2016 05:29 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 05:17 Blazinghand wrote:
Ehh, sorry if I'm coming off that way JAT, in general I know people are concerned I'm overzealous with bans so I'm trying to be a bit more cautious if that makes sense? I'm not saying "I, Blazinghand, think a warning is the best here" because I personally do not think that. I don't want to be the one pushing for a ban though because I think the primary concern people brought up about me running the ban list is that I am overeager to ban people for this kind of thing. I want to help, rather than like hurt people and the situation. Which is why I am soliciting comments, if that makes sense. The banlist isn't a democracy where everyone has to give his opinion.
It kinda should be though. In the past people have complained about the consistency of the rulings. I think listening to everyone's opinion who wishes to share is the best way to make sure a fair decision is reached.
It sounds like this is where people are at the moment. Let me know if I've incorrectly interpreted your response. hapa (co-host) seemed to be leaning towards the ban as well when we discussed things.
Jat: ban
rayn: ban
qatol: ban
BH: ban
Hapa: ban
kita: ban
damdred: ban
kush: warning
koshi: warning
Rels: warning
7-3
Initially I asked for a warning, but based on the discussion I think a 1-game ban is probably the most appropriate for doing something that you knew was wrong, even if it was ambiguous. I think common sense takes precedence here.
|
I just want to say I've always felt the pm/qt land was sacred and never able to be put into thread.
I think a game ban isn't to much. But I also thought it was in the spirit of the rules bot to do it. So yeah honestly bh do what you think is in the spirit of the rules shrug.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
A 1-game ban for Kush is approved, beginning when he finishes any games he's in now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
