08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
Ix said:
Davion said:
You are not a guy, m'lady. Just because I don't pick apart your reply, doesn't mean I don't read it.


Oh I see, so now you're going to discriminate against the female users? "You are not a guy, m'lady."

So what you're saying is, you only take seriously male posts?


…what?
08 Jun, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
He was testing his limits. I get that. But this time he touched an electric fence.

Ok, that is complete and utter bullshit. Ban me if you like, but it's the truth and you really should admit it.

You guys specifically said you changed the way you did banning so he was prevented from talking on channels, but still able to connect. He has posted a screenshot showing this working. So, you have the ability to ban him from one or all channels, as you see fit. If he was able to talk on a channel, it was because *YOU* forgot to ban him from it.

That is a mistake, and trying to pin the blame on him is just childish. In fact, I will go so far as to call it incompetence.

I stopped posting on here a while back because of the utter lack of respect for any kind of rule of law. I returned because I thought things had improved, but perhaps that was simply an act to lull people into complacence.

Davion, you say you don't like drama or abuse. Yet you continue to invite it by treating this community like children who are graciously allowed to play in your back yard. Frankly, it's insulting. You like to blame Crat for all the problems around here, but to be honest, I think you should look in the mirror. For every problem Crat has caused, your blindly stupid overreactions have done just as much, if not more, harm.

Anyways, done. If I'm not banned, I'll try to be helpful if someone asks a real question about something MUD related, but clearly expecting consistent behavior here is no longer an option. If you do want to ban me, it's been fun!
08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Davion said:
He was testing his limits. I get that. But this time he touched an electric fence.

Ok, that is complete and utter bullshit. Ban me if you like, but it's the truth and you really should admit it.

You guys specifically said you changed the way you did banning so he was prevented from talking on channels, but still able to connect. He has posted a screenshot showing this working. So, you have the ability to ban him from one or all channels, as you see fit. If he was able to talk on a channel, it was because *YOU* forgot to ban him from it.

That is a mistake, and trying to pin the blame on him is just childish. In fact, I will go so far as to call it incompetence.

I stopped posting on here a while back because of the utter lack of respect for any kind of rule of law. I returned because I thought things had improved, but perhaps that was simply an act to lull people into complacence.

Davion, you say you don't like drama or abuse. Yet you continue to invite it by treating this community like children who are graciously allowed to play in your back yard. Frankly, it's insulting. You like to blame Crat for all the problems around here, but to be honest, I think you should look in the mirror. For every problem Crat has caused, your blindly stupid overreactions have done just as much, if not more, harm.

Anyways, done. If I'm not banned, I'll try to be helpful if someone asks a real question about something MUD related, but clearly expecting consistent behavior here is no longer an option. If you do want to ban me, it's been fun!


Ban ban ban! We've not banned anyone for speaking their mind in a very, very long time, and I doubt we're going to start. I shall take this under consideration though (in respect to the situation, not banning you).
08 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
We've not banned anyone for speaking their mind in a very, very long time


Quote
[2010.06.04-20.21,21] Cratylus <ichat> i wonder if davion and kiasyn know where the imc2 rules came from
[2010.06.04-20.21,28] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> samsonator
[2010.06.04-20.21,29] Cratylus <ichat> i chortle with mirthfulness
[2010.06.04-20.21,37] Cratylus <ichat> really, samson wrote that?
[2010.06.04-20.21,43] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> samson and kayle i believe
[2010.06.04-20.21,49] Cratylus <ichat> lolylolylol
[2010.06.04-20.21,58] Davion@ADP <ichat> I added stuff too!
[2010.06.04-20.22,13] Cratylus <ichat> http://lpmuds.net/intermud.html#rules
[2010.06.04-20.22,23] Cratylus <ichat> you guys have no conception at all
[2010.06.04-20.22,34] Cratylus <ichat> it's so tragic it scrolls around to funy
[2010.06.04-20.22,39] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> nice :)
[2010.06.04-20.23,18] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> i'm sorry i never bothered with i3 cratylus, it surely is tragic that i've never seen one of your pages about a network i've never even looked at
[2010.06.04-20.23,23] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> oh wait
[2010.06.04-20.23,28] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> no it isn't
[2010.06.04-20.23,46] Cratylus <ichat> its tragic you dont even know where your own rules come from
[2010.06.04-20.23,58] Cratylus <ichat> i wonder if you did more than skim them in fact
[2010.06.04-20.24,29] Cratylus <ichat> yeah
[2010.06.04-20.24,36] Cratylus <ichat> feel that burn
[2010.06.04-20.24,46] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> Sizzles like BACON.
[2010.06.04-20.25,02] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> the rules were around since before i became part of leading the imc network, if they don't pass that history on to me there is no way for me to know that
[2010.06.04-20.25,04] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> and i have read them.
[2010.06.04-20.25,33] Cratylus <ichat> speaks for itself
[2010.06.04-20.25,42] Cratylus <ichat> tragicomedy
[2010.06.04-20.28,03] Cratylus <ichat> ps i like how the ascending order still cuts off in april http://imc.mudbytes.net/logs/ichat/2250/...
[2010.06.04-20.28,14] Cratylus <ichat> are you guys capable of any competency at all?
[2010.06.04-20.28,52] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> since you just read the rules, i'm sure you know you're now in breach of them
[2010.06.04-20.29,01] Cratylus <ichat> ooo im rilly scaared
[2010.06.04-20.29,32] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> Do we get mod-color rule breaker text warnings here?
[2010.06.04-20.30,30] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> nope
[2010.06.04-20.30,32] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> And what rule was that against anyhow?
[2010.06.04-20.30,44] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> Cuz I'm re-skimming but not seeing the match.
[2010.06.04-20.30,46] Cratylus <ichat> "dont piss off the admin"
[2010.06.04-20.32,33] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat> the 'dont be a dick' rule
[2010.06.04-20.32,43] Cratylus <ichat> you better log off then kia
[2010.06.04-20.32,51] Cratylus <ichat> youll have to ban yerself
[2010.06.04-20.33,22] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> Unless this is "unwarranted hostility" I don't see that rule.
[2010.06.04-20.33,23] Davion@ADP <ichat> haha, if the rule was "don't piss off the admin" you wouldn't be here Crat
[2010.06.04-20.33,26] Davion@ADP <ichat> nice one though
[2010.06.04-20.33,35] Cratylus <ichat> i thought you didnt pay attention to me davion
[2010.06.04-20.33,42] Cratylus <ichat> i dont see how i can piss you off
[2010.06.04-20.33,46] Lyanic@7thplane <ichat> I want to know what "unwarranted hostility" means
[2010.06.04-20.33,51] Lyanic@7thplane <ichat> (said that 3 times now)
[2010.06.04-20.34,20] Davion@ADP <ichat> point remains. your statement was false.
[2010.06.04-20.34,50] Cratylus <ichat> it's the weirdest thing, it's like you're actually listening to me or something
[2010.06.04-20.34,53] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> Well I didn't think Crat's remark was unwarranted; maybe slightly abrasive, but not unwarranted. He was just voicing his displeasure with not seeing a bug (feature?) corrected while a new feature (bug?) was added tonight instead.
[2010.06.04-20.34,54] Cratylus <ichat> strange
[2010.06.04-20.35,13] Davion@ADP <ichat> not talkin about today Kline
[2010.06.04-20.35,18] Lyanic@7thplane <ichat> Ok, third strike….
[2010.06.04-20.35,31] Kline@AF_Demo <ichat> Well my last comment was in reference to Kia
[2010.06.04-20.35,35] Cratylus <ichat> lyanic, they have no explanation because it's not their rule
[2010.06.04-20.35,44] Cratylus <ichat> it's taken from MY rules, and distorted, besides
[2010.06.04-20.35,48] Lyanic@7thplane <ichat> I'm stating this for the record: I am not accountable for following rules, since the administration imposing said rules actively refuse to elaborate upon them for me when asked three separate times
[2010.06.04-20.35,53] Cratylus <ichat> MY rule is "no unwarrante dhostility to newbies"
[2010.06.04-20.36,00] Cratylus <ichat> which im happy to defend
[2010.06.04-20.36,06] Sinistrad <ichat> Jonny Mnemonic started this hubbub
[2010.06.04-20.36,07] Cratylus <ichat> these guys didnt even know where it came from
08 Jun, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Quote
You claim he did it a few times. When in fact he did it once. He said Fart on icode. And it only got through because You or Kiasyn fucked up your ban modifications.


I'll keep that in mind when making the decision.


You've already made up your mind. Quit pretending like you haven't.

Mudder said:
Do you truly think it is necessary to put into a rule book that raging out of control against others and simply trying to piss off random people is unacceptable? I haven't read the rules but in no forum should that be allowed. He was given a temporary ban given his behavior. Perhaps not at a single time, but added together it is certainly justified. I'm shocked this is even being challenged.

Had the rules been consistently enforced before this point, I'd agree with you. Also, we're not talking about a forum. We're talking about IMC.

Mudder said:
Mudbytes seems to have a very strange mentality. People feel as if they own the site and that the Admins are paid workers expected to carry out their wishes. Well the fact is that they are doing this as a sort of hobby, the same as you do for your own MUD. How would you act if Crat was simply a player on your MUD doing the same things to you?

Crat wouldn't do this on my MUD. You know why? Because rules are enforced consistently across the board. No prejudice, no personal greivance gets in the way. You violate the rules, you get punished. End of story. THere's no, "Oh, well he's a friend, I'll let him get away with it." or "Oh, he's an Immortal, he's allowed to break the rules."

A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding why Crat behaves the way he does on IMC. Because he's a completely different person where there are rules that are enforced. Crat, (and myself) do what we do on the network because the rules were posted a long time ago, agreed upon by the community at the time, and enforced until Kiasyn threw a hissy fit and pulled Talon and MegaBot from the network because he wasn't allowed to swear on ichat anymore. After that I stepped down as Admin and Davion was sole administrator. After that the rules became unenforced and the network spiraled into the state it is now. Until the day of Crat's banning when Kiasyn got pissed off because Crat mentioned how incompetent it was to not know where the rules he posted for IMC originated. It was THAT point, that the rules were enforced. And in violation of established procedure. Warnings were supposed to be handed out before any kind of advanced punishment was given out. No warning was given. Just a ban of an entire MUD from which several other predominant figures of the IMC network also talk from who were not at fault. THis was later fixed allowing them to talk, but not Crat. IT was a result of this change that allowed Crat to talk on icode becuase Davion and Kiasyn forgot to make sure he was banned from that channel.
Furthermore, I believe it was Kiasyn who told him to test the channels and see that the bans were in place.
08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
And in violation of established procedure. Warnings were supposed to be handed out before any kind of advanced punishment was given out. No warning was given. Just a ban of an entire MUD from which several other predominant figures of the IMC network also talk from who were not at fault.


Sorry Kayle, you're wrong.

The Rules said:
Whether warnings are issued is obviously dependent on the type of behavior. Sufficiently disruptive behavior (at our discretion) can subject a mud to immediate action without warning.
08 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Kayle said:
And in violation of established procedure. Warnings were supposed to be handed out before any kind of advanced punishment was given out. No warning was given. Just a ban of an entire MUD from which several other predominant figures of the IMC network also talk from who were not at fault.


Sorry Kayle, you're wrong.

The Rules said:
Whether warnings are issued is obviously dependent on the type of behavior. Sufficiently disruptive behavior (at our discretion) can subject a mud to immediate action without warning.


You might want to ask the original author of that rule for some guidance regarding context and usage of that clause.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/crat_150.jpg
08 Jun, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Kayle said:
And in violation of established procedure. Warnings were supposed to be handed out before any kind of advanced punishment was given out. No warning was given. Just a ban of an entire MUD from which several other predominant figures of the IMC network also talk from who were not at fault.


Sorry Kayle, you're wrong.

The Rules said:
Whether warnings are issued is obviously dependent on the type of behavior. Sufficiently disruptive behavior (at our discretion) can subject a mud to immediate action without warning.


Selective quoting won't help you. I posted the rules originally, after Crat gave them to me.

The Rules said:
- When someone on a mud is violating rules, they usually get a number of warnings, and if they are not admins, their admins are also notified as possible. Whether warnings are issued is obviously dependent on the type of behavior. Sufficiently disruptive behavior (at our discretion) can subject a mud to immediate action without warning. But this is extremely rare. Warnings are provided when reasonable. If the behavior doesn't stop, then that mud may be excluded from the channel where it's causing problems. If the mud then causes problems on other channels, it may be banned from the server entirely. This is a drastic and very unusual situation.

That would have been a situation were a warning was warranted. Crat wasn't attacking the server or disrupting the service in anyway, which is the ONLY time any action should be taken without warnings. You banned him for asking a question, that several people aside from him have asked in the past.
08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
It's left to our discretion, not your interpretation. And it is extremely rare! S'only happened once ;)
08 Jun, 2010, Ix wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
There's also the issue of certain people trying to bring the topics up on ichat, knowing full well that all Crat can do is watch and not even speak on his own behalf, further intentionally trying to create a hostile atmosphere. "Well I wanted to know what everyone else involved had to say." That's what this thread is for, and the other threads on here are for. Then you call me a troll for telling him not to act like a troll? Or maybe not show off his brown and dripping nose?

What kind of administrator are you? Did you pull your protocols manual out of the bowels of your ass, or did you just decide one day that you can subjectively interpret your own system as you please? You're pandering, presuming, and deriding of the people in this thread shows your biased status in all of this.
08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
I've never hid my biased. I've already stated I don't like the guy, and care for little of what he says. And after the constant abuse I've received from him, why would I?
08 Jun, 2010, Ix wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
I've never hid my biased. I've already stated I don't like the guy, and care for little of what he says. And after the constant abuse I've received from him, why would I?


Because you've just displayed that in the interest of this issue, you're not fit to preside over this proceeding.
08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Ix said:
Davion said:
I've never hid my biased. I've already stated I don't like the guy, and care for little of what he says. And after the constant abuse I've received from him, why would I?


Because you've just displayed that in the interest of this issue, you're not fit to preside over this proceeding.


I realize this, which is why I haven't done anything. I said if it were up to me it would be permanent. It's not entirely up to me. I will however, argue my case when the decision comes up. Probably wont float, but meh.
08 Jun, 2010, Mudder wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Had the rules been consistently enforced before this point, I'd agree with you. Also, we're not talking about a forum. We're talking about IMC.

I was using the actual definition of the word, not the popular one. "A public meeting place for open discussion."

Kayle said:
Crat wouldn't do this on my MUD. You know why? Because rules are enforced consistently across the board. No prejudice, no personal greivance gets in the way. You violate the rules, you get punished. End of story. THere's no, "Oh, well he's a friend, I'll let him get away with it." or "Oh, he's an Immortal, he's allowed to break the rules."

Okay. I see the point and I agree now. Why don't we just start enforcing the rules all around, all the time then?
08 Jun, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
Okay. I see the point and I agree now. Why don't we just start enforcing the rules all around, all the time then?

That would be wonderful, if everyone hadn't already lost faith in the ability of the IMC Admins to do so.
08 Jun, 2010, Mudder wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
Ix said:
There's also the issue of certain people trying to bring the topics up on ichat, knowing full well that all Crat can do is watch and not even speak on his own behalf, further intentionally trying to create a hostile atmosphere. "Well I wanted to know what everyone else involved had to say." That's what this thread is for, and the other threads on here are for. Then you call me a troll for telling him not to act like a troll? Or maybe not show off his brown and dripping nose?

Wow dude. Are you really bringing this up here? I asked a question on ichat for a response from people who were defending Crat. I know what he would say, why? Because I read his posts. I wanted a 3rd person perspective someone who was defending Crat. I got it and they even changed my mind a little.

You should chill and stop being a prick. Don't accuse anyone of being a troll other than yourself and your insane reactions to legit questions.
08 Jun, 2010, Mudder wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
Can we all just start fresh? Lol.

I propose a solution to this problem.

We begin enforcing all the rules again. And add (if not already there) general respect rule, something similar to the golden rule. Aka: Don't be a dick for no reason.

Remove the ban on Crat. This whole ordeal acts as a fair warning that the rules are back. If Crat decides to continue acting out, then put him through the procedure set out in the rules. At that point it's his choice.

As it is, a precedent was sort of set that he can do whatever he wants with no problems. It's obvious that has been removed, so let's just start fresh.


…Anyone like?
08 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 78th comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
If Crat decides to continue acting out


There was nothing wrong with what I said. It was flatly true.

I think it's a bad idea to start making ichat a place where frank exchanges of views are unwelcome. It
seems to me that only those friendly to Kiasyn would survive that rule change.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Jun, 2010, Mudder wrote in the 79th comment:
Votes: 0
True or not, the fact is you were a jerk and you know it. You can point something out without being rude for no reason… It's called constructive criticism.
08 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 80th comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
True or not, the fact is you were a jerk and you know it. You can point something out without being rude for no reason… It's called constructive criticism.


Don't become like him. You're too nice.
Random Picks
60.0/122