When asked to clean it up a little...

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

I'd say Joker's argument is pretty lame, and i'd say the it was only a one off thing argument is pretty shitty too. Increase exposure of warnings and make them clearly viewable in future and I'll be happy.

Also I think your connections between his avatar and his actions are tenuous at best but I'm probably not going to convince you there is no connection in this lifetime.

also his reaction with new accounts seems pretty normal to me, normal for someone who feels they have been dealt with unjustly by a party that is not willing to listen to what they have to say as well.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

However, the arguments so far have been pretty lame.

Your arguments need Jack to have seen the warning and assume his motive was contempt for the admin.

That's pretty much just conjecture. Jack stated he didn't see it from one of these new accounts. Everyone that's commented on it has said they missed it.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

I'd say Joker's argument is pretty lame, and i'd say the it was only a one off thing argument is pretty shitty too. Increase exposure of warnings and make them clearly viewable in future and I'll be happy.

I think your hate crime one was pretty lame too, given that your conclusion was wrong. That situation would be very likely to be looked at as a hate crime, being people caught with Nazi paraphernalia beating up Jewish people and all. 'Circumstantial' would be a pretty flimsy position to rest your defense on.

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

Also I think your connections between his avatar and his actions are tenuous at best but I'm probably not going to convince you there is no connection in this lifetime.

It was a simple question illustrating just one point in which Jack was likely to reduce his chances for getting the benefit of the doubt. It's not tenuous at all. Clearly, even as repeated in his action in this thread, it was NOT his intention to be respectful, in fact clearly quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

also his reaction with new accounts seems pretty normal to me, normal for someone who feels they have been dealt with unjustly by a party that is not willing to listen to what they have to say as well.

They were also normal as compared to his statements prior to being banned. They were consistent. Nothing in their tone changed. He was vocally hostile to the administration and moderation of this site before and he apparently still feels the same way. We didn't make him post stolen content, and when a less problematic member posted stolen content they got a much more reasonable forgiving response.

[JCC]

Gothic.net's blatant and obnoxious misuse of power seems to be quite therapeutic to Gothic.net, perhaps they even slightly receive a slightly erotic thrill from banning people just because they've taken umbridge with them. I believe that Gothic.net is using this newfound power as an accessory within delusional reworkings of unsavoury memories, where they can become the victor in a confrontation or achieve what they originally aimed to do, and now it's become so valuable a tool for self-esteem that they're hesitant to relinquish it. For example, Gothic.net may be adapting their online escapades and splicing them into memories, being rejected by their dream prom date, perhaps, a situation where they use their power to assert themselves; "Hey, will you go to the prom with me?" "What's that thing on your face...?" "BANHAMMER!". Gothic.net may be using this as a comfort for all traumatic experiences throughout their sad life, possibly overcoming father issues. "You're a worthless sack of shit!" "Oh dear, father, it looks like I'll have to restrict your access to the household, this is your third warning now. Your offence warrants an IP ban, I think. Game, set, match."

The allure that these possibilities bring means that Gothic.net may have an almost sociopathic reluctance to admit that they have made a wrong or illogical decision, perhaps using their powers as a part of their overly defensive justification of their actions. It's my professional opinion that you proceed with caution; Gothic.net teeters dangerously close upon the brink of being a complete wanker.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Your arguments need Jack to have seen the warning and assume his motive was contempt for the admin.

That's pretty much just conjecture. Jack stated he didn't see it from one of these new accounts. Everyone that's commented on it has said they missed it.

If MIR5 states that their link to the file was removed for copyright reasons and that they got a warning, and in the very next post Jack pipes up and offers the file via PM, I'm just not buying that he had no eye-dear whut whuz goin on. One doesn't go from posting links to warez or whatever in public to then offering them in private because the public link was removed, without KNOWING they are doing something wrong. Warning was clear and honestly, no warning should even be required. Posting obviously stolen property is serious.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by JCC

The allure that these possibilities bring means that Gothic.net may have an almost sociopathic reluctance to admit that they have made a wrong or illogical decision, perhaps using their powers as a part of their overly defensive justification of their actions. It's my professional opinion that you proceed with caution; Gothic.net teeters dangerously close upon the brink of being a complete wanker.

All you can do is call names and make nonsense up? As humorously rude as it may be, it's still kind of not cool.

The actions in this case simply were not wrong. I'm open to talking about them, but I'm not going to say I was wrong when I clearly wasn't wrong. No argument I've heard here so far would lead me or many other reasonable people to believe it was wrong. The more this goes on in fact, the more right the choice looks like it really was.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

The actions in this case simply were not wrong. I'm open to talking about them, but I'm not going to say I was wrong when I clearly wasn't wrong.

So you're not open to talking, you're open to prolix.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

If MIR5 states that their link to the file was removed for copyright reasons and that they got a warning

He didn't mention the warning, check his post.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Warning was clear

It really wasn't, nobody saw it except MIR5 who also had a PM to inform him it was there. Posts to this thread show that.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

no warning should even be required.

Though posting after a warning is the reason for the ban.

Jack posted the link. He posted it after MIR5 said the link was gone, and yes mentioned that it was gone due to copyright issues. But nowhere that the admin of Gnet had become involved, leaving the possibility that the content had been removed from the other site. This is why "offering stolen content after a warning" isn't a good reason for a ban.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

no warning should even be required

http://radicalgraphics.org/albums/St...rity.sized.gif

Indeed.....

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

I had a download link in the original post so you could get it in PDF but it got deleted for copyright reasons, rendering this entire thread pretty much pointless.

Although, I have to confess, I'm surprised at how many people already own the printed copy.

Ah yes, the word 'warning' is there. Crystal clear.

[CrimsonPythonidae]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Ah yes, the word 'warning' is there. Crystal clear.

Spot on.
Also, I too would've gotten the impression from MiR5's post that the site he posted a link to had been removed, not the link he had posted.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by CrimsonPythonidae

Spot on.
Also, I too would've gotten the impression from MiR5's post that the site he posted a link to had been removed, not the link he had posted.

That's exactly what I, and the majority of other users thought.

[CrimsonPythonidae]

It reminds me of a time when I was at school, in maths class and my teacher removed me from that lesson and sent my to "upper school withdrawal" as it was called. This meant I had to go to a class for year 11 or 12 (I was in year eight) and write out the school's code of conduct. He did that because he thought I was talking or something, which I was not, but there was no reasoning with him. As far as he was concerned I had fucked up and HE HAD SPOKEN.
The punishment itself I didn't mind, my issue was that it felt really shitty to have not done anything wrong at that time but to have been told that I had and then unfairly punished.

[Solumina]

Out of curiosity, since there is so much debate as to the legitimacy behind the reasoning for Jack's ban, would you have reacted the same way if I was the one who had done it? I have been pretty open about my dislike of Dirtnap's actions and I have questioned your authority but I have also done things much more clearly against the rules than what Jack did and I am still here, I have never even received a warning.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Out of curiosity, since there is so much debate as to the legitimacy behind the reasoning for Jack's ban, would you have reacted the same way if I was the one who had done it? I have been pretty open about my dislike of Dirtnap's actions and I have questioned your authority but I have also done things much more clearly against the rules than what Jack did and I am still here, I have never even received a warning.

Brilliant point Solumina; if Jack_the_Knife had great tits, would he have been banned? I think not.

[Solumina]

Hahahahaha

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by JCC

Brilliant point Solumina; if Jack_the_Knife had great tits, would he have been banned? I think not.

Good point, JCC. Gothic.net has yet refrained from banning any of our female members. I daresay he might indeed be sexist. Given that his standards concerning what constitutes reason for which to exercise his administrative powers are relatively lax, perhaps to prove his insensibility to gender is sufficient justification for removing a woman from the boards. Which woman he chooses doesn't matter all too much to me... hmm... it could be... oh, I don't know... uh... maybe Tam Li Hua? Just throwing a suggestion out there.

Originally Posted by Gnet

He was vocally hostile to the administration and moderation of this site before and he apparently still feels the same way. We didn't make him post stolen content, and when a less problematic member posted stolen content they got a much more reasonable forgiving response.

This, I think, encapsulates perfectly the issue many have taken with the moderators as of late. Although Jack broke a rule, he suffered a harsher punishment than that MIR5 suffered for breaking the same rule simply because you didn't like him-- as user response has shown, he wasn't 'problematic' for anyone but you. If you ban everyone for posting stolen content, fine. If you warn everyone for posting stolen content, fine. However, if you respond to the same conduct differently based on your personal feelings, people will object.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

This, I think, encapsulates perfectly the issue many have taken with the moderators as of late.

I think that may be part of the issue that people have with Gothic.net, but we can't disregard the influence of the fact that Gothic.net is actually just a bit of a twat.

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by JCC

Brilliant point Solumina; if Jack_the_Knife had great tits, would he have been banned? I think not.

Does that mean if we all get a boob job the ban hammer suddenly becomes useless?

Does this ability stretch to other sites and online games?

if so, that is a damn good investment, tits AND immunity from the internet police.

[PortraitOfSanity]

I've actually gone out of my way to offend quite a large number of people. Apparently, I need to practice.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

Does that mean if we all get a boob job the ban hammer suddenly becomes useless?

Does this ability stretch to other sites and online games?

if so, that is a damn good investment, tits AND immunity from the internet police.

Only naturally awesome tits can ward off the ban hammer so I'm sorry but you cannot purchase such an awesome attribute.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Good point, JCC. Gothic.net has yet refrained from banning any of our female members.

Wrong. Ophie was banned, if temporarily. Thank heavens she was allowed back.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Wrong. Ophie was banned, if temporarily. Thank heavens she was allowed back.

Yeah, I was thinking that.
Also, of course, Xng.
But I think they mean this wave.

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Only naturally awesome tits can ward off the ban hammer so I'm sorry but you cannot purchase such an awesome attribute.

Damned nation!

[Alarica]

I think a suspension for the offense, as a warning not to do it again, would have been more than enough. Banning someone straight off when they did 1 thing the admins didnt like is just a blatant misuse of the ban button. When the likes of uni post and pm people threatening to beat them etc, I really think it's a little extreme banning someone for sending a link in PM ffs. And as for not banning MiR5 for the same PUBLIC offense, that takes the piss. That would be no different than taking 2 murderers and stringing 1 up by the neck and making him watch the other go free, before his neck is snapped.