Jump to content

the admiral


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CS85 said:

Wow...really?  What made this suddenly a thing that must be enforced on a member of such good standing?

It's a result of the ChrisCLEMENT/CRichardson IP checks.  It was decided that we can't just arbitrarily choose which suspected dupe accounts to check out of favoritism/bias and the rule is ironclad being as it's the one banning that is an automatic trigger and not one that the mod team votes on.

 

What we are going to be doing is discussing tweaks to the reinstatement policy to allow for cases of dupe accounts applying for reinstatement.  In the meantime though?  Our hands were tied.

 

For what it's worth, my feelings on this move can be best illustrated in GIF form.

 

M1DoQ1N.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so he can be reinstated, I assume, without TOO much of a hassle?

 

I have no idea why I'm vouching for the admiral so hard, but the guy is a huge presence here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CS85 said:

Ah, so he can be reinstated, I assume, without TOO much of a hassle?

 

I have no idea why I'm vouching for the admiral so hard, but the guy is a huge presence here.

 

Possibly. We'll have to see what tweaks to the policy come forward out of this.

 

Trust me, we debated that. But in the end, the rules as they're written at the time have to apply the same to everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this challenges the wisdom of the irreversibly of banned members that "dupe," that's OK with me.  I agree with banning someone who dupes but I just don't get why reinstatement, per the new policy, is impossible for that.  Someone can grow up from flaming; they certainly can grow up from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

If this challenges the wisdom of the irreversibly of banned members that "dupe," that's OK with me.  I agree with banning someone who dupes but I just don't get why reinstatement, per the new policy, is impossible for that.  Someone can grow up from flaming; they certainly can grow up from that.

That's exactly why we're discussing changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

If this challenges the wisdom of the irreversibly of banned members that "dupe," that's OK with me.  I agree with banning someone who dupes but I just don't get why reinstatement, per the new policy, is impossible for that.  Someone can grow up from flaming; they certainly can grow up from that.

 

Agreed, but I'd add that the person should still face some sort of consequences. Just my opinion here...I know it's the admiral, but you can't ban him today and then reinstate him tomorrow just because he's the admiral. He got away with being a dupe account for literally the entire time I've been a member here. If he's going to pay the price for that then the punishment needs to have some teeth. Otherwise, we're right back to where we were before.

 

Full disclosure, if I'd had a vote, I would have voted against banning him. But if we're going to stop playing favorites then it has to apply to reinstatement as well. Just my opinion on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LMU said:

Account flashbasin has also been banned for being a dupe.

 

The hell? 

What about Teal/Purple/etc?  I've always wondered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

out of curiosity, what happens when you get banned? Like, when you log in does something tell you? Or do you get an email? 

 

The only reason I ask is because I assume that there is no indication and that's why people make dupe accounts after being banned. (not that it makes it ok, I'm not trying to justify, just curious to know if this may be the reason)

Maybe I'm giving too much credit to these folks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mr.negative15 said:

out of curiosity, what happens when you get banned? Like, when you log in does something tell you? Or do you get an email? 

 

The only reason I ask is because I assume that there is no indication and that's why people make dupe accounts after being banned. (not that it makes it ok, I'm not trying to justify, just curious to know if this may be the reason)

Maybe I'm giving too much credit to these folks?

I believe you can log in but you can’t post. They know they’re banned. 

 

(Someone can correct me if I’m wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crabcake47 said:

I believe you can log in but you can’t post. They know they’re banned. 

 

Ok, so I did give too much credit, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would support a statute of limitations on offenses like this. TCR joined in 2004 and hasn't posted since 2007. It's ancient history at this point. I don't think an active member of the community (or anyone else, for that matter) should be banned just because of a dupe account that hasn't been used in a decade, and that everyone knew about for years.

 

Just my two cents. If the policy is changed to include a statute of limitations (maybe a year? two years?), I think it'd only be fair to automatically reinstate Admiral and anyone else who was banned as a result of a long-ago dupe account. At least those that weren't made to circumvent a ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CS85 said:

 

The hell? 

What about Teal/Purple/etc?  I've always wondered...

Teal is clean.  Purple has already been banned.

 

If you suspect others please let one of us know via PM and we'll investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kroywen said:

I would support a statute of limitations on offenses like this. TCR joined in 2004 and hasn't posted since 2007. It's ancient history at this point. I don't think an active member of the community (or anyone else, for that matter) should be banned just because of a dupe account that hasn't been used in a decade, and that everyone knew about for years.

 

Just my two cents. If the policy is changed to include a statute of limitations (maybe a year? two years?), I think it'd only be fair to automatically reinstate Admiral and anyone else who was banned as a result of a long-ago dupe account. At least those that weren't made to circumvent a ban, of course.

The Admiral account was specifically created to circumvent the ban on TCR.  Also, that was at least his third or fourth different dupe account.

 

Our policy when finding a dupe of members not circumventing bans is to PM them and let us know which account to keep while we ban the other or merge the accounts, whichever situation we deem the most appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LMU said:

It's a result of the ChrisCLEMENT/CRichardson IP checks.  It was decided that we can't just arbitrarily choose which suspected dupe accounts to check out of favoritism/bias and the rule is ironclad being as it's the one banning that is an automatic trigger and not one that the mod team votes on.

 

What we are going to be doing is discussing tweaks to the reinstatement policy to allow for cases of dupe accounts applying for reinstatement.  In the meantime though?  Our hands were tied.

 

???

 

This is an online message board, not some stuffy 38th floor bureaucracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.