|
Hello, all!
It's become quite apparent that many of you are not reading the first post carefully.
Failure to do so in the future will be met with swift punishment. And as always, remember to be civil.
Thanks,
Empyrean. Time stamp: 03:59 KST. |
On May 09 2011 06:39 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:35 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 09 2011 06:32 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. The idea is that annoying Idra by stream sniping isn't the entire story, but that CrunCher knew what it would look like and knew that it would get a rise out of IdrA. My entire argument rests on the (perhaps unreasonable to some people, but, in my opinion, reasonable) assumption that CrunCher actively tried to get a rise out of IdrA (trolling) and got exactly that. Obviously, IdrA didn't handle it at all gracefully and thus, all of this ensued. My argument is that CrunCher isn't blameless either. He's not blameless, but he doesn't deserve a ban on TL. There's a huge difference between the two. That's your opinion. My point was simply to argue that CrunCher shares some blame in this - whether or not you interpret that blame as ban-worthy is up to you (obviously, I personally feel like since this entire fiasco ended in IdrA being banned for 90 days, you have to compare the weight of the blame to that huge ban, and thus punish CrunCher in some way as well). Again, this is just my opinion - the mods likely disagree with me, and that's fine, but I feel like I'm making a valid point.
exactly, because at the end of today cruncher's wearing the biggest shit eating grin in history right now.
|
On May 09 2011 06:35 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:32 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. The idea is that annoying Idra by stream sniping isn't the entire story, but that CrunCher knew what it would look like and knew that it would get a rise out of IdrA. My entire argument rests on the (perhaps unreasonable to some people, but, in my opinion, reasonable) assumption that CrunCher actively tried to get a rise out of IdrA (trolling) and got exactly that. Obviously, IdrA didn't handle it at all gracefully and thus, all of this ensued. My argument is that CrunCher isn't blameless either. He's not blameless, but he doesn't deserve a ban on TL. There's a huge difference between the two.
More or less. No one's saying Cruncher is blameless, HolyArrow. He's obvious got it out for Idra. But Cruncher didn't violate TL rules, whereas Idra did. That's the reason for the first ban. It doesn't get clearer than that. In this first case, at least, TL is not judging Idra as a person; they're punishing him as a forum member. Cruncher didn't violate any rules as a forum member. So why would he be punished?
|
On May 09 2011 06:06 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:05 ShootingStars wrote:On May 09 2011 06:00 zeru wrote:On May 09 2011 05:58 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2011 04:44 mr.reee wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
[quote]
You haven't been reading. Ghosting is not fine. There is no reason to assume Cruncher was ghosting, and even less proof of it.
Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it. Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it. IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? A lot of bold, honorable assumptions about cruncher formed out of thin air. Exactly. Why minimize instead of close? Why not keep the archive of the stream? Esp given cruncher is like 2-40 against idra? Why does cruncher say "lol so obvious what he would do" when its quite obvious that he can't normally keep up? For everybody saying all the evidence points to cruncher NOT cheating.....there IS no evidence pointing to cruncher not cheating. All of the evidence points to him cheating, but none of it shows conclusively. Still, if you take everything into account it's quite obvious what was going on. How does the replay show that he was cheating in even a tiny little way? Please do explain. Listening to random hearsay isnt exactly any evidence.... Does a replay have to show evidence that he was cheating in the replay? Sometimes people cheat and lose, you know... because knowing Cruncher, he does not have as much experience as Idra, so Idra's mechanics can be said to be superior. If you look at the other evidence, it says something, but it's not conclusive. You didn't even watch the replay, you probably should, because my point will be more obvious. Cruncher also didnt lose the game.
Actually, it was more a case of idra just leaving than cruncher winning. With crunchers somewhat interesting wall off, idra could have picked off the only cybercore, a gateway, a pylon, and probably the cannons there as well with as many roaches as he had. With cruncher only making zealots, there would be nothing stopping idra from just ignoring most of the cannons and killing cruncher's main. With idra's low econ it would have taken a while, but cruncher was just on the slow road to losing at that point.
Also the only things particularly suspect about cruncher's play I could see was him making a second gateway, rushing out his cybercore and chronoing both zealots out. The first and second are not part of what he normally does with this type of expansion (he provided a replay vs ret to show what his build was) and that the cybercore was started asap after 3:50 in the game, the part where idra stated that he was just going to roach all-in him. The third is just his build having a hiccup, which could either have been from him panic rushing his cybercore, or him just not doing his build very well.
Either way the above is just the product of me being bored, not in the hope of an answer ever being found. Stream cheating is literally impossible to prove without cruncher doing something remarkably stupid, and even a sure guess is impossible from one game.
|
On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned.
Both of their streams WERE on team liquid.
There is literally NO difference from idra saying "waste of life" in his stream (which is featured on TL) and saying it in his stream thread (which is on TL)
If you think there should be a difference, please explain.
|
I say give cruncher 90 days ban too so they wont repeat this in the future
|
From Cruncher's side you don't stream snipe someone while your record with him previously stood at 2 wins and 20 losses just to learn and play with a better person, Cruncher does it specifically to piss IdrA off. He admits this in his stream constantly "ahaha nah guys It's fun to troll IdrA" This alone is considered harassment and/or trolling, and since you guys apparently punish people for actions outside of the forum, I don't see how Cruncher won't get any flack from this.
Man oh man, does this guy have it right. Cruncher tries to snipe Idra almost as much as Britney/Princess/Kitty/Terran/Major/Whatever His Name Is Now tries to snipe Sheth. It's one thing to snipe a competitor every once in a while just to play against someone you think might be interesting, but it's quite another to do it at every opportunity. This sort of thing gets to the point where it's really just trolling and leads to good players not streaming as much.
|
|
|
On May 09 2011 06:39 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:35 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 09 2011 06:32 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. The idea is that annoying Idra by stream sniping isn't the entire story, but that CrunCher knew what it would look like and knew that it would get a rise out of IdrA. My entire argument rests on the (perhaps unreasonable to some people, but, in my opinion, reasonable) assumption that CrunCher actively tried to get a rise out of IdrA (trolling) and got exactly that. Obviously, IdrA didn't handle it at all gracefully and thus, all of this ensued. My argument is that CrunCher isn't blameless either. He's not blameless, but he doesn't deserve a ban on TL. There's a huge difference between the two. That's your opinion. My point was simply to argue that CrunCher shares some blame in this - whether or not you interpret that blame as ban-worthy is up to you (obviously, I personally feel like since this entire fiasco ended in IdrA being banned for 90 days, you have to compare the weight of the blame to that huge ban, and thus punish CrunCher in some way as well). Again, this is just my opinion - the mods likely disagree with me, and that's fine, but I feel like I'm making a valid point.
The problem is that it's perfectly legitimate to troll people outside of TL. If Cruncher had come back into TL and made a post saying "Teehee IdrA", then yes, he would have been banned. IdrA, on the other hand, blatantly insulted (on a severe level) another person, regardless of the circumstance.
I feel as if you're arguing that the policy by which TL handles these things is wrong, rather than Cruncher not being banned, though, in which case, I can't stop you.
|
On May 09 2011 06:18 smileyface22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 05:11 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 09 2011 04:58 smileyface22 wrote:
While that's to be commended, I happen to disagree with your opinion that TL's success is derived from your forum rules. Effort and philosophy are two different things. However I think it's pretty clear TL is unprepared to evolve as esports evolves and I hope that's the right decision. But that's the thing - our success is derived from the people we've attracted (casters, players, talented staff), which is derived by the quality forums we've always presented. Also, I think it's incredibly naive if you don't think TL is unprepared to evolve, especially if your reason is because of strict forum rules? Let's see, why do I think TL is unprepared to evolve: You ban the most popular player in SC2 because of a throw-away comment like "waste of life," after he was provoked which shows you have no grasp of context and instead slam your face into this dogmatic allegiance to forum etiquette which lies completely at odds with how the real world works and the competitive spirit. Furthermore, banning him during his reward of week-long commentary to his fans demonstrates that you don't care about the actual implications your actions have on the community as long as you feel justified in your little moral box. Do you really think anyone gave a rat's-ass about Idra calling Cruncher a waste of life after he arguably ghosted him? I heard worst insults when I was in the 3rd grade (no hyperbole). Your response to this is to enact a ban that affected thousands of his fans far worse than hurt him and had negative, tangible consequences for an nascent audience you are trying to cultivate. Interesting. You extend this to a 90-day ban because he tells people to PM Chill if his actions upset them. It doesn't matter if 2000 of his fans inundated Chill's PM box with insults/flames. Telling someone to message someone if they don't agree with their actions is not harassment, it's a fundamental principle of free speech/discourse. Even if he knew the response he would generate, people have every right on a PUBLIC FORUM to express their displeasure with an action they do not agree with unless you live in Nazi fucking Germany or the Middle East. If they did not participate in a civil manner you should have banned those people and been done with it. Your ponderous inability to grasp this principle yet proclaim your forums as a model of civility is laughable. And finally, you reiterate that your forum standards are what have made TL so enduring. For Broodwar, perhaps. But if you removed all forum moderation from this site for 2 months and charted it's traffic during that time, I'm willing to bet it would remain constant or possibly even increase. Why? Because of it's functionality and market saturation. Forum moderation (yes there needs to be some) compared to listed streams or tourney updates or the foothold TL already has is so completely minor. Hell, the fact that Idra's fanclub thread views ridiculously dwarfs every other one, along with Huk's, is simple testimony that people are drawn to players like them. If your audience didn't enjoy Idra's BM and transparency on some level, why flock to him? Players who don't parrot and mimic TL's standard of conduct (Huk trolling Idra in-game at a tourney) are invariably this website's most popular yet TL continues to demand the opposite. And I'm being naive? I would define that as a disconnect and a willing refusal to acknowledge the facts. At any rate, as I said earlier, it's pretty clear all of the above isn't going to change so I'm done here.
There is so much wrong with this post, which is sad since it is lengthy (so nearly a waste of time). What you need to realize is that, the Mods have been extremely lenient toward IdrA's behavior for quite some time. You talk with how this system is not ad odds with how the real world works is only a reinforcement of the belief and not an acknowledgment of how this ought to be. Just because the world feels the need to kick puppies, does not mean Team Liquid must also kick puppies. As for the timing of the ban, it does not matter what was going on during the "rewards week". If you do something wrong, you are punished for it. There is no, "oh, he is doing something awesome, let is (continue) to be lenient to him and than ban him. For which it does not even matter since IdrA still had the ability to stream and carry out on the bet, but he chose not to. The one to blame is not Team Liquid, but IdrA. Also, it does not matter if you have heard worst. It is about being better, about being above petty and childish acts. Further, he called him a waste of life on circumstantial evidence. It can go either way, and that is not the point.
I did chuckle at the second paragraph. How should I put this, Freedom of Speech does not play a role in Private Forums. There is no right to post here, it is a privilege. Team Liquid allows us to post. There is Freedom of Speech to a degree, but it is limited within the confines of acting with a degree of maturity.Team Liquid adheres to a view of having a professional, mature forum which has given way to being as large as it is. I mean, you speak of civility when you (as it has been foreseen in any lengthy argument) resort to fallacious arguments (Godwin's Law). Team Liquid has a high expectation of those who choose to post here, and it is met with proclamations of infringement of speech.
Your view of facts are skewed by your own beliefs. Which in essence, sort of voids it of being considered facts. Take for example the Team Liquid Starcraft II strategy forum. It had been very lenient with the posts and was just an utter mess. It is an example of what would happen when people are not so much restricted to their posts. Thus, there was an enforcement and focus on actually mod'ing it. You go further into detail on how people flock to the Bm'ing nature of IdrA, and that is reason for there to be less moderation. That to be honest is grasping. For one, you cannot generalize to why such a large group of people like him. Secondly, the liking of one's Bm and the willingness to have it on forums are two entirely different things. I am sorry but I would rather not have these forums turn into the forums like, just to use as an example, that of the b.net Starcraft II forums. Where there are currently three threads all pertaining to IdrA's ban on these forums, as well as troll posts.
Just remember, tournaments and teams look to Team Liquid for a wide range of uses. Be it, the spreading news, the spreading of knowledge, and the sheer dedication toward the Starcraft professional scene. It is because of this, the forums needs to be in a sense, put to high standards.
|
On May 09 2011 06:40 FuTon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
I can provide screen shots of my conversation with Chill. At no point did he ask me to stop or imply he didn't want to receive those messages. I'm going to quote wikipedia on the subject, "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." Thus it's commonly accepted for a action to become harassment, a party has to ask the other party in some form to stop.
I would like to point out section 3 of your ten commandments which states, "... If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM or in our IRC channel, but please be respectful about it. Do not take things into your own hands by posting "Ban?" or telling users they will be banned. You PM Moderators to let them know about specific posts or threads, but let them handle it after that."
Two things, everyone that contact Chill about the ban was in the right according to the rules as long as they were being respectful. If they choose to violate the rules that was once again, their action. Not Greg Fields.
Last, the Idra Banned for 90 Days creates a double stander. Where it implied in the rules that such threads should not be create since it seems to be TL staff would prefer to deal with such matters in private.
Thus I humbly request you do not ban Greg "IdrA" Fields for 90 days. Since his tweet did not tell people to harass it clearly states, "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you". Which is clearly in the rules that you are allow to, "If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM..." I do not see any rule that was broken to increase IdrA's ban to 90 days.
I would also like to request that moderate actions on the Team Liquid forums be base solely on items that happen on the forums. Actions that happen on other outlets should be not be dealt with on the Team Liquid forums.
Thank you. Idra told TL staffs that he did it on purpose. Proof: Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off.
Sure, now we know that IdrA intended to annoy Chill. However, I make the point that the nature of the annoyance - namely, the PMs arguing against IdrA's ban - fall perfectly within the rules of the site, as another poster cited. If the people PMing Chill do it in a stupid/trollworthy way, the blame falls upon them, not IdrA, since PMing to protest a ban that one thought was unjust is perfectly within the rules of the site.
This kind of creates a strange situation, where we have intent (IdrA's intent to annoy) versus being within the rules (PMing to talk about bans people felt were wrong).
|
On May 09 2011 06:25 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:21 tGFuRy wrote:On May 09 2011 06:11 Asparagus wrote:On May 09 2011 05:53 HolyArrow wrote:
I kind of feel like, although IdrA is clearly the one that explicitly broke the rules on TL, CrunCher deserves some blame as well. This feels like one of those situations where one guy kind of dances around the rules to consciously troll another person and generally contribute to the bad blood, with perfect knowledge that the guy he's trolling has a tendency to break rules and insult others. Then, bam, IdrA gets banned when he reacts to CrunCher, while CrunCher walks away scot-free.
Now, with that said, consider all the times IdrA has been banned with the justification that "he's not stupid, he knew what he was saying/doing". For example, during the WeRRa scandal, IdrA posted something like "Oh, that's too bad. Seeing the WeRRa tag was a good way to know you were getting all-inned". People could have easily given him the benefit of doubt that he meant that literally, but many went on to accuse him of hiding inappropriate sexual innuendos in that statement, since "IdrA's not dumb, he knew what he was implying".
Another example would be right now, when mods are saying that even though IdrA didn't explicitly say on his twitter, "Hey guys, I got banned, PM and harass the shit out of Chill to get revenge for me!", his actual twitter post implied exactly that, since IdrA isn't stupid; he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
Now let's look at CrunCher. He's not stupid either - he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was messing around on IdrA's stream. He knew it would generate controversy, and he knew it would piss off IdrA. Essentially, he was consciously trolling. Why do we always assume the worst for IdrA, and not CrunCher, who we all know doesn't exactly have the best relationship with IdrA? Even though CrunCher didn't explicitly break any rules, just as we assumed IdrA "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" as part of the justification (note that I don't say that it's the ENTIRE justification - obviously, part of the punishment is motivated on how IdrA isn't willing to apologize and shows no regret after he was asked directly if he'd change his etiquette) for a good deal of his bans, why don't we assume that CrunCher "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" (deliberately trolling)?
As far as I know, trolling is also punishable bad etiquette. If you hit IdrA with something as big as 90 days, it feels like CrunCher should get a bit of a punishment too, even if as a mere symbolic gesture. Mods, please read this. From Cruncher's side you don't stream snipe someone while your record with him previously stood at 2 wins and 20 losses just to learn and play with a better person, Cruncher does it specifically to piss IdrA off. He admits this in his stream constantly "ahaha nah guys It's fun to troll IdrA" This alone is considered harassment and/or trolling, and since you guys apparently punish people for actions outside of the forum, I don't see how Cruncher won't get any flack from this. I couldn't agree more with this post.. It sums up everything. How does that "sums up everything"? It doesn't even tell half the story.
I kind of feel like, although IdrA is clearly the one that explicitly broke the rules on TL, CrunCher deserves some blame as well. This feels like one of those situations where one guy kind of dances around the rules to consciously troll another person and generally contribute to the bad blood, with perfect knowledge that the guy he's trolling has a tendency to break rules and insult others. Then, bam, IdrA gets banned when he reacts to CrunCher, while CrunCher walks away scot-free.
Now, with that said, consider all the times IdrA has been banned with the justification that "he's not stupid, he knew what he was saying/doing". For example, during the WeRRa scandal, IdrA posted something like "Oh, that's too bad. Seeing the WeRRa tag was a good way to know you were getting all-inned". People could have easily given him the benefit of doubt that he meant that literally, but many went on to accuse him of hiding inappropriate sexual innuendos in that statement, since "IdrA's not dumb, he knew what he was implying".
Another example would be right now, when mods are saying that even though IdrA didn't explicitly say on his twitter, "Hey guys, I got banned, PM and harass the shit out of Chill to get revenge for me!", his actual twitter post implied exactly that, since IdrA isn't stupid; he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish.
Now let's look at CrunCher. He's not stupid either - he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he was messing around on IdrA's stream. He knew it would generate controversy, and he knew it would piss off IdrA. Essentially, he was consciously trolling. Why do we always assume the worst for IdrA, and not CrunCher, who we all know doesn't exactly have the best relationship with IdrA? Even though CrunCher didn't explicitly break any rules, just as we assumed IdrA "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" as part of the justification (note that I don't say that it's the ENTIRE justification - obviously, part of the punishment is motivated on how IdrA isn't willing to apologize and shows no regret after he was asked directly if he'd change his etiquette) for a good deal of his bans, why don't we assume that CrunCher "isn't dumb, and knew what he was doing" (deliberately trolling)?
As far as I know, trolling is also punishable bad etiquette. If you hit IdrA with something as big as 90 days, it feels like CrunCher should get a bit of a punishment too, even if as a mere symbolic gesture.
I was meaning this... post.... This goes way back to the start of all this with Cruncher "stream cheating" and idra calling Cruncher out and getting banned. Then idra reacted out of his frustration on Twitter telling all of his fans to "PM chill if this upsets you" then getting banned for 90 days. Cruncher obviously was trying to "troll" and piss idra off on purpose by stream sniping him which he admitted to and is proven. Cruncher not having any consequences of trolling and pissing off idra.
|
On May 09 2011 06:43 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:41 Mailing wrote:On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. Both of their streams WERE on team liquid. There is literally NO difference from idra saying "waste of life" in his stream (which is featured on TL) and saying it in his stream thread (which is on TL) If you think there should be a difference, please explain. His stream is on jtv... tl isnt a streaming service.
So you are saying that if a featured streamer put porn on his stream constantly, it shouldn't matter, because TL has no business with what happens on peoples streams?
Why is it okay for a featured streamer to snipe and troll others?
|
On May 09 2011 06:41 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. Both of their streams WERE on team liquid. There is literally NO difference from idra saying "waste of life" in his stream (which is featured on TL) and saying it in his stream thread (which is on TL) If you think there should be a difference, please explain.
TL *links* to the streams of pro-gamers. It does not host them. On the other hand, it hosts the forums. What is said on the forums is therefore within the influence of TL's mods. What is said on the streams is not.
|
On May 09 2011 06:40 FuTon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
I can provide screen shots of my conversation with Chill. At no point did he ask me to stop or imply he didn't want to receive those messages. I'm going to quote wikipedia on the subject, "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." Thus it's commonly accepted for a action to become harassment, a party has to ask the other party in some form to stop.
I would like to point out section 3 of your ten commandments which states, "... If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM or in our IRC channel, but please be respectful about it. Do not take things into your own hands by posting "Ban?" or telling users they will be banned. You PM Moderators to let them know about specific posts or threads, but let them handle it after that."
Two things, everyone that contact Chill about the ban was in the right according to the rules as long as they were being respectful. If they choose to violate the rules that was once again, their action. Not Greg Fields.
Last, the Idra Banned for 90 Days creates a double stander. Where it implied in the rules that such threads should not be create since it seems to be TL staff would prefer to deal with such matters in private.
Thus I humbly request you do not ban Greg "IdrA" Fields for 90 days. Since his tweet did not tell people to harass it clearly states, "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you". Which is clearly in the rules that you are allow to, "If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM..." I do not see any rule that was broken to increase IdrA's ban to 90 days.
I would also like to request that moderate actions on the Team Liquid forums be base solely on items that happen on the forums. Actions that happen on other outlets should be not be dealt with on the Team Liquid forums.
Thank you. Idra told TL staffs that he did it on purpose. Proof: Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off.
I have read that, but that unrelated to my post.
I personally message Chill, because I did not agree with the banned and I followed the rules. It a decision of the individual. Thus if rules were violate and Chill was harass, that is the fault of the individual who made that decision, not Greg "IdrA" Fields.
|
|
|
On May 09 2011 06:43 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:40 FuTon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:33 GeeseHoward wrote:
I can provide screen shots of my conversation with Chill. At no point did he ask me to stop or imply he didn't want to receive those messages. I'm going to quote wikipedia on the subject, "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing." Thus it's commonly accepted for a action to become harassment, a party has to ask the other party in some form to stop.
I would like to point out section 3 of your ten commandments which states, "... If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM or in our IRC channel, but please be respectful about it. Do not take things into your own hands by posting "Ban?" or telling users they will be banned. You PM Moderators to let them know about specific posts or threads, but let them handle it after that."
Two things, everyone that contact Chill about the ban was in the right according to the rules as long as they were being respectful. If they choose to violate the rules that was once again, their action. Not Greg Fields.
Last, the Idra Banned for 90 Days creates a double stander. Where it implied in the rules that such threads should not be create since it seems to be TL staff would prefer to deal with such matters in private.
Thus I humbly request you do not ban Greg "IdrA" Fields for 90 days. Since his tweet did not tell people to harass it clearly states, "wont be streaming for 2 days as i have been banned from tl for insulting cruncher, everyone pm Chill if this upsets you". Which is clearly in the rules that you are allow to, "If you believe a certain ban was a mistake, you can contact a Mod through PM..." I do not see any rule that was broken to increase IdrA's ban to 90 days.
I would also like to request that moderate actions on the Team Liquid forums be base solely on items that happen on the forums. Actions that happen on other outlets should be not be dealt with on the Team Liquid forums.
Thank you. Idra told TL staffs that he did it on purpose. Proof: On May 09 2011 06:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:04 eNtitY~ wrote:
This is a really stupid move, it's not like he told people to mass spam Chill and harass him about why. He just said he was banned and if they had a problem to PM Chill... The staff needs to lighten up a bit here because what he did really shouldn't be that big of a deal. All TL admins are doing is taking away from the community because now no one gets to benefit from the week of analysis he was going to do. Considering ~18k people watch it the first day there was a lot of interest there.
Overboard IMO. TL Staff talked about it with Idra. He said he did it on purpose to annoy Chill. We are not taking anything from you. If Idra doesn't want to stream, it's his own decision. We don't have a power button to switch his computer or stream off. Sure, now we know that IdrA intended to annoy Chill. However, I make the point that the nature of the annoyance - namely, the PMs arguing against IdrA's ban - fall perfectly within the rules of the site, as another poster cited. If the people PMing Chill do it in a stupid/trollworthy way, the blame falls upon them, not IdrA, since PMing to protest a ban that one thought was unjust is perfectly within the rules of the site. This kind of creates a strange situation, where we have intent (IdrA's intent to annoy) versus being within the rules (PMing to talk about bans people felt were wrong).
I think it would be safe to assume that Chill was being annoyed and PMed IdrA (or anybody on TL, really) asking what the heck he was doing. IdrA at that point just said "Hey, I'm annoying you. No, I don't regret it".
Trolling the moderators is grounds for a ban. It doesn't matter if "it was his PM army, not IdrA" that did the actual act of sending PMs. It's that IdrA admitted he was doing it that matters.
|
On May 09 2011 06:46 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:45 Mailing wrote:On May 09 2011 06:43 zeru wrote:On May 09 2011 06:41 Mailing wrote:On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. Both of their streams WERE on team liquid. There is literally NO difference from idra saying "waste of life" in his stream (which is featured on TL) and saying it in his stream thread (which is on TL) If you think there should be a difference, please explain. His stream is on jtv... tl isnt a streaming service. So you are saying that if a featured streamer put porn on his stream constantly, it shouldn't matter, because TL has no business with what happens on peoples streams? Why is it okay for a featured streamer to snipe and troll others? jtv will probably ban him for streaming porn, not tl. stream sniping has always been allowed, it's common and theres nothing wrong with it.
IdrA got banned for disrepecting another player on the forum. If Cruncher is allowed to disrespect other streamers, while being a featured streamer, that is bullshit.
|
On May 09 2011 06:43 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2011 06:39 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:35 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 09 2011 06:32 HolyArrow wrote:On May 09 2011 06:29 Azarkon wrote:On May 09 2011 06:25 HolyArrow wrote:
I do not deny that IdrA was being far more straightforward than CrunCher. I guess an adequate response to you in this case would be to refer you to my post immediately preceeding this one, where I revise my argument with the knowledge that IdrA explicitly admitted his intent to annoy Chill. The thing is, annoying Idra by stream sniping him isn't a bannable offense. Posting on TL that Cruncher is a "waste of life" is a bannable offense. The antagonism between Idra and Cruncher is their personal business. But when it spills over to TL the mods have to act. That's the essence of what happened. Cruncher didn't force Idra to break TL's rules, and had Idra twitted it instead, I don't think he would've been banned. The idea is that annoying Idra by stream sniping isn't the entire story, but that CrunCher knew what it would look like and knew that it would get a rise out of IdrA. My entire argument rests on the (perhaps unreasonable to some people, but, in my opinion, reasonable) assumption that CrunCher actively tried to get a rise out of IdrA (trolling) and got exactly that. Obviously, IdrA didn't handle it at all gracefully and thus, all of this ensued. My argument is that CrunCher isn't blameless either. He's not blameless, but he doesn't deserve a ban on TL. There's a huge difference between the two. That's your opinion. My point was simply to argue that CrunCher shares some blame in this - whether or not you interpret that blame as ban-worthy is up to you (obviously, I personally feel like since this entire fiasco ended in IdrA being banned for 90 days, you have to compare the weight of the blame to that huge ban, and thus punish CrunCher in some way as well). Again, this is just my opinion - the mods likely disagree with me, and that's fine, but I feel like I'm making a valid point. The problem is that it's perfectly legitimate to troll people outside of TL. If Cruncher had come back into TL and made a post saying "Teehee IdrA", then yes, he would have been banned. IdrA, on the other hand, blatantly insulted (on a severe level) another person, regardless of the circumstance. I feel as if you're arguing that the policy by which TL handles these things is wrong, rather than Cruncher not being banned, though, in which case, I can't stop you.
Is it actually legitimate to troll people closely connected to the SC community outside TL, though? I seem to recall some incident where someone was trolling a TL admin outside of TL, his account on TL was identified, and he was banned. Please correct me if I'm recalling this incorrectly, but I could have sworn that I saw something to that effect while browsing the Automated Ban List.
Anyway, your last sentence confuses me, because if I argue that CrunCher should be banned, then I am also, indeed, arguing that TL's policy toward this situation has been, in one aspect (CrunCher's lack of punishment), wrong. So yes, I am arguing that TL's policy has been wrong in that one aspect. However, make no mistake - I do not intend to criticize the moderation staff in this, but to just voice my opinion and argue my point to see if it holds any merit, because I feel that it does.
|
On May 09 2011 06:47 Mailing wrote:
IdrA got banned for disrepecting another player on the forum. If Cruncher is allowed to disrespect other streamers, while being a featured streamer, that is bullshit.
But CrunCher doesn't post about it on the forum, IdrA does. There is the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
