When asked to clean it up a little...

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

But say for a moment, there was the slightest sliver of a chance that is what happened. Why should someone who loudly displayed that much contempt for the administration and moderation of this site be given the benefit of the doubt? What did he possibly do to deserve that?

You should probably look at the people who display "contempt for the administration and moderation of this site" as pointers on where you've recently gone wrong with the site.

[Raptor]

Thank you for the response.

He did offer stolen content, but the reason for banning was offering that content after another member had been warned.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Jack followed what was going on close enough to immediately re-offer the stolen content that had just been removed

That simply requires him to have been online at the time and to have read MIR5's post, not to be re-reading the thread over and over.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

as a response to the person who had just been warned

The warning is hard to see because of its size and location.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

and conveyed that warning publicly

MIR5 said the link had been removed, he didn't convey that he had been warned by the admin.

So Jack hadn't really been warned. I only saw Dirtnap's edit after MIR5 pointed it out on this thread, I'm sure most people missed it.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

All of these arguments are failing. Is there the most infinitesimal chance Jack followed what was going on close enough to immediately re-offer the stolen content that had just been removed, as a response to the person who had just been warned and conveyed that warning publicly, while not paying close enough attention to notice that what he was doing was very wrong? No.

Then how come almost every member who's replied here either thought up or agreed with that very explanation? And I'll just add that the warning was NOT conveyed publicly. For that to be true I'd at least expect the word 'warning' to have popped up somewhere. It didn't. MIR5 has even admitted himself that his post was not clear. And the small text about Dirtnap's edit would almost definitely have gone unnoticed by anyone reading new posts in the thread - it's amazing what scrolling down a page can do.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

But say for a moment, there was the slightest sliver of a chance that is what happened. Why should someone who loudly displayed that much contempt for the administration and moderation of this site be given the benefit of the doubt? What did he possibly do to deserve that?

He was an interesting and generally liked member around here, that's why he deserves that. His contempt for the administration was not only shared by a large number of members, but the way he chose to show it didn't hurt anyone and rather swiftly blew over. In the history of this forum people have gone about it in far more disruptive ways.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

He defiantly offered banned stolen content, in reaction to warnings being given and links to stolen content being removed by the administration. End of story.

See, I really don't think it was in reaction to warnings, nor an act of defiance. It looked to me like a simple offer to send people something they may have missed out on, stolen content or not. And I'll remind you that many people of the younger generations raised on the internet don't bat an eyelid at copyright laws. It's just not something you think about when every album, book and movie is available for free download at the click of a mouse.

Sorry to be nagging on about this, but I have this thing about justice, and this banning does not seem well justified to me. I'll simply ask that you try a little harder to see the situation from the point of view shared by myself and many others here.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Cicero

...And I'll remind you that many people of the younger generations raised on the internet don't bat an eyelid at copyright laws. It's just not something you think about when every album, book and movie is available for free download at the click of a mouse.

Sorry to be nagging on about this, but I have this thing about justice, and this banning does not seem well justified to me...

It really baffles me that you can talk about not batting an eye at the law and then invoke justice in nearly the same breath. I think you get one argument or the other, but not both.

[Saya]

Seeing tekajo got banned for merely voicing his dissatisfaction it really doesn't surprise me that Jack won't get a second chance on the basis that he chose to voice his dissatisfaction with his avatar.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

It really baffles me that you can talk about not batting an eye at the law and then invoke justice in nearly the same breath. I think you get one argument or the other, but not both.

That's only baffling if you equate law with justice.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

It really baffles me that you can talk about not batting an eye at the law and then invoke justice in nearly the same breath. I think you get one argument or the other, but not both.

I've learnt that 'justice' and 'the law' are very separate things in Western society. And regardless of that, I was merely commenting on the usual attitudes of people in my age group towards stolen content, and the fact that it's absolutely everywhere on the internet. I'm in no way condoning the breaking of laws, just reminding you that many people don't have them in mind when posting links.

My use of the word justice wasn't even part of any argument anyway, so if you'd like me to choose one of those paragraphs I'll go with the former.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's only baffling if you equate law with justice.

It only makes sense if you confuse justice with mercy and forgiveness. However, they are actually not the same thing. The just thing to do is not always the most forgiving thing to do.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I've learnt that 'justice' and 'the law' are very separate things in Western society. And regardless of that, I was merely commenting on the usual attitudes of people in my age group towards stolen content, and the fact that it's absolutely everywhere on the internet. I'm in no way condoning the breaking of laws, just reminding you that many people don't have them in mind when posting links.

My use of the word justice wasn't even part of any argument anyway, so if you'd like me to choose one of those paragraphs I'll go with the former.

I think you are right. People of your generation want you cake and you want to eat it too. You are at least correct on that point. You want to fly the rebel pirate flag and steal whatever entertains you and then spout terms of justice and fairness when you get in trouble for it. Your attitudes are flawed. You 'learnt' it wrong. Instances of people getting accounts knocked out for violation of intellectual property are also widespread on the internet. So, it's not a matter of what you can find examples of, it is a matter of what is right. Gothic.net CAN NOT be a place where people can post stolen content. There just are not a whole lot of different way to look at that. A reasonable soft forgiving response was given to the initial infraction but then Mr. Rebel, Mr. Fuck the administration, had to pick up the flag and wave it in the face of authority yet again, and he got himself bounced. That is the price you pay.

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

You know I agree, there can't be stolen content on Gnet because that IS a bad thing, but you're too fucking stubborn to admit that maybe your warning wasn't clear and in a place that people revisiting a topic WOULD look.

I wouldn't be half as pissed if you just admitted that you did a bad job as an admin/moderator in that aspect of the scenario. You are human you know, your powers as an admin don't make you invincible, you can fuck up too. It happened with tekajo and it has happened again with the way you presented your warning.

[gothicusmaximus]

I'm kind of surprised Jack even entertained the idea that he might be allowed back. He antagonized mods who clearly haven't quite refined the ability to divorce the influence of their personal feelings from their administrative decisions, then knowingly provided them with a totally viable excuse to ban him.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

I think you are right. People of your generation want you cake and you want to eat it too. You are at least correct on that point. You want to fly the rebel pirate flag and steal whatever entertains you and then spout terms of justice and fairness when you get in trouble for it. Your attitudes are flawed. You 'learnt' it wrong. Instances of people getting accounts knocked out for violation of intellectual property are also widespread on the internet. So, it's not a matter of what you can find examples of, it is a matter of what is right. Gothic.net CAN NOT be a place where people can post stolen content. There just are not a whole lot of different way to look at that. A reasonable soft forgiving response was given to the initial infraction but then Mr. Rebel, Mr. Fuck the administration, had to pick up the flag and wave it in the face of authority yet again, and he got himself bounced. That is the price you pay.

I'm not saying that the issue about stolen property doesn't matter. I said very early on that I can see why he was banned, it just seemed like a rather serious punishment for a single, easily misinterpreted post.

The main point I've been getting across here is that MIR5's warning WAS NOT CLEAR, and Jack's post was most likely not an act of Fuck the Administration but a silly mistake. His permanent ban was an overreaction where a warning or temporary ban (with very clear reasons given) should have sufficed.

And x2 on everything Sir Canvas Corpsey just said.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I'm not saying that the issue about stolen property doesn't matter. I said very early on that I can see why he was banned, it just seemed like a rather serious punishment for a single, easily misinterpreted post.

This wasn't his first problem. MiR5 got an easier reaction because MiR5 deserved more leniency.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Jack's post was most likely not an act of Fuck the Administration but a silly mistake.

This is where we disagree.

[Saya]

So those who don't question you don't get banned when they break the rules, just a warning, whereas everyone else will get slammed with an ip ban? And every time we make a mistake, it is considered an act of war upon you?

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Saya

So those who don't question you don't get banned when they break the rules, just a warning, whereas everyone else will get slammed with an ip ban? And every time we make a mistake, it is considered an act of war upon you?

No, those who intentionally test the limits don't get as much leniency.

If there was any indication or previous behavioral evidence to suggest that Jack actually had good intentions, that could have been taken into consideration, but if you look at Jacks behavior, it would be irresponsible to continue to let it all slide.

[Jack_the_Cunt]

Hi babes, thought I'd just pop by and throw in my 2 cents. I think you were just looking for a reason to ban me. I mean, darling, you could have just asked, I wouldn't have minded one bit. If you were hurt that I managed to 'subtly' undermine you and your crew of pathetic mods, you could have just asked me to stop sweetie, I never meant to hurt you. Oh and about the NME thing, I didn't actually know Mir5 got a warning. But I guess all I really want to say is this:

I'M STILL BETTER THAN YOU !!!

[Gothic.net]

And this is why explaining things in rational terms and wasting a lot of time and energy on efforts to give more transparency just don't sound like good policy at this point. Expect less explanation in the future.

[Bonquisha Brown]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

And this is why explaining things in rational terms and wasting a lot of time and energy on efforts to give more transparency just don't sound like good policy at this point. Expect less explanation in the future.

Because he obviously wasn't being sarcastic and mocking a member more deserving of being banned or anything...

[Jack_the_x-acto]

Why on earth should I be rational if you can't be. To be honest, I kind of like you, G.net, you're like one of those jokes you get in Christmas-crackers, so awful it's almost funny again. They never get old.

[Gothic.net]

This only proves us right.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

You know I agree, there can't be stolen content on Gnet because that IS a bad thing, but you're too fucking stubborn to admit that maybe your warning wasn't clear and in a place that people revisiting a topic WOULD look.

I agree with that. Stolen content is bad and it's perfectly understandable to remove it. The stated reason for the ban wasn't for the action though, it was for doing it despite a warning.

That of course depends on if Jack had seen the warning, which everyone else seems to agree is unlikely.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

If there was any indication or previous behavioral evidence to suggest that Jack actually had good intentions, that could have been taken into consideration, but if you look at Jacks behavior, it would be irresponsible to continue to let it all slide.

After those two new posts here I guess this is pretty useless, but I just went to look at Jack's post history. He had a short period of rudeness toward the admin that ended a week before posting that link. During that time he was posting other things so I hardly think you can use that to justify the link as an act of defiance. Plus those week old posts were only there because of other bans.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

You asked in private, but since you've also asked in public, I'll post the same answer I sent in private.

Because Man in Room 5 got a warning for posting stolen content from New Music Express. Man in Room Five reacted appropriately, but Jack immediately offered the same stolen content via private message. That's just senseless.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=14587

We can not have Gothic.net offering stolen files, particularly stolen from organizations like NME. This isn't some opaque whimsical banning. Warnings were given, and it should just be obvious.

Wait, wait... I'm sorry, maybe I'm really tired. Maybe I drank entirely more than I thought I did. Maybe I've just got too much of the "Fuck Rules" mentality saturated in my brain to pick this up, or maybe, perhaps as a musician, I would happily give out my music for free and don't care when artists get upset because their art is not being treated as capital. My misunderstanding is, basically...

WHY THE JOLLY FUCK DO YOU CARE?

They come to yell at you about it, you roll over like the good little people you act like and give them the IP, and they go after them. There's your way out. So why do you give a damn? Someone sells crack from out of a dumpster they don't sue sanitation. God damn...

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Wait, wait... I'm sorry, maybe I'm really tired. Maybe I drank entirely more than I thought I did. Maybe I've just got too much of the "Fuck Rules" mentality saturated in my brain to pick this up, or maybe, perhaps as a musician, I would happily give out my music for free and don't care when artists get upset because their art is not being treated as capital. My misunderstanding is, basically...

WHY THE JOLLY FUCK DO YOU CARE?

They come to yell at you about it, you roll over like the good little people you act like and give them the IP, and they go after them. There's your way out. So why do you give a damn? Someone sells crack from out of a dumpster they don't sue sanitation. God damn...

As an artist, you at least originally generally control the copyright. If you sell that art, you sold rights for use of it. If you decided to give it away for free and that didn't violate contractual promises you had already made in exchange for payment, that's fine. That's totally YOUR choice. However, this does not justify theft of intellectual property from people who have either chosen NOT to hand it out for free, or are contractually obligated to NOT give it out for free.

That said, this wasn't about an MP3 or whatever. This was about a publication, which was clearly being offered for sale on the sample page linked to at the start of the thread. This 'for sale' item, was also being offered in the thread as stolen merchandise. There is no starving artist behind it that just wants exposure or whatever. NME is rather large and could chose what they do and do not want out there for free. They chose to give a smaller, but still generous sampler from the publication out for free. They chose not to give the entire publication out for free. This was very clear on the very page linked at the start of the thread.

The link to the pirate copy was removed, a warning was communicated, and all was ok in the world. But then Jack had to display his contempt for the rules and administration and re-offered the exact same thing, thinking he'd get away with it if the link to the file was via PM instead of right out there in a thread. He responded directly after MiR5's message about being warned and having the link removed. There really isn't a lot of ambiguity. To try to force some ray of sunshine through the obvious facts of the matter is kind of futile, but I'd be willing to discuss it. However, the arguments so far have been pretty lame.

[JCC]

Honestly, Gothic.net, you are a right tosser.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by JCC

Honestly, Gothic.net, you are a right tosser.

They took away the Rep system to stop people giving positive feedback on posts like this.