The Mafia Discussion Thread

[Sousa]

Guess what champ, we've got rules and you either play by them, or you don't play at all. No matter how much you bitch and complain about how things are run around here, nothing is going to change, because it's a system that works for everyone else.

This part is my favourite because I remember Maxx bitching about not getting to run his game a while back

I was wondering who was going to be the first person to point that out.

[Maxx]

Yes, I had a bunch of problems with how things were run. Then I realized it wasn't worth getting suspended or banned from ever running a game over, especially after it became abundantly clear that anything I said wasn't going to change things. So I speak from experience when I say going crazy over the rules and raising protests will get you no where.

Oldskool, Oldskool, Oldskool. I wonder if you've actually read everything Strongarm has written on this issue. I find it immensely entertaining, so I have. Strongarm's case has gone way beyond his original issue. After initially being politely told to that he has to abide by the rules, he comes off as a pompous asshole in every single one of his posts. He showed zero respect to Srar, even less to Norro who's verbal warnings he completely laughed off.

He did not get suspended for making a sign up thread out of turn, he got suspended for being completely disrespectful. You're out here playing devil's advocate for him, but completely ignoring the real reasons behind his treatment. You're defending his stance that its okay to start a sign up thread and completely circumvent the rules, but once again, that isn't what he got suspended for. He was disrespectful to every mod he came across, ignored their verbal warnings and continued to push his issue, so he got suspended for it. He comes back, immediately flames everyone, says he'll conform to the rules "for now" and continues to push the issue, showing he's obviously not planning on dropping it, so he gets suspended again.

It's perfectly fine to argue how things are run here, but when two global mods and an admin tell you things aren't going to change and its time to drop the issue, you drop the issue. You don't do what Strongarm did, or you'll get yourself suspended. Now Oldskool, do you care to play devil's advocate for what he actually did or do you want to continue to act like he's a victim who got suspended twice for trying to make a sign up thread out of turn?

[The Mask of Norro]

Nevermind the fact that what oldskool apparently has conveniently forgotten is that while the first warning CAN come a 24 hour suspension at the discretion of the mod, the second one WILL come with a week suspension. After 24 hours, strongarm continued to break the very rule he was warned for in the first place, I'd suspended him the 24 hours to let him cool off and he learned nothing.

Then he uses a double account to actually PM mods and tell them that "even though I'm new here, I feel that the banning of the strongarm account was unfair", even though it was a week's suspension. He effectively shot all chances of ever coming back here for himself out of the air.

It's one thing entirely to question the process, that's actually absolutely fine and there's nothing wrong with questioning, challenging and what have you. What happened, however, was that he not only challenged it, but acted against it, and that's not fine at all. He proceeded to argue the point in HIS thread against Sara, who told him to drop the topic and then proceeded to close the thread. He didn't drop it, but rather carried it on here, and so I felt the need to come in and deal with it. I in turn told him to drop it, he didn't, so I gave him 24 hours to cool off.

He comes back, yells at everyone who disagreed with him, continues the topic AGAIN, and so no, I'm sorry, but that's not going to fly. If he wanted to make the argument he could have waited some time before doing so, but instead he picked it back up right away after being punished for not knocking the shit off. No-one else was warned for pushing it because they hadn't been pushing it in the first place, they only started joking about the whole thing after the fact. So if you really want to play Devil's Advocate, oldskool? By all means, go ahead, but I know for a fact I acted in the right here and if you're trying to imply that I was pulling favoritism at any point in this you're out of your fucking gourde, but hell, as betterguy might say, you're entitled to your opinion.

Furthermore, in your little analogy there? Would work except the fact that the cop in that situation describing me actually has the support of the rest of the cops in this case. I didn't act out of line from the rest of the mods, I was the guy who wound up stepping in though out of the rest of those who did and wound up getting challenged on things because of it out of the rest of them, and I acted on those challenges accordingly. It wasn't me being overly harsh on the guy, it was me responding to the situation with what I felt was the appropriate action, and I can promise you that the mod team will back me up on that.

If nothing else, I rarely hand out warnings and suspensions like these, when things escalate I try to get involved to diffuse the situation but the instant someone starts disrespecting the orders of a mod it's time to start dealing with that person accordingly and hopefully setting things up so they can learn from it and knock off with what they're doing. strongarm didn't learn, he used a double account in the end and fucked himself over. But yeah, generally speaking? I try to be as fair and impartial in these situations as I can be, but when someone's doing something against the rules, and I'm trying to deal with them personally, I'm not going to let them just walk all over me.

So please, oldskool, please challenge me on these issues even though it's clear you've no idea how half of what the mod team does works. Please challenge me even though it's clear you don't understand how the new warning system works out, and how it's supposed to help the person getting warned from getting banned in the end. Please share with me how you would handle the situation, because apparently, at least in the way you've been wording your replies, you've got this whole damn thing figured out already, and I'm just so very certain that your planning would have stopped strongarm from going off on everyone after the first time, or resorting to his double account to bypass a mod's decision, or the myriad of other things he'd done along the way that got him warned in the first place.

Because, being honest here? You want to say I was being harsh? If I wanted to, I could have warned the guy twice in the first place because of all the shit he did which separately broke the rules, but I gave him a chance instead. The second time was more than enough to warrant the week's suspension.

Edited August 1, 2009 by The Mask of Norro

[MalaCloudy Black]

Don't do it, oldskool! He's just trying to goad you into a triple team! JHS and RW are waiting in the wings!

don't do it, I'm warnin' you man

[Your Mom]

SURPRISE!!!!

Oh man. Too soon?

[The Mask of Norro]

Just a little.

[MalaCloudy Black]

He'll never see it coming if you get back in the cake, though.

[oldskool]

What would I have done? I would've just dropped it, since his question had been answered and the rule he was citing was clarified so there wasn't any more confusion, instead of being all "How dare you question me!" about it and coming across like I've got insecurity issues.

[Your Mom]

I thought it would have ended with the thread getting closed

[oldskool]

*shrug* He was clearly confused on a rule, and it was deemed confusing enough that the rule was re-worded. He was justified in his argument, as far as I'm concerned. Where he went with it from there was over-the-top, to be sure, but Norro's the only one that seemed to take it personally while every other non-strongarm was just having fun with it.

[The Mask of Norro]

... he broke rules when he disrespected JHS' request for him to drop the issue after she closed his thread. I could have warned him for that, but instead I asked him to drop it yet again. If he wanted to argue it, he could have waited for some time before doing so, but instead he did it all but immediately after being told by JHS to drop the subject. He continued to do so after *I* came in and told him to stop.

Furthermore, he went under both JHS and I and tried to evade our rulings by getting an admin. The admin in question told him the exact same thing that we did, and he pitched a fit. After being given a warning for the first thing he did wrong, and being given 24 hours to cool off and understand why he shouldn't have done what he did, he continued to do it anyway and basically showed absolutely no respect to the rulings of any of us on the mod team, including RW, and also proceeded to call everyone who disagreed with him douchebags, which also included members of the mod team.

You look at the rules of EWB, the updated rules on our warning system, and you'll see that I never once overreacted, I acted accordingly. If nothing else, the things I was doing was to try and keep him from getting himself banned because the little idiot wouldn't stop doing things that would get him warned. In the end, though, instead of taking the week and moving on, he used a double account to complain about it.

So normally, yes, he'd be justified in arguing, but not in this instance when he was told to, for that time, drop the fucking argument. You honestly can't think that he was in the right in that situation, I'm sorry but there's just no bloody conceivable way, and if you legitimately think that then there's not even a point in me trying to reason with you over it because it's clear you're never going to get the damn point of that whole altercation in the first place, let alone how strongarm's actions were handled by us.

[Your Mom]

Surprise!

[The Mask of Norro]

Don't know how I missed this, but...

What would I have done? I would've just dropped it, since his question had been answered and the rule he was citing was clarified so there wasn't any more confusion, instead of being all "How dare you question me!" about it and coming across like I've got insecurity issues.

Seriously? Fuck off. You obviously don't know how the system on EWB works and you're just trying to defend yourself over a point to keep yourself from looking like a jackass trying to play a failed Devil's Advocate in this situation.

His question was answered, but he continued to push the issue and, once again, what he was doing in the first place was going against the ruling of a mod. What I did, in turn, was follow the rules on EWB when it comes to warnings. Go to the damn Board Discussion subforum and look at them yourself, since it's clear you never paid them any mind before.

I hardly came across as having insecurity issues, but you on the other hand are coming off like an overdefensive, uninformed, overzealous devil's advocate. Not once was it a "how dare you question me" issue, it was a "you pushed an issue you were told to drop by a mod, you went under the ruling of two mods to try and get your way, you get warned", followed by a "you were warned, suspended for a day, and you come back to not only flame three members of the mod team but also a number of people who disagreed with you, and you CONTINUED to push a subject you were told to drop, you get warned", followed by a "holy shit you numbskull did you really just double account to complain about it, you get banned".

[oldskool]

Apparently I don't know how the system works, because I took "Flaming will not be tolerated" and assumed that meant I couldn't get away with posting things like "Hey, do you go to a Southern remedial school? Are you a retarded redneck glue eater?".

[thuganomic]

Uh...that's not flaming.

Those are just very targeted questions. People have a right to know!

>_>

[oldskool]

"Douchebag - posting = " certainly constitutes flaming, and that's the one that got through the Plubby flame filter as he alerady had to edit another post within 60 seconds of its posting down to "Flaming. Sorry". Apparently there was no redeeming quality to the post that could be salvaged.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Apparently I don't know how the system works, because I took "Flaming will not be tolerated" and assumed that meant I couldn't get away with posting things like "Hey, do you go to a Southern remedial school? Are you a retarded redneck glue eater?".

oldskool, for the love of God, quit while you're behind.

[oldskool]

Piss off, Be. Don't parade around telling me how things have to be done and how the system works if you're going to ignore several other rule violations in the process.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Piss off, Be. Don't parade around telling me how things have to be done and how the system works if you're going to ignore several other rule violations in the process.

I'm just advising you to quit while only a minority of the board thinks you're an idiot for defending the indefensible. If you don't want to take that advice, I can't stop you.

[oldskool]

When the initial suspension I take issue with resulted in a retaliatory post, a second suspension, a double accounting and a full on ban, I don't see how "Give him his official admin answer and let the whole thing go" can really be seen as a less favorable option. Maybe that happened in PMs directed to him, and he really was a douchebag in response PMs, I wouldn't know.