Posts by wild1145

↩  StevenNL2000 That may be so, but it is the first rule under "Bannable offences"... It's a bit like us not banning someone in game and going "Well they only destroyed 1 build so it's only a little bit of damage not a lot"...

I am not entirely disagreeing with the point being made either, I'm just challenging that someone has broken a rule and doesn't feel that rule should be applied how we've said it would be applied, I'm not really seeing any actual reason why we shouldn't have applied the rule when it was clearly broken... I'd like to see some actual evidence of it not breaking the rules, or some level of remorse for breaking the rule in the first place... Sort of feels like that's what the point of the appeal process was designed for.

Has anyone actually got a reason beyond the fact they don't like the Discord rules...? So far it seems folks just don't like the "No NSFW" rule rather than anything else...

↩  root Yeah someone else who didn't really add any value bumped this and has got themselves forum banned. I didn't delete dragons post as it was at least on topic even if it looks like a mega bump

Also tracked on Jira as FS-397

I split them out a few weeks back in an effort to make it easier and more sensible for all involved.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood I'm not sure who is sat here cherry picking what is NSFW and what isn't.

There's no cherry picking. This was in the main general discussion and happened while I was online. It's really as simple as that.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood @Ryan your statement on it breaking ToS is hypocritical at best. If you want to look at it from that perspective, you need to ban everyone who has ever said anything NSFW on the chat

Read my precious replies before losing your shit over something I've already addressed.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood you simply do not get to choose what is a breach and what isn't

I actually do. It's one of the perks of being the owner. It's my job to make a judgment. But again if you'd bothered to take any time to read my posts earlier in this thread instead of flying off the handle at me, you'd already know this has been addressed.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood It's also quite sad to see someone get banned for this, when its so obviously clear he was joking around and having fun.

I'm sure those that destroy folks builds in game are "having fun" but we still ban them because it breaks the rules. The discord has a strict no NSFW content policy and it's been like it since tf started a discord server... It's not new, it's not a surprise.

↩  Luke Worth noting the rule is pretty clear. No NSFW content at all. It's quite clear you can't post it and uses a number of examples of the type of medium which the content can be posted on which is all forbidden.

↩  Luke It's not unappealable at this time. I didn't ban for breaking the discord tos, it's merely a comment on this appeal that I think it does break the tos.

Given I issued the ban @"simplynick"#11 will be the one in a few days to weigh the evidence and feedback from folks on this thread.

I would encourage folks to provide reasoning behind vouches or objects as there is not a threshold and it's done off of nicks judgment or my judgment.

Reviewing this thread, and based on the thread linked earlier with such screen shots as:

and

Combined with the fact it's quite clear from the last appeal thread and this thread you've not shown any actual remorse for what you've done, and you just feel it's been long enough for your indef ban, I'm going to decline this.

You may next appeal no sooner than 90 Days time.

I am sorry that you've had to put up with this sort of behaviour during your time on TF, and I appreciate you coming forward to tell your story.

To reiterate for everyone, harassment, discrimination or any behaviour similar to this is absolutely unacceptable, and I have and will continue to operate a strict 0 tolerance policy on the matter. There's absolutely no place within this community for predators and those who go out of their way to make others feel uncomfortable.

I would continue to ask folks to report any such behaviour directly to me, if you're not comfortable coming directly to me please raise it with another executive, I'm sure folks such as Steven and Video are always open to being made aware of such issues, and where appropriate can escalate it to me anonymously if required.

↩  Luke Potentially yes, though the reason I issued the ban on this occasion as the fact it was more graphic than the "suck my balls" type of statement. It was detailed and descriptive and I felt it inappropriate for someone between the ages of 13 and say 18 to have to read it when the channel is not an 18+ channel.

↩  Luke It's NSFW Content in a non-NSFW Channel... It's in breach of the Discord TOS and could 100% have our entire Discord server banned...

↩  FromTimeToTime The first question asks for the timezone you actually live in, not when you're most active. If you're in EST then that's fine, but it's not clear to me from your answer to question 1.

The user @"Beta_Alpha"#393 has been issued with a 14 day forum ban for power posting irrelevant shit on existing spam and drama threads.

↩  RedEastWood Nothing, but there's only so far you can reasonably go... Likewise it doesn't really matter because it's still only 1 reason. Your "Vouch" "Neutral" or "Object" in things like the hub mod apps don't actually count for anything, the explanation does. So if 20 people go "Yeah object for X persons reason" and 5 go "Vouch for <Insert 5 different reasons here>" that boils down to 1 reason to not appoint them, and 5 reasons to appoint them. At that point it's about judgement and deciding if you think they're suitable or not based off of the feedback and advise from the community.

↩  Miwojedk The simple answer: Because it's not a popularity contest, it's a question of appointing effective individuals. Sometimes that means those who can be best fit to do the role won't get on with everyone else. Likewise people will naturally gravitate to vouching for people they share interests / get along with, which has no impact on their ability to actually perform effectively as an admin...

Quote

↩  Miwojedk I don't recall us having these issues when the threshold was lower under the previous EAOs .

We have however had issues where serious and valid objections have been raised but people still get through because they have enough votes, and likewise the other way around. Perfectly good applicants get tanked because they aren't liked.

It's why I wanted people to actively explain their rational so these things could be balanced rather than just be a tally up.

I would like to get rid of thresholds entirely, they're bad in reality... I think I've said it before, but requiring set numbers / percentages just tends to lead to an echo chamber and cause more harm than good.

Declined.

You can wait out the ban and be thankful it was not a permanent one.

It's what happens when you power post in the wrong part of the forums. I find the way to make you hurt the most.