Innocent until proven guilty...well, show us!

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:08 am

So, unbreakable was banned because he was thought to be Tony72. Interesting.

What I'd like is that the mods would show us how they reached the conclusion that he wasn't innocent, and was in fact Tony72. This could be done by for example providing us with the proof they found.
One of the biggest pet peeves I've had with the moderation back at GG was that it was murky, hidden and uneven. What the moderation needs, I think, is transparency more than anything. Show us how you work. Let us see how you've reached this decision.

The way it comes across now is that we have one poster saying that unbreakable is tony. We have another poster (unbreakable himself) saying that he isn't. Then we have peacedog apparently agreeing and banning him. Show us how you've reached this conclusion, Peacedog.

It's not uncommon you know. Almost every court case in Holland is publicly accessible, with exceptions for cases concerning children or state security. When you decide to ban someone in your capacity as administrator of this forum, you are in essence acting as a judge.
I would like to see how our judges compose their verdicts. Show us why you've banned unbreakable, why you think he's tony72. Change names and information to protect the innocent, but let us know how moderation works.

Lord Percy · Post by **Lord Percy** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:15 am

I think, in fact, that Unbreakable himself would like to know, since the the mods didn't think it was necessary to state the reasons why in the email they sent him. Someone here just got Peacedogged.

<Answerbovine> Peacedogging: Bad moderation of online forums. Also, "Pulling a Peacedog."

I'm boycotting this site until they either unban Unbreakable or prove that he is Tony72. Bad moderation just removes all the fun from a forum. FWIW, Unbreakable has visited #gg for a while now, and he's one of the more civil guys around. I do think he's an asshole though, but everyone who visits #gg is an asshole.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:18 am

I know for sure that Unbreakable is not Tony72. Why? Because I'm Tony72 and I don't remember ever posting as Unbreakable. Hmm, except that one time when I woke up and forgot where I was.

Oh well, I still think it is highly unlikely that I'll forget which nicks that used to post. So Free Unbreakable. Let's use the Michael Jackson song from that stupid marine lifeform movie as our Free Unbreakable official song.

TiLT · Post by **TiLT** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:24 am

I guess this is as perfect a time as any to point out that I'm outraged!

Peacedog, I was planning on giving you a chance as a moderator of this new forum. Ignore errors of the past, and all that. Well, you just ruined your chance. This is not only bad moderating, this is HORRID moderating. For once, try to get rid of your arrogance and actually pretend that you're not a more valuable human being than the rest of us. Show us the proof in this case as if we matter too.

I refuse to believe that Unbreakable is tony72. We've banned tony72 in IRC multiple times, and there are no similarities between those we banned an Unbreakable. In fact, there's even no similarity in IPs. Thus I wonder what kind of foul sorcery was employed by our dear moderator to reveal such a cleverly hidden identity? Unbreakable is quite polite and well spoken, I'll have you know.

I wish our new forums weren't moderated by the old GG moderators, because you've proven time and again that you are simply incapable of good, balanced moderating. We need a new moderator crew, one where moderators don't remain in power for more than 6 months or so. This is simply unacceptable, and the reason why this is only my second post in this forum.

loc-nar · Post by **loc-nar** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:39 am

Just chiming in with general support for this thread.

Darkfyre · Post by **Darkfyre** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:43 am

I think the main point we all feel is that evidence is needed Peacdog. To ban a member, without providing him with evidence via email, is borderline lunacy.

Unbreakable has been visiting #gg for awhile, as Percy stated, and I find it hard to believe that his civil nature could be compared to the unruly nature of Tony72’s. I want to see proof beyond the word of someone in the "in crowd" reporting to you, peacedog, that Unbreakable happens to be Tony72.

Cheers,

Darkfyre

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:21 am

Actually, you guys wouldn't ever get any hard evidence, perhaps outside of a general "there was an IP match". IPs and other information we have in our user database is private information, and we just aren't going to go around handing that stuff out. If that's a problem, well I'm sorry. Treating l the information submitted by users to use this forums as private is pretty important.

Forum staff thinks he is Tony. That is enough. Considering how hesitant we are in acting on this kind of thinking (an IP match all by itself is not evidence we would consider 100% damning, and that's proven to be a wise course on several occasions), that's pretty telling. We don't need to justify the fact that we think he is Tony72, since it takes alot of evidence to make us think that. Our goal is never to ban anyone, we'd prefer if people just got along and understood that the occasional outburst is just emotions running high, and we're all pals here.

People are acting like I am soley responsible for this, but is that even a reasonable position? I'm not soley responsible. I was point man on the operation, that's true (for those keeping score at home: I was the bearer of bad news, so to speak). It was an action taken by forum staff. It's always actions taken by forum staff, and for some reason sometimes people want to ignore that.

It's not uncommon you know. Almost every court case in Holland is publicly accessible, with exceptions for cases concerning children or state security. When you decide to ban someone in your capacity as administrator of this forum, you are in essence acting as a judge.

Dutch law isn't applicable here. Outside of a few areas, neither is US law. This is a privately run message board - not a state run message board. We could deny people from using it for using too many vowels in their user names, if we so desired. That's a silly example of course, but it does prove the point.

The way it comes across now is that we have one poster saying that unbreakable is tony.

This position, while understandable, isn't particularly reasonable either. Things go on that aren't in public, even though you may not be privy to all of the non-public goings on, it is important to understand they are there. It might look like we did this because of RunningMn9. It might look like this is "all me". It isn't, and it isn't.

We've thought they were one and the same for some time. Months before Gonegold went away. However, we went from " nah" to "maybe" "to possibly" to "pretty sure" to "yes" over that period.

Lord Percy · Post by **Lord Percy** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:31 am

Peacedog wrote:Things go on that aren't in public, even though you may not be privy to all of the non-public goings on, it is important to understand they are there.

Unbreakable wasn't even privy to all of the non-public goings on. You banned him without stating why. Good job.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:38 am

Peacedog wrote:
It's not uncommon you know. Almost every court case in Holland is publicly accessible, with exceptions for cases concerning children or state security. When you decide to ban someone in your capacity as administrator of this forum, you are in essence acting as a judge.
Dutch law isn't applicable here. Outside of a few areas, neither is US law. This is a privately run message board - not a state run message board. We could deny people from using it for using too many vowels in their user names, if we so desired. That's a silly example of course, but it does prove the point.

Umm. Duh. I wasn't saying it was applicable. I was merely illustrating to you that is generally accepted (same goes for US law, you can download lots of court verdicts) that a punishment has to be properly motivated, and also be able to be held to public scrutiny. This is NOT happening here, where, hell, the punishment itself isn't even made public. We probably wouldn't have known about this hadn't unbreakable been visiting irc for a while now.
You, as moderators, can indeed do what you want on a forum. I, as a user, can say I think the way you're handling things should be open and transparent.

This position, while understandable, isn't particularly reasonable either. Things go on that aren't in public, even though you may not be privy to all of the non-public goings on, it is important to understand they are there. It might look like we did this because of RunningMn9. It might look like this is "all me". It isn't, and it isn't.

EXACTLY my point, again. There are things that go on that aren't in public, but that SHOULD be in public, so that the forum population (and hell, the offenders as well) to know what is going on. That transparency thing again.

Actually, you guys wouldn't ever get any hard evidence, perhaps outside of a general "there was an IP match". IPs and other information we have in our user database is private information, and we just aren't going to go around handing that stuff out. If that's a problem, well I'm sorry.

I agree. It should remain private. However, there are ways to release proof without actually releasing the proof itself.

an IP match all by itself is not evidence we would consider 100% damning, and that's proven to be a wise course on several occasions), that's pretty telling. We don't need to justify the fact that we think he is Tony72, since it takes alot of evidence to make us think that.

Right, a single IP match ISN'T 100% telling. And I'm very relieved that you need more evidence than that. But I'd LOVE for you guys to show us what that evidence is (for example, whether he mailed you in a manner that's consistent with Tony).

And I think, as our "government" that you DO need to justify why you think he's Tony72. Not only to unbreakable (who wasn't told in ANY way why you thought he was Tony72) but also to the forum population, so they know what to expect from moderation.

We've thought they were one and the same for some time. Months before Gonegold went away. However, we went from " nah" to "maybe" "to possibly" to "pretty sure" to "yes" over that period.

Great, I'd like to know why your thought process went like that.

As a caveat: I don't know whether or not unbreakable is Tony72, nor do I particularly care all that much. I DO care however that I see something from Gone Gold that REALLY annoyed me coming back here. And this unbreakable/tony72 situation is a very good situation to bring that up.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:54 am

If Unbreakable can not be 100% proven to be tony72, shouldn't the mods wait until Unbreakable was at least acting like tony72 before banning him? Unless Unbreakable was actively breaking the CoC, why should he be banned based on pure suspicion of wrong-doing?

Post by **godhugh** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:56 am

To back up PD, it wasn't just him who was involved with this. I was actively involved as well (he mainly posted in the forum I moderate), as were all the rest of the mods.

We are 100% sure that Unbreakable = Tony72. It's not just based on a single IP match. Unfortunately, some of the evidence we used was submitted to us in private and we do not have the right to release it. I don't like to say that, but that's the way it is. If we could release to the community all the evidence, we would, but we can't due to privacy issues.

As for our thought progression, I can tell you that we've been suspicious of Unbreakable for months now. This is not something we just decided to do out of the blue. It pretty much started when we began to suspect he was Tony72 due to his posting style. Eventually, we garned some technical evidence that helped shore up the case. After GG went down and this board was started, additional evidence came in that proved to us he was Tony72.

I can say, for myself at least, that I held out against banning him until right before we did because I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Napolean, you know me, we've chatted a number of times before. I'm not the type of person who is going to agree to ban someone on half-assed evidence. I also truly wish we could disclose all the evidence we have, but unless those who provided it wish to post it themselves then we can't.

Now, I appreciate the fact that some of you don't believe he is Tony72, but (to be blunt) you're wrong. He is, he's been banned twice before, and he's now been banned a third time.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:08 am

And since I, too, am woefully deficient in backing up Peacedog in public when his detractors show up, let me lend a hand to the cause. I can't say the decision was unanimous (few of our decisions are), but if it wasn't, then folks who disagreed were not very adamant.

The true issue, however, would appear to be some sort of desire for a freedom-of-information-act with regards to the website. I don't think that's going to work out so very well. It's nice to hear that publically funded and publically run entities such as the Dutch or American legal systems release every scrap of information and every single piece of evidence used in the decisions that are made in court, but I don't think that'd work so very well in this particular instance. Other than: "But the courts do it," and "But we're curious!" is there another reason why all of our discussion on a topic and evidence leading up to a decision should be made public?

The biggest reason I can see (other than, as Peacedog and Godhugh have pointed out, privacy concerns) for not releasing this stuff to everyone is because 1. decisionmakers holding a minority point of view shouldn't be subjected to marginalized positions by forum users and, 2. violators of various forum policies should not be made aware of the specific methods used to ascertain their true identities (making their jobs of circumvention that much easier in the future).

I can understand the frustration at the feeling of things going on in the background that you don't know how they come about. If you really don't trust the folks who're making the decisions, you've always got the options of griping about it (hoping to bring about change) or simply heading somewhere where you *do* trust the decision makers. I'm not going to chase anyone off or say that we wouldn't like for folks to stick around. I will say that threatening to leave the forums until you get some answers is very unlikely to bring about the answers you're hoping to receive. As a child I once threatened my parents by holding my breath until they gave me whatever it was that I wanted. Guess what they ended up giving me? (No, not a plastic bag and a rubberband, smartass.) They gave me perspective as to when threats are appropriate and when they're easily dismissed.

~Neal

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:21 am

Napolean, you know me, we've chatted a number of times before. I'm not the type of person who is going to agree to ban someone on half-assed evidence

Hey, but that's not the point. I hope that you guys won't ban someone on half-assed evidence. My point is that when asked about it should be made clear WHAT kind of evidence was unearthed.

A vague "We matched his IP and we looked at his posting style and there was other stuff we can't disclose" statement is, in my opinion, just not good enough.

If you, for example, got an e-mail, it's possible to show this e-mail, without disclosing who sent it, and by blanking out the involved e-mail adresses. Sure, the banned person might find out who ratted on him, but that's the danger of the game, in my opinion.

It's not just based on a single IP match. Unfortunately, some of the evidence we used was submitted to us in private and we do not have the right to release it.

Some of it? I'd say that the entire decision was based upon private evidence.
And saying you can't release it because of privacy reason is a bit easy, imho.

What we have now is a unbreakable, who's been saying in IRC that he has no idea how you guys arrived on the position that he's Tony72. He says he wasn't told why you concluded he was Tony72.
Is he lying? Could be.

Point remains...you should disclose why you decided to ban him, and back that claim up with solid proof. Not just to him, but to the forum population as well (the italicized bit was edited in for clarification)

Apart from the whole disclosing the evidence item...it was also not disclosed AT ALL to the public that unbreakable was banned. I think this is wrong. I can appreciate that in some cases, it's wise to not disclose that you ban a person (Derek Smart, for example) but in most cases it IS. It sets an example, and it makes the forum population clear how the moderation will work on OO.

Ralphs post in this thread highlights something interesting: unbreakable was banned, yet he did not exhibit behaviour that would be a bannable offense on it's own. Sure, if he's 100% certainly Tony72, banning him might be the correct decision, but the forum population CAN'T know that, because the moderators won't disclose why they came to that conclusion.
And however I may view the mods as a person, or how I think they would decide upon a given case, I want the grounds for that decision, and the announcement of the decision out in the open.

I've seen someone get banned for a bad reason before (namely, me.) so forgive me if I'd like to see some evidence backing up your claims. Even if I DID have blind faith in you as a group of moderators, it still would be much better for both acceptance and understanding if you were more open about the way you do things. And this fine new site we're building is a great opportunity to do just that.

D'Arcy · Post by **D'Arcy** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:28 am

After stressing many times that this place isn't GG and won't be GG, why are the bans from GG being carried over?

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:29 am

The Meal wrote: The true issue, however, would appear to be some sort of desire for a freedom-of-information-act with regards to the website. I don't think that's going to work out so very well. It's nice to hear that publically funded and publically run entities such as the Dutch or American legal systems release every scrap of information and every single piece of evidence used in the decisions that are made in court, but I don't think that'd work so very well in this particular instance. Other than: "But the courts do it," and "But we're curious!" is there another reason why all of our discussion on a topic and evidence leading up to a decision should be made public?

I used the first reason, but not the second. Anyway, read my post I made while you were typing yours: I think releasing how you decide things promotes understanding and acceptance both in the forumgoers that trust the moderators and those that don't.

The biggest reason I can see (other than, as Peacedog and Godhugh have pointed out, privacy concerns) for not releasing this stuff to everyone is because 1. decisionmakers holding a minority point of view shouldn't be subjected to marginalized positions by forum users and, 2. violators of various forum policies should not be made aware of the specific methods used to ascertain their true identities (making their jobs of circumvention that much easier in the future).

I agree with point 1. I definitely would not ask you to reveal whether or not all the moderators agree on something. I know from my time on the mod team at GG that very rarely that is the case, or that even all the mods weighed in. It's very much fine by me if you guys were to say "The mod team thinks this, based on this evidence" without singling out anyone in particular.

I think point 2. Is a bit reaching. To get back to my previous real-world example: police methods aren't revealed overly much in court cases, yet the evidence coming from the methods can still be shown. Furthermore, as getting a simple IP match has proven not to be conclusive at all, it wouldn't hurt to reveal what other ways you have of finding out someone's identity.

And if a perp (teehee) would actually go so far as to get banned, read up on your detection methods, then circumvent these and get back on the forum, I'd think it would be an exception, and not a rule.

If you really don't trust the folks who're making the decisions, you've always got the options of griping about it (hoping to bring about change)

Yup, that's what I'm doing.

Also, you'll notice I wasn't the one threatening with anything. Although I suppose I could upload my hairy butt as an avatar and see how much people I could turn blind before it got removed.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:31 am

You wanna get banned again, mister?!?

~Neal

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:32 am

Ooh please. I could use my equal treatment defense in light of your hairy butt being on an ass banjo.

Edit:

Basically, I want to know how our moderators arrive at their conclusions, so I am able to trust them, much like you want to know how your government does things, so you can trust them.

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:47 am

You guys suck.

Lord Percy · Post by **Lord Percy** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:03 am

Like Nappy said, this doesn't exactly foster trust. In my opinion, you don't have to disclose the information itself, but you can at least say what kind of information it is that made you arrive at your conclusions. For example you can say "Their IPs matched," without saying "Tony72's IP was xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and Unbreakable's was xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. See? They match!"

The way it's being handled at the moment gives me the impression that you can just get banned from the boards when one of the mods has had a bad day.

loc-nar · Post by **loc-nar** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:07 am

I think the purpose of this is to show that there is a differing of opinions on this matter. You think breaky is tony72, after talking to him I and others don't believe he is.

Of course, I have no evidence for or against my belief, other than unbreakable shows better grammar, spelling, and puncuation than tony72 on his best day.

My memory could be wrong, or unbreakable could have theoretically been faking bad grammar and the like.

Anyhow, just my thoughts, likely this is a complete waste of breath, but sometimes dissent serves it's own purpose.

Post by **godhugh** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:09 am

Lord Percy wrote: The way it's being handled at the moment gives me the impression that you can just get banned from the boards when one of the mods has had a bad day.

Honestly, I don't see how you can get that impression. I stated in my post that this was not a quick thing and that I personally held out for a long time before casting a "ban him" vote. Just because we can't post explicit details of our evidence, at this time, doesn't mean that a lot of thought and discussion didn't take place.

Look, it comes down to this. Either you believe what I, and the Meal, have posted or you don't. If you don't, then nothing I, or anyone else, says will change your mind.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:09 am

Some methods used for determining the identity of posters is done from other resources, and methods. Sometimes the mods are aware of these methods sometimes they aren't. A great deal of this type thing is done by myself and other admins.

I'm not about to disclose my methods here and I testify in court all the time, again without needing to discuss the specific methods used.

There is no definitive evidence from my end that unbreakable is tony72, the preponderence of the evidence idicates that he is however. That is the only real burden needed for such an action. People have done jail time on far less evidence.

If we are in fact in error then I'm sure we would welcome any evidence to the contrary that unbreakable or anyone else might want to e-mail in.

I also don't think that even permanent bans are carved in stone, if someone who had been banned were determined and convinced a majority of the staff that they could be a resposible respective member of the community and was able to actually do so, they could perhaps be welcomed back.

I can only reitterate what has been said before NO ONE on the staff wants to ban anyone. It is only as a last recourse that such action is taken.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:09 am

D'Arcy wrote:After stressing many times that this place isn't GG and won't be GG, why are the bans from GG being carried over?

Good question.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:15 am

The IPs do match, but we wouldn't act without more evidence.

We do have that evidence. If we showed that evidence, even told you what kind it was, then Unbreakable/Tony would know exactly how we received it, and that would be sticking another person in the back. That we won't do.

It is a bit ironic that we are being called untrustworthy for refusing to break a trust.

loc-nar · Post by **loc-nar** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:18 am

Rip wrote:
I can only reitterate what has been said before NO ONE on the staff wants to ban anyone. It is only as a last recourse that such action is taken.

What has he done on these boards to warrant banning?

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:19 am

I'm not about to disclose my methods here and I testify in court all the time, again without needing to discuss the specific methods used.

There is no definitive evidence from my end that unbreakable is tony72, the preponderence of the evidence idicates that he is however. That is the only real burden needed for such an action. People have done jail time on far less evidence.

True. But you DO disclose your evidence, even if you don't disclose your methods in court. See where I'm going with this?

Anyway, I can understand if you're waiting for confirmation before posting anything now, but moderation REALLY needs to be more open.

Furthermore, I feel it would be kind of hard for Unbreakable to prove that he ISN'T Tony72. Hell, if you told me I was Tony72, how could I completely 100% prove without doubt that I wasn't?
Also, while I agree that people have done jailtime on rather scant evidence, the starting point should still be "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty untill proven innocent", or "guilty when quite a bit of stuff points in that direction."

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:23 am

Blackhawk wrote:The IPs do match, but we wouldn't act without more evidence.

We do have that evidence. If we showed that evidence, even told you what kind it was, then Unbreakable/Tony would know exactly how we received it, and that would be sticking another person in the back. That we won't do.

Meh. I'm sure if he actually IS Tony, he already has a good idea who "ratted him out" so to speak.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:26 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
D'Arcy wrote:After stressing many times that this place isn't GG and won't be GG, why are the bans from GG being carried over?
Good question.

They aren't. They are being discussed and decided on a case by case basis. Some people did things that were exceptionally nasty, and it would be a slap in the face of the people who were on the receiving end to let them come back. Think about the people with the -9s in the feedback list. Others went out of their way to cause trouble time and time again, coming back under multiple aliases, getting re-banned, and then bragging about it.
Some people used multiple aliases at the same time - one to be an ass with and catch the bullet, one to play nice with. Some people have even had arguments with themselves to maintain the illusion.

It would be rather silly to make everyone deal with these people again, get kicked in the teeth again.

If it is clear to us that a person is going to remain a problem, or if the person did something particularly bad, then why make everyone suffer through their idiocy again?

Guy Incognito · Post by **Guy Incognito** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:31 am

D'Arcy wrote:After stressing many times that this place isn't GG and won't be GG, why are the bans from GG being carried over?

Agreed.

Who's the next focus of the witch hunt?

loc-nar · Post by **loc-nar** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:37 am

Blackhawk wrote:
If it is clear to us that a person is going to remain a problem, or if the person did something particularly bad, then why make everyone suffer through their idiocy again?

If Unbreakable is Tony72, he seemed to be AFAIK behaving himself, except for the heating R+P discussions that everyone slips on, and the very thread where he is piled on for being Tony. Of course, if he was Tony he did lie, and that's not nice, but...

So why was he banned then?

Post by **godhugh** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:39 am

Guy Incognito wrote:
D'Arcy wrote:After stressing many times that this place isn't GG and won't be GG, why are the bans from GG being carried over?
Agreed.

Who's the next focus of the witch hunt?

That is a completely irrational thing to post. Please tell me what actions qualify as a "witch hunt".

We're not going up and down the member list looking for folks we want to ban. We discussed the list of folks who were banned from GG and decided, on a case by case basis, who should be banned from the new forum and who should be given a second chance.

EDIT: If you're going to point to this as an example, it was decided that Tony72 should be banned from this forum back when it was started. Once it was proven that Unbreakable = Tony72 we performed the action we had already decided upon.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:41 am

And to reiterate, if folks feel there is a witch-hunt in progress, please feel free to find a forum moderated by folks you feel you can trust. I'm not holding the door open requesting folks to leave, but if the major issue here is distrust, then you've *ALWAYS* got that option. We're not your government trying to do bad nasty things to you. We're running a private web forum (and hopefully web site, soon).

~Neal

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:43 am

Napoleon wrote: Anyway, I can understand if you're waiting for confirmation before posting anything now, but moderation REALLY needs to be more open.

Why?

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:48 am

Napoleon wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:The IPs do match, but we wouldn't act without more evidence.

We do have that evidence. If we showed that evidence, even told you what kind it was, then Unbreakable/Tony would know exactly how we received it, and that would be sticking another person in the back. That we won't do.
Meh. I'm sure if he actually IS Tony, he already has a good idea who "ratted him out" so to speak.

Exactly.

I've got nothin' but love for the mods & I trust they made the right decision, but the secrecy here seems a bit counterproductive. It's not too difficult to deduce what sort of info must've been the nail in Unbreakable's coffin. Wouldn't it be wise to just come out and say it so this doesn't look like a personal vendetta? In the unlikely case that it provides the poster in question with some sort of "eureka" moment & he figures out which other poster(s) turned him in, what's the harm? If he truly is a nutjob, I'm sure he's already harassing everyone who he thinks might have been responsible.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:55 am

Exodor wrote:
Napoleon wrote: Anyway, I can understand if you're waiting for confirmation before posting anything now, but moderation REALLY needs to be more open.

Why?

Because there have been a couple of occasions on the GG forums where the moderation was incredibly uneven. Where the CoC was used as a clear set of rules when it is worded as a vague guideline.

The same crew of moderators, who have made decisions I disagreed with (both in their outcome and the way they were made) on the old forums, are here as well. I believe they're all smart people, but I'd like to see HOW they reach decisions, what they base their decisions on and most importantly, I'd like them to open up so they can be held publicly accountable for their actions (both in a postive manner, and in a negative one). That, in my opinion, would lead to nothing but respect and understanding towards the moderators, and towards acceptance of their decisions.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:57 am

Wouldn't it be wise to just come out and say it so this doesn't look like a personal vendetta?

It has nothing to do with RunningMn9, he's not at the center of this (a fact that no doubt has him cringing in agony! joke). Though that may have turned an individual perspective or two, it wasn't the final push for most people involved.

A significant portion of staff thought he was Tony before gonegold went bye bye. We were already discussing what to do about it. The discussion was predictably derailed by the passing of gonegold and the ensuing scramble, and took some extra time to get back on track.

There are other people who were banned from GG, who haven't appeared here and done anything wrong, who probably wouldn't be welcome. But I'm not saying one of their names, because to say that name is to invoke wrath and madness beyond any mortal's ability to withstand (and with that, some observers will note I've just come full circle).

That wemay decide these people don't deserve a pass here isn't really a witch hunt. It's a small group, for one.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:05 pm

I do wonder how Unbreakable (even if he is Tony72) who hasn't broken the CoC (yet or maybe never) has fallen victim to a (carried over) ban, but, Fireball, who routinely insults people and wishes death on anyone who disagrees with him is still posting.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:10 pm

Rip wrote: If we are in fact in error then I'm sure we would welcome any evidence to the contrary that unbreakable or anyone else might want to e-mail in.

I'd like to weigh in to say that I think Tony72 is scum. I've seen some of the things he's written to people privately and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that he's an egomaniacal reprobate.

However, I harbor at least some doubt that Unbreakable has been justly accused. Possibly my doubts would be assuaged if I were privy to the same information as the mods, and I rely on them to make good decisions. It would end there, if not for Rip's point above. Sure, Unbreakable (or anyone) is ALLOWED to fire off an e-mail protesting their conviction, but how realistic is it that you could be successful if you aren't afforded the basic right to face your accuser? As I understand it, none of the damning evidence against him was presented to Unbreakable. Therefore, how could he possibly refute it? Character witnesses? Alibis? When dealing with a virtual medium like this, where nobody really knows anybody, how does one prove that they are or are not sombody else without first knowing what evidence is being held against them.

That's really the crux of my concern. The desire to protect the accusers is being allowed to override the accused's ability to defend themselves.

Being that Tony72 is a known quantity, it's probably easy to justify protecting the accusers (whom "we like") and risk being unfair to the accused (who, if he's really Tony72, we "don't like"), but my concern is that I may be the next forum member to get a "You have been banned, you have lost, have a nice day!" e-mail with no evidence to support the claim that I'm Ajaarj or Kahless or Hitler's Clone or whatever. In such ways are police states made.

I hate to sound like I'm defending Tony72, because nothing would pain me more. Rather, I'm defending the integrity of the forums by asking that you reconsider a policy of damning a forum member without giving them a reasonable opportunity to plead their case.

Sith

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:17 pm

Sheesh.

Rubyeye · Post by **Rubyeye** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:18 pm

This sounds like the OO version of!

I am curious as well to see what or what kind of damning evidence there is. I didn't really care to begin with. Now that the subject is brought up, I would like to know or at least have an idea. Unbreakable seems like a normal guy but maybe he is a good actor. A quick synopsis would probably kill the matter at hand.

/Edit I suck even using ieSpell! BTW, I think Napoleon is TSS because he is making long posts and their IP's have the same amount of numbers.