Member Discussions

Though a bit belated... I'm rather surprised that anyone would be surprised or
offended by being repremanded for violating the TOS, or by someone else
reporting such a violation. Honestly, if I did anything even remotely close to
violating a TOS on a site, I would expect to be reported for it, and I would
expect a reasonable reprecussion shortly after. If either of those didn't
happen, I'd lose respect for the site. Likewise, if I went out of my way to bash
an administrator, advertizer or affiliate of a site (or anyone else for that
matter), I'd expect punishment for it, and finding none, would be surprised
and offended by *that*. The TOS are pretty clear, and just because Serapis
took offense to a violation, doesn't say anything against his character. If
anything, in fact, it says something about *our* character for reporting so few
other violations that one being reported is surprising.

Anyway, I was just impressed that anyone would be caught offguard by what
happened, for any reason. *shrug*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

As to my earlier comment I'll actually take back what I said, Calvin's not nearly as bad when you speak with him after he's colled down after an issue has long since been blown over, I sent him an email, he responded, I responded back, and I'm now unbanned from MudMagic.

I've emailed him multiple times and I have yet to get even a response.

Anyway, on this subject. Iccy is nowhere near as bad as Kyndig, like I said Kyndig won't even respond to me.

While I'm not suprised someone would mispell suprise, I am suprised someone would use it four times in a post.

...if I went out of my way to bash an administrator, advertizer or affiliate of a site (or anyone else for that
matter), I'd expect punishment for it...

I believe the poster alleged that advertisers/affiliates purchase favor here and as a result had their post and account deleted for it. How ironic that you suggest it also.

Yes, today is a bad day for me... oh well... I realized that while writing my post. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a synonym... for some odd reason. *sigh* And for the record, my spelling *always* sucks. I should learn to use spellcheck one of these days... but I figure I'll wait until I mortify myself horribly in public before I decide I have a good reason to.

Nonetheless, I only suggested that IRE was an advertiser because it was previously brought up. Quite obviously they are an advertiser, but the point was that I would expect jumping on anyone without insinuation would be cause to incite a report, if not an administrative response thereafter. However, seeing as IRE pays to build up their reputation on this site, I would even moreso expect they would take offense and hence report unnecessary abuse to their name. Likewise, I would imagine someone in their position would likely be paying more attention to such things. (Thus the relevance of bringing it up again, and not ignoring its previous mention.) My point was that *I* would expect such a response, and I'm rather amazed that everyone else seems to expect just the opposite.

Oh well... I guess I should go to bed now... since I just used "expect" four other times in *this* post... Blah.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

While I'm not suprised someone would mispell suprise, I am suprised someone would use it four times in a post.

But the word is spelled "surprise." I checked Oxford American Dictionary.

But someone mispelling "surprise" as "suprise" three times in a row to correct a mispelling that was not mispelled in the first place was... surprising! *giggles* (Now try saying that with a lisp!)

Ok, it was amusing and I am well aware of my own lack of skills with respect to spelling and grammar.

P.S. Even I looked "surprise" up in a dictionary (I admit that I am dense). I initially thought it was some joke that went over my head (my head is complete with a thick skull - brains were an optional extra that I did not bother with).

(Comment added by Templeton on Thu Nov 30 6:53:55 2006)

Opps! I didn't mean that people looking stuff up in a dictionary are dense. Urgh! I meant that even though I knew that the correct spelling was "surprise", I was somehow convinced it was now "suprise" until I looked it up hence why I thought I was dense. Apologies for any offence caused by accident. Sorry!

You also vialated spelling of vialation five times in a post, but I was hesitant to vialate the unwritten rules of commiting a piling on vialation in a post because people often feel vialated.

Quite obviously they are an advertiser, but the point was that I would expect jumping on anyone without insinuation would be cause to incite a report, if not an administrative response thereafter. However, seeing as IRE pays to build up their reputation on this site, I would even moreso expect they would take offense and hence report unnecessary abuse to their name.

I don't have anything against commercial muds, and I've even specificly defended IRE's so called "addiction business model" here in spite of my personal dislike of the brownneck fathead owner of IRE. It's hilarious that the crybaby who libeled Vietnam veterans on Memorial day in this very forum, libeled Catholics (both their dead and new Pope) on TMS, and thinks games that depict the gassing of Jews are hilarious on Mud-Dev gets his panties in a wad because some nobody (one should read "nobody" as parasitic non-paying user of the site AKA "hobbyist") posted the word "corruption" in connection with IRE.

OTOH I totally deplore censorship of discussion forums regardless of whatever the hell the previously almost never enforced TOS happens to say. Now if someone is really posting libel with no evidence, I trust the mud community to figure it out and correct them. It always has before. After all the mud community figured out the that "Mercthievia" ain't libel. Well it wasn't yesterday.

Just to add my $.02....

Ok the situation as I've read it (I could be wrong):

1. Nameless wrote alleged posts that constituted libel or defamatory content against either IRE or Matt on a private forum owned/ran by Icculus on the Internet.

2. Someone (Matt or otherwise) reported it for violation of TMC's TOS.

3. Icculus checked the post, agreed that it was in violation of the TOS and deleted the post.

4. Nameless re-posted the same or similar post, and also insulted Icculus and accused him of being bribed by IRE or Matt to delete the post.

5. Subsequent to these events, Icculus deleted the posts (and possibly the thread) and banned Nameless.

6. Nameless created a new name, and started a topic which insinuates bribery, maliciousness on both Icculus and Matt's parts.

7. Nameless expects that Icculus is a mind reader to know that Nameless doesn't check an email account that he accessed for a password reminder and that Nameless either was going to ignore the newly created email account or close it.

Ok, a couple of points, Nameless:

1. The constitution of the United States does not govern the Internet in general. The Laws of the United States (as far as I know) do not govern the internet.

2. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the US Constitution in that US Citizens and residents thereof are able and allowed to criticize the US Government and its actions without fear of reprisal except in cases which would affect the Sovereignty and Security of said nation. Individuals (including employees of the US Government) are exempt from the Freedom of Speech clauses as they are NOT the US Government. (Which means you can insult the Presidency, but not George W. Bush without possibly being nailed for libel, defamation of character, etc)

3. TMC is not a government entity, and is allowed to create and govern itself in any way it sees fit, provided it does not break International Laws, Treaties, etc. Since TMC is based in the United States, Icculus and TMC may be subject to Laws and Regulations pertaining to private membership organizations, etc I believe.

4. Since TMC is a PRIVATE organization, its rules can be whatever Icculus wishes. He is free to punish transgressions however he sees fit, provided he does not violate the Law (which means, for instance, he can't find out where you live and shoot you.)

5. He, based on your actions, remarks and comments chose to revoke your membership in HIS private organization for violations to the Terms of Service YOU agreed to when signing up and creating an account on TMC. He was not only well within his rights, he did so to protect his other members from needing to see/deal with those violations.

6. Your continued ranting and raving, and defamation of Icculus, Matt, IRE and allusions to possible illegal activities are doing nothing to alter Icculus' decisions but are instead solidifying his knowledge that what he did was right.

7. In no way can Icculus have known you would not be accessing the email account you created in order to re-sign up on TMC. Based on normal behavior, someone doesn't make a new e-mail address for purposes of not using it, except mass mailers, hackers, and others who are trying to remain anonymous because their behavior after creating these e-mail addresses will be malicious, nefarious, illegal, immortal, or some other underhanded type of situation. Since with your new account you've done little but cause trouble, defamed several people, it can only be construed that your purpose for creating that email was some form of malcontent behavior.

8. Icculus did what he was able in order to try to rectify the situation in an adult and mature manner, using the available options he had. He tried your original email address but the emails bounced back, for whatever reason. When he could not contact you, he was left no choice but to ban you and remove the posts.

If you do not like his policies, you have a very simple solution available to you: leave. If you wish to remain, you need to abide by the Terms of Service you agreed to when creating your account. If you continue not to, I expect you will find yourself permanently banned. If Icculus was as bad as you make him out to be, why were you able to have/keep Nameless2? He would have permanently banned you, and most likely put a ban on "Nameless" with a wildcard attached in the account creation code, if possible. Your reasoning is flawed, as are the conclusions you draw from your reasoning. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your own part in this. When it boils down to it, you precipitated all of this with your inclusion of IRE and the other. If you had instead said you did not wish to try a mud that has "pay to play" or "pay for perks", you would have never had a problem. By naming specific MUDs, you erred.

Kingarthyr wrote:

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the US Constitution in that US Citizens and residents thereof are able and allowed to criticize the US Government and its actions without fear of reprisal except in cases which would affect the Sovereignty and Security of said nation. Individuals (including employees of the US Government) are exempt from the Freedom of Speech clauses as they are NOT the US Government. (Which means you can insult the Presidency, but not George W. Bush without possibly being nailed for libel, defamation of character, etc)


That's incorrect I believe. Anti-defamation laws in the US don't tend to protect individuals or corporations against mere insults. It's alleged statements of fact that one has to be concerned with, but public figures (Bush certainly qualifies as one) receive even less protection, and in such a case the plantiff (the public figure) has to prove malice, not mere negligence, which is sufficient for non-public figures.

--matt

This business of defending someone, who was violating the TOS and being a jerk ("but he was *our* jerk!"), just because he was attacking someone many of you dislike is getting very, very old.

I swear that if Qwave began posting here again you'd all welcome him and defend him if he at least posted anti-IRE and anti-Matt screeds from time to time.

Heck, you'd probably even welcome the folks from Medievia if they threw a little anti-Matt action into the mix.

Why don't you all go work on your own commercial MUDs and then not advertise here, so you can claim the morale high ground, at least in your own minds?

Tyche, well that really gets into whether the TOS should be changed. I would expect, however, that so long as the TOS stays in place, as it is, that it should be enforced after a report, (nomatter who is making the report). Though I do see the irony, as you've explained it, I don't see why my, or anyone else's feelings towards the individual reporting a violation should in any way change the TOS. If it says in the TOS that noone can post pornography as avatar images, and I report that someone did... just because you, perhaps, don't like me shouldn't change the fact that it was a violation, and a user took offense to it.

If everyone was claiming that the original post did *not* violate the TOS, I could understand that... I just don't understand why everyone seems to admit that it violating the TOS, yet act offended that the terms were upheld. *shrug* I believe we've had discussions before about how the TOS should be changed, and we've come to a general consensus... but perhaps I'm just hallucinating again.

Oh, and yeah... I don't feel like using a spellchecker, but I probably will start being critical when someone corrects me instead of taking their word for it. Speaking of making a fool of myself... Or, perhaps, I should just stop posting while I'm asleep... that would solve all my problems. *smile*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

It seems to be that a general amount of confusion so far exists over a lot of you not even knowing for sure what was said in the original post.

So, for anyone who missed being able to read it and wants to see for sure what horrible, unspeakable things the big bad nobody said to get Icculus and Matt driven up a wall to the point of post deletion and banning, send an email to a temporary account I've set up at see_for_yourself0@yahoo.com and I'll send you an exact copy of the entire thing (or, if you prefer to see only the IRE parts, you can just specify that instead).

A moment of silence should be observed for "Mud Humor and Anecdotes" and the rubber chicken that Templeton will use to beat the board to death with...

From Templeton:

A moment of silence should be observed for "Mud Humor and Anecdotes" and the rubber chicken that Templeton will use to beat the board to death with...

You sure you didn't mean "beat the bored"?

Re: Matt's snip on my post

Matt, I agree public figures (such as celebs, high ranking elected officals, etc) are often the targets of negative comments (just look at Jay Leno, David Letterman, and most other stand up comics poking fun at various people). Whether what they do is considered defamation or libel is best left to a court. Though I used the Presidency vs George W. for an example, I was only trying to show what I think the laws were created to "defend" which was the actual offices and the government, not those who currently hold them. Many of the laws and aspects of the Constitution seem to have become "hazy" as to what they actually apply to. Unless someone can dig up and re-animate the creators of the Constitution to ask what they actually meant when writing certain parts of it, everything's pretty much guess work. As to the laws, I'm not actually sure if there are Federal laws dealing with it, or only State laws. Anyone know?

I've often wondered just what the "founding fathers"
*would* think of what we've done with the constitution
they developed.

I think many would be horrified by the way the
country shaped and shaped around the constitution.

However I think most would also say "Well I don't
agree with this or that, but you're a democracy
and it works for you, so have at it."

As to your question of jurisdiction, if Wikipedia
is to be believed on this, it is both federal and state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

I get the feeling this thread is going to start counting
angels on the heads of pins soon (In fact, I think I
already have) because without concrete details about
what was said by whom in what context, we are in
the same position to judge whether nameless was
libelous as we are to judge whether the founding
fathers would like the modern USA's handling of
the constitution.

Since we can't know, all we have to go on are claims
about what the words used meant, interpreted by the
interested parties, so it's all rather rashomon.

So instead I've looked at the situation from the
perspective of "who's acting like a jackass", and
so far there's not much question on that point.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

I don't have to agree with the post or the poster to know what was posted ain't libel and didn't violate the TOS.

From Tyche:

I don't have to agree with the post or the poster to know what was posted ain't libel and didn't violate the TOS.



Actually, unless you saw the post, you can't KNOW that it wasn't or was libel, nor whether it did or did not violate the TOS of TMC.


According to Wikipedia, what seems to have transpired by Nameless' post may or may not be libel, but IS defamation. Below is their definition:

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes an express or implied factual claim that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions provide legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to punish various kinds of defamation.



Now, according to Nameless, he directly pointed to IRE and Medievia (I think) as dealing underhandedly, and such. THOSE statements could impact and harm the reputation of IRE and the other mud, as well as the reputations of Matt, his immortals as well as the reputations of the owners and staff of the other mud. Wikipedia further defines libel, which DOES indeed deal with Nameless' original AND subsequent posts, as shown below:

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.


Notice libel is dealt in a FIXED medium, ie: written word. Every single solitary post on this discussion group that would be considered harmful to a MUD or group could technically be construed as libel. Nameless, wrote about IRE claiming facts that imply illegality, improprietary conduct, etc. He then did the same towards Icculus himself because Icculus was doing his job as owner of TMC.

Whether any of us LIKE the business practices of IRE or the other MUD, what they do is perfectly legal. We may have moral objections to it. I personally don't like it, and have probably jumped on the bandwagon of bashers, and Matt, if I have, I apologize for any defamatory/libelous posts, which would only be if I tried to state certain practices were fact and illegal. My opinions may stand, but they're mine. I also would like to apologize to Scottman for the same. I didn't realize I was skirting that line and crossed it.

Now, as many have stated, Icculus allows us a great deal of freedom of speech, but, when someone clicks on the "report" link, he has the right to make a judgement on the content of the post. Its also not up for discussion, as per TOS:

TMC has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions in our sole discretion at any time and for any reason without giving you any prior notice: a) terminate, suspend or limit your access to TMC or any of the Services provided by TMC; b) refuse to post, move or remove any content that is available on TMC; c) refuse to post, move or remove any content that you have posted to TMC; d) modify or remove any or all of the Services provided by TMC; e) suspend or delete your member account and all information you have posted to TMC; f) modify the practices and limits regarding the use of TMC and its Services.


I am not speaking for Icculus in this, I am offering my opinion that seems to correlate to facts: Nameless posted something. Someone reported it. Icculus agreed with the report that it was libelous and therefore violated TOS. Icculus removed the post. Nameless reposted the same or similar post. Someone reported it. Icculus removed the post, and deleted Nameless after at least one attempt to contact him (Nameless) bounced back.

Whether Tyche, myself, Jess, Nameless or anyone else agrees or disagrees is NOT RELEVANT. Icculus exercised his RIGHTS according to TOS on his discussion boards. Since I didn't see the post, I can't add an opinion as to its content being libelous or not, but then again, my opinion, just like Tyche's, Nameless', Crat's, Jess', Matt's etc DO NOT MATTER. ONLY Icculus' opinions matter when it comes to TOS issues. The fact that this is centered on IRE and that other mud is the only reason it seems anyone is up in arms, crying and whining favortism, pressure by Icculus' advertisers or whatever. We may not like Matt, I have issues with him but they're not important, but, Tyche, and others if you want freedoms for one, you must maintain the same freedoms for all. Anarchy doesn't work, and neither does chaos. I'm sure IRE isn't the only business who uses pay for perks, so why is he always getting flak? Business is business, he's out to make money to food on the table, pay his bills, etc. He is not a "hobbyist" and if he wishes to make money, hey, its the American way (and others). If people are stupid enough to get sucked into it, its there OWN DAMN FAULT. LET THE BUYER BEWARE. If its kids spending their parents' money, its the PARENTS' job to teach them its a no-no. If the person doing it is an adult, then they're supposed to have enough brains to take care of themselves. If not, they deserve their fate. If the parents are allowing their children access to their money, they deserve what THEY get too.

If everyone was claiming that the original post did *not* violate the TOS, I could understand that... I just don't understand why everyone seems to admit that it violates the TOS, yet act offended that the terms were upheld.
Spellcheck: ON

As I understand it, some members are concerned that Icculus is unduly concerned with Matt's opinions and wishes, due to Matt's considerable financial contribution to this site's economy (at least as related to other contributors).

I must admit I'm concerned as well - having never seen the TOS inforced in this way before.
One of the reasons I like TMC is that I've always felt that people were allowed to say what they wanted, however stupid or hateful it may have been. Another reason I like TMC is the responses such posts get (ranging from total and utter silence (my fav), to intellectual debates or witty flames much like many of the posts in this thread).

Whichever of those responses you might have chosen, Matt, I'm certain it would have reflected positively on you in the end - I'm quite sure you could have refuted Nameless (whether he is right or not).
I'm not sure why people dislike you so, except perhaps some questionable practises in regards of payment (if memory serves), but your star has certainly taken a dive in my eyes.

To you, Icculus, I'll say that you should either change the TOS ASAP (allowing members to say what they want, as they've always done), or prepare for many more requests of removal - you've set a dangerous precedent here, I think.

Massaria,
Reprimanding without reprisal (still)

Perhaps you'd like to explain, then, how a patently made-up accusation of engaging in an illegal act (bribery) is not libel, and doesn't thus violate the TOS? I'm at a loss as to what the defense against a libel accusation in that case could be other than truth. It wasn't satire, it wasn't an opinion. It was an accusation of a very specific and illegal act, and it was completely invented and delivered with obvious malicious intent in order to attack Mudconnector/Andrew, myself/IRE, and Medievia.

--matt

Massaria wrote:

I must admit I'm concerned as well - having never seen the TOS inforced in this way before.
One of the reasons I like TMC is that I've always felt that people were allowed to say what they wanted, however stupid or hateful it may have been. Another reason I like TMC is the responses such posts get (ranging from total and utter silence (my fav), to intellectual debates or witty flames much like many of the posts in this thread).

Stupid and hateful is fine (though abusive is against the TOS), if utterly pointless and ultimately harmful to the MUD community. Libel is considerably different from the childish insults some members of the forum like to throw around, however. You're not libeling someone by calling them names. You ARE libeling someone when trying to maliciously present lies as facts, however, and there's no reason the Mudconnector should allow its forums to sink that low.


Whichever of those responses you might have chosen, Matt, I'm certain it would have reflected positively on you in the end - I'm quite sure you could have refuted Nameless (whether he is right or not).

I don't need to refute a random forum poster making ridiculous accusations w/o a shred of evidence, sorry. Nobody should have to. I simply used the "Report Inappropriate Material" link, and Andrew took it from there.


--matt

"Perhaps you'd like to explain, then, how a patently made-up accusation of engaging in an illegal act (bribery) is not libel" --matt

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not all bribes are illegal. You can bribe a child with promises of cake for breakfast. If we look at a defination of bribe from http://m-w.com/dictionary/bribe

"money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"

It could be asserted that you do have influence over the decisions of the forum admin, and that your money paid for advertising was a "bribe" when it came down to reviewing your requests for post removal.

Censorship of posts is certainly within the rights of the forum. I am surprised that you, Matt, would be for censoring posts. Your own blog states "I’m afraid that it’s not in my nature to react well to requests that I censor what I want to say, regardless of how good-natured in tone and trivial in nature the censorship would be."

Are those not your own words?

Now I am not against your (or others') business models. I even played Simutronic's Gemstone for years and gladly paid my monthly subscription.

One problem I have with the issue being discussed is the appearance of favortism that seems to be based on monetary contributions. From a business standpoint I can understand that money given to a business does influence a business, but from a forum poster's point it still troubles me.

The other problem is the lack of consistancy with applying the rules of the website and forums. Why is it that one game is treated one way while another is treated differently? Why does one post violate the ToS when another says the exact same thing and stands?

These are the issues I have with the whole discussion.

If the post was truly that much of a breach of the ToS why not repost it here in its entirety so we can all plainly see it?

Get a life people!

So Icculus banned a user? SO WHAT its his site he can ban pretty much who who wants for what he wants!

After all do you pay to connect to this site? I think NOT!

Likening this to mudmagic made me laugh. I have never had any problems with the way this site has been run, and i have been around for a long time.

Quite why people seen the need to post pointless responses is beyond me! Its done, its in the past, move on with your lives!

-Tijer

Lorial wrote:

Not all bribes are illegal. You can bribe a child with promises of cake for breakfast. If we look at a defination of bribe from http://m-w.com/dictionary/bribe

"money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"

Libel is a legal matter. See my reference earlier to the definition of bribery in Black's Law Dictionary.


Censorship of posts is certainly within the rights of the forum. I am surprised that you, Matt, would be for censoring posts. Your own blog states "I’m afraid that it’s not in my nature to react well to requests that I censor what I want to say, regardless of how good-natured in tone and trivial in nature the censorship would be."

That's right, I do. But then, I don't post libelous things either. Were I to do so, I'd of course take it down upon being reliably notified that I was committing libel.


The other problem is the lack of consistancy with applying the rules of the website and forums. Why is it that one game is treated one way while another is treated differently? Why does one post violate the ToS when another says the exact same thing and stands?

Probably because someone bothered to complain in one case and not another. You don't expect Andrew to pre-emptively censor things out that nobody has an issue with do you? (Though given that the accusation was that he took bribes, I can see where he might be the one complaining in this case.)

Anyone going on about consistency and influence - Have you tried asking Andrew to remove a post that libels you? If not, how exactly is it that you're able to judge whether there's consistency or not?


If the post was truly that much of a breach of the ToS why not repost it here in its entirety so we can all plainly see it?


Uh, because it was removed for being in violation of the ToS...you want him to judge something to be in violation of the ToS and then repost it? What sense does that make? The point is to remove crap like that, not show it off.

--matt

"how exactly is it that you're able to judge whether there's consistency or not?" --matt
_____________________________________________________________________________

The same way you can decide whether a post is "libel", through experience, by understanding the definition and by looking at the facts.

For an example of inconsistency I was personally involved in see the thread "DIKU Rules the World!". While not an issue over censuring a post it does show that not all MUDs are treated the same.

Evidence of other MUDs violation of licenses has been posted before by those that "bothered to complain" and nothing was done.

The issue was resolved in our favor, which I am thankful for, but only after evidence was presented by other posters.

Massaria, can you please point out to me one time you posted an inappropriate material report about a post or anything else on the site and it was ignored? I can only remember receiving a handful of these myself and every one was dealt with accordingly, it is wrong of you to accuse that only certain people's reports are answered as that is just not the case.

Suggesting the tos policy be changed because more people might start using it is absurd, thats exactly what it is there for, so I can be aware of tos violations and I can act on them.

-Icculus