Jump to content
UnitedOperations

Regular Removal to the "hai guise" thread creator [2012-06-14]

  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Remove This Regular?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      45


Recommended Posts

Ok, well that's resolved. That is still possibly one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

Share this post


Link to post

This whole thread is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. Let's break it down shall we?

 

First off, this poll appears to have been created with the intent to remove one player but in reality it was going after another player. It's hilarious to watch people in this thread freakin argue for removing this player but instantly re-neg the moment it is revealed who was the actual culprit. If the player did it, and you feel that the player who did should be removed, it should be grounds for removal no matter who the player is. If you're biased then don't post, because you look like a moron going after someone after providing several good reasons and then just changing the vote because the person who did it isn't who you thought it was. You people should all be ashamed, fucking children.

 

Secondly you're anonymously removing an anonymous player. Wtf is up with that?! I wasn't aware that Sherlock Holmes Impulse9 was now a member of the community. I'm sure it's perfectly possible to acquire this info, but why not do the digging and discover who the real culprit was instead of simply removing...no one?

 

Just grow the fuck up people, stand by what you believe if you feel so strongly about it. If not, than shut up.

 

I submitted this poll, I had no idea who the person behind it was but I had my suspicions that it might have been Deathstrike - I asked Marvin and even evoked the "freedom of information" clause we have in the charter but the WSOs would not give the name, this was the only thing possible to do from my end, for the record my original vote was yes and it did not change upon learning that it was Verox, so if your calling someone out you need to get your facts straight before you talk because you look like a child throwing a hissyfit.

Anyone here that thinks I did it because "its Nou" is retarded, it was sarcasm on Trapdoor's part, I knew that the offender had an British IP and Nou is American so draw your own conclusions, I still support the poll because the forums are not a trolling pit against new members, I don't really care if this passes or not but peer action[formal] needs to be taken against people that break charter rule and forum SOP, that thread could have taken off if someone like Thawk would have taken the bait and we would have looked bad to our new members - reference the DM thread where many Regulars flamed a new member for asking tips on becoming a designated marksman.

Share this post


Link to post

that thread could have taken off if someone like Thawk would have taken the bait

 

Don't be a dick.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with trolling on the forums is written word can't give inflection. Sarcasm is about inflection of the voice. You say one thing in a way that it means the opposite. you can only do that with your voice. So let's all grow up a little and stop pretending others can hear the voice in our head when all they see are the word we have written.

Share this post


Link to post

...

Anyone here that thinks I did it because "its Nou" is retarded, it was sarcasm on Trapdoor's part, I knew that the offender had an British IP and Nou is American so draw your own conclusions, I still support the poll because the forums are not a trolling pit against new members, I don't really care if this passes or not but peer action[formal] needs to be taken against people that break charter rule and forum SOP, that thread could have taken off if someone like Thawk would have taken the bait and we would have looked bad to our new members - reference the DM thread where many Regulars flamed a new member for asking tips on becoming a designated marksman.

 

This poll is pretty extreme for a poor excuse of a satire thread.

 

Did the thought ever occur to you that maybe just banning him for a week or two would be better than ostracizing him from UO?

 

I'm not saying that because it's Verox. While he is a huge help in UOTC, he still broke a rule and should be reminded of that. Just damn, your brand of justice is pretty harsh.

Share this post


Link to post

This poll is pretty extreme for a poor excuse of a satire thread.

 

Did the thought ever occur to you that maybe just banning him for a week or two would be better than ostracizing him from UO?

 

I'm not saying that because it's Verox. While he is a huge help in UOTC, he still broke a rule and should be reminded of that. Just damn, your brand of justice is pretty harsh.

 

Not sure where you got the "satire thread" from, please explain.

I do not have the power to ban offenders beyond 15 minutes on teamspeak nor do I have the community's consensus and will to act on it.

Just because theres a poll on something doesn't mean its going to pass or happen - polls can easily be statements.

While my brand of justice may be considered harsh by you the community is far harsher, I don't need to pull examples..at least I hope I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing,denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

 

 

If your intent was to make a statement, you produced a powerful message then. You made yourself look draconian in nature. I fear what you would do if you had the power to ban offenders. Would you be harsh as you say and ban a person for speaking out of line in briefing?

 

UO isn't harsh, we have given multiple people chances to mend their ways, some do some don't. For example, we gave Mienke more than enough chances to reform. If we had your way of thinking we would have permabanned him at the first offence.

 

So if you wanted to make a statement do it in a way that doesn't leave the chance of ostracizing regulars. That would be sending the wrong message, unless you want to make yourself look like a malcontent.

Share this post


Link to post

You are not clear enough on why this is a satire thread, still not getting it - you only offered the dictionary definition of the word satire?

 

I don't see how Verox will feel ostracized, Fighter didn't when he got polled twice, Falcon didn't when he got polled..why should Verox?

The rest of your post is extreme guessing, I don't know what I would do if someone will speak out of line in the briefing and there are many variables that will decide if that person will be on the end of any receiving action.

Share this post


Link to post

Just like the "satan" outbreak a year ago, I will always vote yes for the removal of offending regulars with regards to spoof accounts. In this case I do not know who it was, but my stance on this issue remains the same.

 

Force

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad "precedent" doesn't mean anything at UO. We don't have a common system of laws (commonlaw) and precedent isn't defined in the charter anywhere.

 

I never said it was stated anywhere in the charter. It's a matter of setting a standard.

 

And just because it isn't stated that does not mean it doesn't happen. The charter doesn't cover everything... there is something called "common sense" for the conundrums not provisioned by the charter.

 

Haha, NO. This is rediculous.

 

1. Has said reg has any other bans filed against them?

 

2. Has said reg had a history of trolling, greifing, ect?

 

3. Is this said reg's first offense?

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

Share this post


Link to post

I submitted this poll, I had no idea who the person behind it was but I had my suspicions that it might have been Deathstrike - I asked Marvin and even evoked the "freedom of information" clause we have in the charter but the WSOs would not give the name, this was the only thing possible to do from my end, for the record my original vote was yes and it did not change upon learning that it was Verox, so if your calling someone out you need to get your facts straight before you talk because you look like a child throwing a hissyfit.

Anyone here that thinks I did it because "its Nou" is retarded, it was sarcasm on Trapdoor's part, I knew that the offender had an British IP and Nou is American so draw your own conclusions, I still support the poll because the forums are not a trolling pit against new members, I don't really care if this passes or not but peer action[formal] needs to be taken against people that break charter rule and forum SOP, that thread could have taken off if someone like Thawk would have taken the bait and we would have looked bad to our new members - reference the DM thread where many Regulars flamed a new member for asking tips on becoming a designated marksman.

 

Well, I'm glad that you have maintained your vote within the thread, but I still feel that some discretion should have been taken when submitting this poll. If you couldn't find out who it was but had a suspect, you could have asked deathstrike if he did it. After all if you submitted the poll anonymously it wouldn't have your name attached to it. Furthermore I totally agree that peer action needs to be taken against people who break the rules, and I stand by the poll. But again, you could have done some digging and probably found the culprit OP of the other thread, and further submitted the actual poll with the person's name. I still think this thread was poorly planned and was created in direct response to the action instead of calmly carrying out a plan of some sort that ended in the polling and removal of a member. Prior preparation prevents poor poll performance...just saying...

Share this post


Link to post

Problem with that is, Azzwort, is that he really couldn't have. Unless the person fessed up, or someone fessed up that they fessed up in some long string of things, he couldn't be a internet detective. The WSOs wouldn't tell him, as already established.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'm glad that you have maintained your vote within the thread, but I still feel that some discretion should have been taken when submitting this poll. If you couldn't find out who it was but had a suspect, you could have asked deathstrike if he did it. After all if you submitted the poll anonymously it wouldn't have your name attached to it. Furthermore I totally agree that peer action needs to be taken against people who break the rules, and I stand by the poll. But again, you could have done some digging and probably found the culprit OP of the other thread, and further submitted the actual poll with the person's name. I still think this thread was poorly planned and was created in direct response to the action instead of calmly carrying out a plan of some sort that ended in the polling and removal of a member. Prior preparation prevents poor poll performance...just saying...

 

Did you intentionally skip over the part where I tried getting the WSOs to tell me who it was in any way I could??

The only information we had was:

1)British IP

2)Person in a "position" meaning more then a Regular.

Share this post


Link to post

well you 2 guys do know that it was verox right ??

 

He even turn himself in earlier in the thread.

 

I just don't understand your posts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...