EPTThe Automated Ban List - Page 1901
| Forum Index > TL Community |
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil. NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
| ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 21 2013 20:44 motbob wrote: The day I have to think about what I post because of considerations of how sponsors will react is the day I stop posting. The reason for making a post or not making a post should never be because the sponsors will react to it in some way, unless you're being paid to advance the interests of those sponsors (as, for example, EG players are). No one should censor himself on the Papa Johns health care issue because of how he thinks Papa Johns will react to their post re: esports sponsorship. Rather, they should censor themselves because the whole controversy is ridiculous on a basic level. That's not the point. There's still a better place for discussing that sort of thing, assuming it hasn't already been discussed and everything worth mentioning mentioned. Nothing wrong with criticizing Papa John's or discussing their policies or products, all of that is great, but to make overly belligerent and ultimately unwarranted posts in the very thread that announces their intention to sponsor this scene shows at the very least a distinct lack of tact. I view it pretty much the same as, say, let's assume IdrA decides not to quit progaming and joins some other team. Do you think posts like "lol what is he even doing here, he's a big whiny bitch that hasn't been relevant in forever" are appropriate? There's a time and place for everything, and I don't think taking the discussion that focuses on the whole debacle of them refusing to pay insurance to their employees (especially considering some people post that kind of stuff just to create a shitstorm and derail the thread, not necessarily because of their personal opinion) to a different thread is an unreasonable thing to ask. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On May 21 2013 21:13 MasterOfPuppets wrote: That's not the point. There's still a better place for discussing that sort of thing, assuming it hasn't already been discussed and everything worth mentioning mentioned. Nothing wrong with criticizing Papa John's or discussing their policies or products, all of that is great, but to make overly belligerent and ultimately unwarranted posts in the very thread that announces their intention to sponsor this scene shows at the very least a distinct lack of tact. I view it pretty much the same as, say, let's assume IdrA decides not to quit progaming and joins some other team. Do you think posts like "lol what is he even doing here, he's a big whiny bitch that hasn't been relevant in forever" are appropriate? There's a time and place for everything, and I don't think taking the discussion that focuses on the whole debacle of them refusing to pay insurance to their employees (especially considering some people post that kind of stuff just to create a shitstorm and derail the thread, not necessarily because of their personal opinion) to a different thread is an unreasonable thing to ask. If there is a moral problem with a sponsor's policies, that moral concern should absolutely be expressed in the most visible way possible. If TL is making a deal with a legitimately evil corporation (which Papa Johns is not, by the way), that fact should be shouted from the mountaintops, and the thread announcing the partnership is the correct place to do that. If Zynga sponsored TL, I would hope that there would be a discussion in the announcement thread about whether TL should have made a deal with a company whose business model at one point was entirely based around exploiting human psychology to extract the greatest number of dollars from wallets possible. You are saying that the discussion should take place in another thread, but the announcement thread is precisely the correct place to have the discussion of whether TL made a mistake by entering into an agreement with Papa Johns. Wanting the discussion moved to a less visible venue is essentially advocating censorship. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On May 21 2013 19:06 JimmyJhonson wrote: Hi where , I am ur fan since 2011 and I know who u r  real fans knows u not maphacker so don't pay attention to stupid noobs like generalol and others , keep it up brahUser was banned for this post. JimmyJhonson was just banned by KadaverBB. That account was created on 2013-05-21 19:03:45 and had 1 posts. Reason: Stick to one account. It's also funny that you are in a map hacking argument and you feel the need to create multiple accounts to argue on your behalf. That doesn't look suspicious at all. oh, that is so dumb and so amazingly pathetic. solid contribution imestrella, thanks. edit: however i don't know that what imestrella says in his post is impossible. i haven't considered that before. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 21 2013 21:34 motbob wrote: If there is a moral problem with a sponsor's policies, that moral concern should absolutely be expressed in the most visible way possible. What happens when you express a concern that is either false or at the very least not supported by any form of evidence whatsoever? Do you think we should endorse completely unsupported and unverified claims against a company, any company, in big public spotlighted threads? Case in point: several posters kept clamoring on about how Papa John's is "anti-gay", without providing any sort of evidence in that regard. Now, I didn't follow these events too closely, but as far as I know there is no incident or statement or indeed any proof that legitimizes this claim. A few people have called said posters out on their bullshit, but to no avail. Now, do you think we should allow rampant misinformation in a thread where, honestly, quite a few people are probably unfamiliar with Papa John's? Do you think this misrepresentation whereby fairly damning claims are attached on to a company's image is fair? Wouldn't this only add more fuel to the fire of hate bandwagons that we supposedly despise? My problem is really not that concerns are voiced or that people don't like Papa John's or whatever, my problem is that a bandwagon of hate keeps growing because some edgy teens think it's cool to go on the internet and vilify big corporations for completely invalid reasons, their posts perpetuating the same misinformation they themselves may or may not believe. This is no better than the posters who were calling Stephano a pedophile and a rapist. Seriously, if you're going to dislike something and then publicly express that, at least make sure you're basing your opinion off of actual fact. On May 21 2013 21:34 motbob wrote: If TL is making a deal with a legitimately evil corporation (which Papa Johns is not, by the way), that fact should be shouted from the mountaintops, and the thread announcing the partnership is the correct place to do that. If Zynga sponsored TL, I would hope that there would be a discussion in the announcement thread about whether TL should have made a deal with a company whose business model at one point was entirely based around exploiting human psychology to extract the greatest number of dollars from wallets possible. You are saying that the discussion should take place in another thread, but the announcement thread is precisely the correct place to have the discussion of whether TL made a mistake by entering into an agreement with Papa Johns. Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with voicing a dissenting opinion, and the reason I suggested discussion be taken to a different thread was more for the purpose of preventing misinformation and stricter quality of posting. From a sponsor point of view, would you like to invest into a scene and community where people can freely make defamatory claims at your expense without any evidence and get away with it, especially considering these claims will most likely influence a lot of potential new customers? I don't really disagree with you here, but at the same time I feel this wasn't handled as well as it could've been, especially from the stand point of "it's a good idea to ban people who have no idea what they're talking about". On May 21 2013 21:34 motbob wrote: Wanting the discussion moved to a less visible venue is essentially advocating censorship. Funny, that's how I feel whenever I'm told to take a discussion to Website Feedback, but that's a different topic entirely. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
My problem is really not that concerns are voiced or that people don't like Papa John's or whatever, my problem is that a bandwagon of hate keeps growing because some edgy teens think it's cool to go on the internet and vilify big corporations for completely invalid reasons, their posts perpetuating the same misinformation they themselves may or may not believe. It was for this reason that the thread was closed I think. From a sponsor point of view, would you like to invest into a scene and community where people can freely make defamatory claims at your expense without any evidence and get away with it, especially considering these claims will most likely influence a lot of potential new customers? The amount of sales gained (or not gained) is really what they are going to see. I think entertaining the notion that it can choose - or at least criticize - a sponsor demonstrates that the scene is in a very fortunate position. The scene has obviously grown. But not grown-up enough yet to be able to intelligently articulate said criticism (assuming that it is warranted). | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
it is completely common practice for fast food groups to hand out very good special offers to entice a captured audience to stick to their brand over the other. at my university the local pizza place gives out 50% off and better coupons constantly, to capture the attention of the students. as of right now, this isnt papa johns looking to invest money in to the scene (that may be a bi-product but that is far from a given at this point) its more someone at the company taking the initiative to treat esports viewers like they would any other targeted demographic. back on topic. which games did that jeri guy accuse GSL of fixing? | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 21 2013 23:05 turdburgler wrote: back on topic. which games did that jeri guy accuse GSL of fixing? Looks like today's match of Soulkey vs sHy. + Show Spoiler + 4-3 for Soulkey btw I didn't catch anything but the last couple of minutes of Game 7 so I don't know, but apparently the games looked like hard throws on sHy's part. Almost like he was too sHy to clench victory. His posts: + Show Spoiler + On May 21 2013 19:08 jeri wrote: 3:0 after 40mins? i loled... looks like hard giveaway from sos... he just gave away 2x his army wtf was that? Oo On May 21 2013 20:27 jeri wrote: 6 fixed games... thx comtv/gsl. even a halfblind with zero sc2 knowledge could see it... omfg comtv/gsl srsly? what was that???! why?! comeon... User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 21 2013 19:48 marvellosity wrote: I agree, just read the thread and actually it seemed like it was coming back to the right path having veered away for a while. DEB's posts made my brain hurt though. facts do make brains hurt i stopped posting because that molsen fellow was gonna make me get myself bant. also HotS. i had an excellent very ban-worthy mega post ready that would have provided much fodder for ABL amusement but the thread was closed well before i was done writing it. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On May 21 2013 22:24 MasterOfPuppets wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 21 2013 21:34 motbob wrote: If there is a moral problem with a sponsor's policies, that moral concern should absolutely be expressed in the most visible way possible. What happens when you express a concern that is either false or at the very least not supported by any form of evidence whatsoever? Do you think we should endorse completely unsupported and unverified claims against a company, any company, in big public spotlighted threads? Case in point: several posters kept clamoring on about how Papa John's is "anti-gay", without providing any sort of evidence in that regard. Now, I didn't follow these events too closely, but as far as I know there is no incident or statement or indeed any proof that legitimizes this claim. A few people have called said posters out on their bullshit, but to no avail. Now, do you think we should allow rampant misinformation in a thread where, honestly, quite a few people are probably unfamiliar with Papa John's? Do you think this misrepresentation whereby fairly damning claims are attached on to a company's image is fair? Wouldn't this only add more fuel to the fire of hate bandwagons that we supposedly despise? My problem is really not that concerns are voiced or that people don't like Papa John's or whatever, my problem is that a bandwagon of hate keeps growing because some edgy teens think it's cool to go on the internet and vilify big corporations for completely invalid reasons, their posts perpetuating the same misinformation they themselves may or may not believe. This is no better than the posters who were calling Stephano a pedophile and a rapist. Seriously, if you're going to dislike something and then publicly express that, at least make sure you're basing your opinion off of actual fact. On May 21 2013 21:34 motbob wrote: If TL is making a deal with a legitimately evil corporation (which Papa Johns is not, by the way), that fact should be shouted from the mountaintops, and the thread announcing the partnership is the correct place to do that. If Zynga sponsored TL, I would hope that there would be a discussion in the announcement thread about whether TL should have made a deal with a company whose business model at one point was entirely based around exploiting human psychology to extract the greatest number of dollars from wallets possible. You are saying that the discussion should take place in another thread, but the announcement thread is precisely the correct place to have the discussion of whether TL made a mistake by entering into an agreement with Papa Johns. Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with voicing a dissenting opinion, and the reason I suggested discussion be taken to a different thread was more for the purpose of preventing misinformation and stricter quality of posting. From a sponsor point of view, would you like to invest into a scene and community where people can freely make defamatory claims at your expense without any evidence and get away with it, especially considering these claims will most likely influence a lot of potential new customers? I don't really disagree with you here, but at the same time I feel this wasn't handled as well as it could've been, especially from the stand point of "it's a good idea to ban people who have no idea what they're talking about". On May 21 2013 21:34 motbob wrote: Wanting the discussion moved to a less visible venue is essentially advocating censorship. Funny, that's how I feel whenever I'm told to take a discussion to Website Feedback, but that's a different topic entirely. "wah wah, people have opinions I think are unsubstantiated and that makes me so mad!" The posters spouting obviously wrong sentiments, such as PJ's perpetrating anti-gay business practices, should be corrected and then moderated if they continue to refuse to state actual facts. This is no reason for a separate thread. Additionally, there were relatively few posters making such claims, so your declaration that the thread was full of "rampant misinformation" ends up being little more than a hyperbolic fantasy in which you've appointed yourself arbiter of acceptable discussion. Fortunately for this website, you are not a moderator. No one cares how much you dislike "edgy teens" (which, I may add, is little more than a rhetorical strategy intended to discredit entire swaths of posters who dislike the PJ's deal vociferously), if they post within the acceptable confines of the sites rules and refer to actual facts, that they be allowed to voice their concerns in the announcement thread of a controversial commercial deal is a big part of why this site is so awesome. And finally, some people have opinions that are founded on perspectives that you may not share nor sympathize with. Get over it. A company like PJ's who decides to have a spokesperson who loudly enters his opinions into the US political sphere is going to have fallout, and the large numbers of posters in the announcement thread are by and large justified in airing grievances, regardless of your personal standard in terms of what counts as a "good" opinion. Even if you think that the spokesperson's hosting a Romney fundraiser at his castle house is a nonfactor, such a consideration is distinctly outside the bounds of forum moderation. You are welcome to, you know, actually post in the threads you cry like a baby about and contend with these opinions, but that would require that you drop the passive aggressive "I'm just so tired of bad opinions" spiel that you seem ready to throw up in Closed Threads or the ABL every time something irritates your delicate sensibilities and directly address the posting that bothers you. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 22 2013 03:42 farvacola wrote: And finally, some people have opinions that are founded on perspectives that you may not share nor sympathize with. Get over it. Good job, in your desire to win random internet arguments you managed to misconstrue everything I've said. If you seriously think I have a problem with different opinions then it's not worth arguing with you. Yeah, I think people who make defamatory statements with no legitimate evidence behind it, get called out on it and then completely dismiss the fact that they got called out on it and that the burden of proof lies on them are wrong and should be sanctioned. Sue me. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Good job, in your desire to win random internet arguments you managed to misconstrue everything I've said. If you seriously think I have a problem with different opinions then it's not worth arguing with you. Yeah, I think people who make defamatory statements with no legitimate evidence behind it, get called out on it and then completely dismiss the fact that they got called out on it and that the burden of proof lies on them are wrong and should be sanctioned. Sue me. Please see lines 2, 3, and 4 of my previous response; I've already addressed this very thing. anatahananiwoshiteim was just banned by MoonBear. That account was created on 2013-05-22 03:09:34 and had 2 posts. Reason: Hi. Bye. Because prudence rules  | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:25 DeepElemBlues wrote: shut up before you two bring the wrath of micronesia down on this thread No u Deb, no u. Hitch-22 was just temp banned for 2 weeks by KwarK. That account was created on 2013-02-04 22:12:15 and had 595 posts. Reason: Being bad at the general forum. See you in 2 weeks, Hitchens boy! | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:25 DeepElemBlues wrote: shut up before you two bring the wrath of micronesia down on this thread It's aight, I have no interest in arguing with someone whose sole purpose is to make himself look smarter. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:29 MasterOfPuppets wrote: It's aight, I have no interest in arguing with someone whose sole purpose is to make himself look smarter. + Show Spoiler + greggy was just temp banned for 2 days by MoonBear. That account was created on 2010-10-31 01:08:38 and had 889 posts. Reason: There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with people. But wtf was that post about. It was like some kind of bad fever dream post and seriously bad as well. That is not okay. Just because we are more relaxed about moderation in the LoL Subforum does not mean it's an excuse to trash post and write like shit. You have been warned about this before by Nyovne. Learn to post more constructively. Anyone have the post in question? | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 22 2013 04:31 farvacola wrote: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Nh84lfvW0 Anyone have the post in question? On May 22 2013 00:44 greggy wrote: well, firstly, you should stop being so mad. now, no, I don't work for riot. that doesn't mean I'm not in a position to criticise their decisionmaking. completely leaving EUW (and only EUW, mind you) to freewheel for years now is a conscious decision however, and anyone with their throat not full of phreak's cock should be critical of it. I may not know what exactly they're doing to fix it, but I do know what they're not doing, and it's not doing enough. next, their income model is, in my opinion, short-sighted and somewhat misguided, but that's a discussion for another day. all I'll say is that because designing a new client or making a full visual upgrade won't profit them directly (unlike making a nine-clit ahri skin, for example), it is not encouraged. of course, it's not actually going to lose them any money, because nobody's going to quit lol over their godawful client or something, but it's not a good long-term policy, because let's face it, they WILL need to upgrade their client eventually, and by the time they get to it it'll be 2016 or something. now, I may not have attended that particular meeting where morello said "fuck the client, let's nerf olaf again" but, in a nutshell, this red post says that there is no new client in the works. they'd much rather upgrade this one, which I believe to be a terrible decision, but that's just me. now, lastly we come to the tournament system. the LCS is, put simply, a giant LoL ad. its purpose is to attract new players. but to accommodate all these new players they need a strong infrastructure in place, which they barely do. so when casual joe tries to install lol on a sunday, he either gets hit by a 20000-strong queue or gets dc-ed from the game midway through, neither of which is a great experience, so he says "fuck it, I'll go play medal of duty 17 instead", and riot just missed out on $x he was going to spend. this is an extreme example, of course, but the point is that if you have a bottleneck, like EUW is at the moment, you need to invest into infrastructre asap to get rid of it, because it's reducing your profits in both short- and long-term. tl;dr: OMG RIOT FIX IT ALREADY p.s. i lost my train of thought midway through last paragraph so i had to cut it short User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
| ||
