Member Discussions

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.

I certainly saw the second post. It's in my browser cache. I asked the poster to forward the first post, and appears and is represented to be the same as the second.

As to the rest of the twenty odd paragraphs in your prior post and this one, my response is that "It's my mud [site] and I can do whatever the hell I want." is in fact a well known concept to most of the participants here. So what?

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?

Playing devil's advocate...

Several months ago the search option was changed to always return IRE muds and RetroMud no matter which search criteria was entered. Changed apparently after someone discovered that certain muds (including IRE, RetroMud and one other) had been allowed to embed keywords into HTML. This was apparently a priviledge negotiated with Icculus and not available nor known by other muds. In fact, nowhere on the site was this priviledge even mentioned and I doubt very few users of the site even knew about it except those muds that had that priviledge. I didn't know it. It also says when you create a listing that you may not embed HTML keywords into your advertisement.

Now the term "commercial bribery" has several definitions in law. One definition of "commercial bribery" is where an employee or sales agent takes a bribe to unduly influence a contract that unknown, unauthorized and may not be in the best interest of the employer or the person the agent is representing. The obvious example is the disk jockeys who received payments from record companies to play certain records more frequently. This is also known as payola. Another definition of "commercial bribery" under law is where the principals of a company provides a service that is represented publicly to those signing up for and/or using it to have equal benefits or access, yet actually sells or exchanges hidden benefits secretly while still representing the service to be equal. The latter might describe to the operation of the search engine prior to the change.

Finally why do even assume that any use of the bribery even refers to the strict legal definition when the general use is common? Simply put, payment for favors. Something not necessarily illegal at all. Your business model is in fact based on bribery, the common definition. Any player can give a bribe and receive items and advantage in the game. Something that is apparently legal and acceptable in many cultures including the United States, and obviously in some games. You might prefer to refer to it as a donation, tip, payment, gratuity, credit or whatever, but a bribe is certainly an acceptable synonym.

End playing devil's advocate.

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.

Like Microsoft, I don't think they have much reputation left to be harmed as it is, in all honesty. Granted, taking shots at IRE is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but I did so as it had relevance to the entire post itself; which was a search for mu*'s, detailing exactly what I did and didn't want to see in a potentially suggested game to try. And as it was stated before with regards to supposedly libelous content, nothing said hasn't already been said before elsewhere in the forums.

If you have yet to see the post so that you can decide for yourself whether or not it was libelous, instead of simply accepting the skewed opinions of Icculus and Sarapis at face value, you can send a request to the temporary email address I set up that I mentioned before at see_for_yourself0@yahoo.com. Just be sure that either the subject line or the body of the email contains that you want to see either the entire post, or the part that is being discussed foremost. I received a blank email from someone, for example, so I have no idea if it was simply spam or if it was from one of you.

Icculus exercised his RIGHTS according to TOS on his discussion boards.

This is a major point I believe that is being slightly overlooked at the moment. Just because you have a given right, does not mean you should exercise it in every or any given situation. Technicly, I have a right to shoot everyone who trespasses on my property by virtue of posting enough warning signs to let trespassers know that they are not welcome on the property. However, I doubt that UPS would like it were I to gun down one of their employees trying to deliver a package to the place of residence. I also don't think I'd be able to get anymore deliveries either.

The relevance this bears to the this thread is that Icculus chose to exercise his rights, instead of his intellect and common sense as a forum moderator. I already outlined the steps he should have taken from the get-go, which would have resulted in a far different outcome.

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?

Here's the thing. Mature, self-confident individuals (whether they be "adults" or not), 9 times out of 10, do not complain to someone else when someone insults or otherwise speaks ill of them. Instead, they deal with it on their own, and settle it on their own. This is the primary reason why a lot of TMC users, at least from what I see, do not exercise their rights to make complaints to Icculus. They are beyond that. If someone insults them, you either brush it off or insult / argue with them back.

For example, when every time someone makes light of you and your games, Sarapis, how is it supposed to help your "reptuation" if you are continually pulling the metaphorical equivalent of running up to Icculus with tears in your eyes and saying "Iccyyyy, they're picking on me again! Tell them to stop!". You look downright childish.

From what I can see of the way you act, you deserve every bit of criticism you get. If not for everything that has transpired in this event alone, then for the advertisement that IRE runs on the TMC main page that is shown almost 100% of the time:

"Tired of endless stock MUDs and their shallow gameplay? Fed up with non-existent customer service? Play with Iron Realms and discover a higher standard of excellence. Iron Realms: When you're ready to step up and play with the professionals."

By virtue of that adverisement alone, you slander/defame/libel/insult almost the entire mudding/muxing/etc community in one shot. And I use your definition of libel when I say that that advertisement is libelous. Because, as you say, it hurts the reputations and whatnot of all the honest and hard-working mu* owners and creators out there that aren't apart of IRE.

I could even go so far as to report that advertisement as a violation of the TOS (using your own definitions of libel, of course) to have it removed permanently. But I already know that wouldn't go anywhere.

Icculus won't bite the hand that feeds him.

Nameless wrote:

By virtue of that adverisement alone, you slander/defame/libel/insult almost the entire mudding/muxing/etc community in one shot. And I use your definition of libel when I say that that advertisement is libelous. Because, as you say, it hurts the reputations and whatnot of all the honest and hard-working mu* owners and creators out there that aren't apart of IRE.


I could explain to you how it's not possible to libel a community, since only individuals and those granted person-like-status by law (LLCs, for instance), can be libeled, but you're not really interested in reality are you?

--matt

From what I can see of the way you act, you deserve every bit of criticism you get. If not for everything that has transpired in this event alone, then for the advertisement that IRE runs on the TMC main page that is shown almost 100% of the time:

"Tired of endless stock MUDs and their shallow gameplay? Fed up with non-existent customer service? Play with Iron Realms and discover a higher standard of excellence. Iron Realms: When you're ready to step up and play with the professionals."

By virtue of that adverisement alone, you slander/defame/libel/insult almost the entire mudding/muxing/etc community in one shot.

Look, I find IRE as much of a tempting target as anyone else, but let's take a look at the copy:

"Tired of endless stock MUDs and their shallow gameplay?"

"Endless" may be an exaggeration for "the majority of 1648+ MUDs", but it's not a particularly gross one. I dare you to find 800 fresh, innovative MUDs.

"Fed up with non-existent customer service?"

Again, the majority of 1648 MUDs don't have "customer service". Maybe that's because they have players instead of customers, who they help out with a general eagerness to answer questions and give aid. Still technically true though.

Iron Realms: When you're ready to step up and play with the professionals.

Most MUDs are ran by hobbyists.


Look, just turn on the TV, and you'll find things like Jared making fun of Burger King, even using exaggerations like referring to the fat content of their food as "The King's greatest legacy." It's free enterprise at work.

From Massaria:

I must admit I'm concerned as well - having never seen the TOS inforced in this way before.


I wonder if its because people just never clicked on "report" link as often, or it wasn't made into the issue it has been in this thread before because it didn't deal with Matt or IRE.


From Nameless2:

Technicly, I have a right to shoot everyone who trespasses on my property by virtue of posting enough warning signs to let trespassers know that they are not welcome on the property. However, I doubt that UPS would like it were I to gun down one of their employees trying to deliver a package to the place of residence. I also don't think I'd be able to get anymore deliveries either.


Um, where is there a law that states because you place a "No Trespassing" sign on your property that you have "right" to shoot or harm anyone? It allows you to have justification for calling the legal authorized police force to extricate the person from your property and possibly press charges for trespassing. Major difference there, Nameless.

Also from Nameless2:

The relevance this bears to the this thread is that Icculus chose to exercise his rights, instead of his intellect and common sense as a forum moderator. I already outlined the steps he should have taken from the get-go, which would have resulted in a far different outcome


Um, just curious but why should your opinion as to what he "should" have done weigh more heavily then his?


As to Matt's advertising strategy, he did not specify any code base, specific mud, specific genre of mud, etc. You specified two distinct muds/businesses. You may claim its libelous against "stock muds". The definition of a stock mud is a mud that is used "right out of the box". No alterations made to the code, areas, etc. Even changing the default information to enter in your MUD name, and port, etc technically alters it from a stock mud to non-stock. Since I don't know of anyone at all who uses the defaults, as well as makes no changes to areas or code, Matt is technically not defaming or being libelous against anyone at all. And as others stated, by defining himself as a "professional" that means he is identifying himself as non-hobbyist, for-profit gaming company/mud. As to the "shallow game play", that is an opinion statement, and a question. That may seem derrogatory, and to a degree it is, but its far from libel, or defamation.

I'm not going to look up the names of everyone that said what they did... so just fill in the blanks.

Nameless, I believe: ...I don't even know where to begin. Serapis isn't going around "abusing his rights" to report everyone who says anything bad about him?... I would think this would be pretty evident by the fact that you can find countless references to people bashing IRE and Serapis that have gone untouched by anyone. He reports one instance, which is a post which goes out of its way to make an untrue statement about his company for no relevant reason, and suddenly he's abusing his rights? The same wouldn't be said if anyone else did it... consider for a moment why. This whole topic was brought up because it's out of the ordinary for a post to be censored on this site, which is solely due to the fact that hardly anyone reports anything (though they have easy access to doing so). When something pops up that's out of the ordinary, it's natural to question why... and once again, it's easy to throw out some accusations that it's because of IRE's advertiser status. Other posts have been been removed here before... and there wasn't any global outcry. Just to name one... it was generally agreed that Scandum was at fault when he got banned for posting something against the TOS, and then reposting it when it was removed. Personally, I see a striking resemblance between these two situations, with the only difference being the fact that Serapis (an easy target), is the one that happened to report it.

Spellcheck: ON: What'd I misspell this time? I know my spelling sucks... I came to terms with it years ago... it's the only way I get to sleep at night. *sniffle*.

As for the rest, a clear and reasonable course of action was taken here. --- A post was made which was a flame. The subject of that flame reported the post. The post was removed, and an email was sent to the poster. The poster reposted the same flame, ignoring the email. The post was again removed, and the poster was temporarily banned so he wouldn't repost it again. The poster made a new account, and an email was sent to that account explaining the temporary ban. The email was ignored. --- Nothing else matters. It doesn't matter why the emails were ignored, why the post was posted, or reposted, or whether the post is "technically" anything. Understanding of that course of action is the only thing of importance here... Noting that it would have been fine to rephrase the post in any number of other ways without it being even noticed, and that the poster was only temporarily banned... and for a good cause. (That being reposting a message that was deemed unacceptable by an administrator).

On a complete sidenote, I also think there is a major misunderstanding here as to Serapis' reasoning while reporting the said message. As someone pointed out, most people deal with personal matters without involving an authority... but who said that Serapis doesn't as well? As I mentioned before... it should be clear by the amount of IRE/Serapis bashing around that he doesn't just go reporting everything he takes offense to... but this wasn't a personal matter, as you're referring to it as. This is a matter of his business... For example, if someone made a thread on here entitled: Jess is a coke-fiend poopy-head... I wouldn't go reporting it to have it removed. I'd just make my own post in it, and as well (depending on the amount of offense I took to its content), probably just make a joke out of it. Were I, however, to have a business that was being innapropriately bashed, my response would be quite different. You have to keep in mind, in this hypothetical case, that I would be paying money, out of my own pocket, (and substantial amounts of it, at that), to create a GOOD name for my business on this site through advertising. Falsely accusing my business of anything (for no reason and with no evidence), therefore, is directly costing me money. It's not just about character anymore when you take it to a commercial level... now it's a financial one as well.

Ultimately, the report abuse link is there for a reason. The reason this topic was even ever brought up is due to the fact that hardly anyone ever uses it! That, however, does not in any way validate the reaction that its use in this case was wrong! Just like if noone ever got arrested for murder because noone ever reported the victims as being dead, doesn't suddenly make someone going to prison for it an injustice. Once again, whether or not the TOS should be changed is a different matter entirely. Since the TOS *are* in place, and since the post was reported (with adequate reason for it to be deemed a violation), its removal was just. *shrug*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

QUOTE (Kingarthyr)
"As to Matt's advertising strategy, he did not specify any code base, specific mud, specific genre of mud, etc."
/QUOTE

You guys really must have short memories.
You don't even remember the original wording of the infamous banner?
Then let me refresh your memory. Originally, and for a very long time, it read:
"Tired of endless DIKU muds and their shallow gameplay..."

Naturally those who run Diku or any of its derivates took offense to that - libel or not, it was certainly offensive. It was changed only after a rather extensive common outcry, and as far as I can remember several posters demanded that it be removed, referring to TOS. The motive why it was eventually changed, (not removed) can be discussed, but my guess is that even Sarapis finally realised that not all publicity is good publicity, (even if Medievia could be said to be proof of the opposite).

As for the rest of the discussion, I do find it rather relevant what actually was in the post that got removed, since the entire thread is rather pointless without that info. I even e-mailed the address given by Nameless to find out, but the only response I've got so far is that 'the message remains in the server queue'. I'm not sure if this is because a lot of others are curious as well, or if there is something wrong with the e-mail address.

I even e-mailed the address given by Nameless to find out, but the only response I've got so far is that 'the message remains in the server queue'. I'm not sure if this is because a lot of others are curious as well, or if there is something wrong with the e-mail address.

No, I was just sleeping. The reply e-mail has been sent.

Naturally those who run Diku or any of its derivates took offense to that - libel or not, it was certainly offensive.

Even without the DIKU specification, I still think the advertisement is offensive and condescending on a level that should not get immunity from the TOS. Again, while it isn't illegal to make statements like that about one's competitors, just like it isn't illegal to bribe someone for favors, it's rather poor marketing sense and just plain rude to do so. Personally, I find it better of a game to go the more responsible "This is what we have, see for yourself and decide for yourself" angle, instead of the "We're better than Brand X, because Brand X is made in Mexico" angle.

Just like if noone ever got arrested for murder because noone ever reported the victims as being dead, doesn't suddenly make someone going to prison for it an injustice.

It does if the person that was sent to prison was innocent of the crime all along. The factor in all of this is that my other account was banned, and the posts deleted, simply on what Icculus and Sarapis feel were libelous statements; regardless of them actually being libelous or not. And per your metaphore, that's the equivalent of a jury convicting someone because they feel they are guilty, regardless of there possibly being evidence otherwise or the person flat-out being innocent of it (which unfortunately happens all too often).

Hahahahaha... whew baby, what a rip-roaring good anecdote this has been. *eyes the crowd at large*

Much as I appreciate the issue at hand and its rammifications in the greater scheme of things, this sounds like a clear case of ethical debate with a dash of semantics and mild philosophy.. I'm just curious.. which quota does this thread meet, the humor or the anecdote? I'm not exactly rolling on the floor or submerged in nostalgia. Not what I was expecting from opening a thread on this board.

Molly, I remember quite well the original advertising banner Matt put together. I was one of the ones who posted that it should be removed and was unethical, etc.

However, the poster was not discussing that incarnation of the banner, just the newer version, pointing to it and claiming it was libelous, which is untrue. It may be underhanded, it may be offensive, it may be leading, etc but its not libel. Since this specific incarnation of the advertisement was held up as example, I only commented on that one.


As to Sethe's wondering what this thread is doing in humor and anecdote, I'm curious myself. I can only assume that Nameless felt Icculus' and Matt's dealings in this were somehow laughable. Personally, I would have posted this under legal issues or general discussions.

I do admit to getting some chuckles at the thread for various reasons, none of which I'll name. Then again, I laugh at a lot of threads/posts because of their content. I think Templeton's insanity has rubbed off, either that or some of Osirus' senility has mutated into some kind of airborne virus.

The TOS says:

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;

Keep that in mind when making a case for being "innocent" of the "crime" in which you have been "accused". This is not a court of law, there are no rules of evidence. Icculus has the right to ban any one of us for any reason whatsoever. It just so happens that you got booted for what most sane people consider a justified reason.

However, the poster was not discussing that incarnation of the banner, just the newer version, pointing to it and claiming it was libelous, which is untrue. It may be underhanded, it may be offensive, it may be leading, etc but its not libel. Since this specific incarnation of the advertisement was held up as example, I only commented on that one.

I know, and that was my point (you didn't get the sarcasm?). The key wording of my statement was that by using Sarapis's definition of libel, the advertisement would count as such.

Just like in how the advertisment as it is isn't libel (is anyone else sick of this word yet?), what I said in my original post that started all of this wasn't either. But, as we can see, Icculus cares not what the dictionary, or say, the law defines it as; he only cares about the definitions he makes up in his own head.

Icculus has the right to ban any one of us for any reason whatsoever.

...yeah, thanks for the update there, Captain Obvious.

Nameless... you were only temporarily banned, and that was because you directly went against the ruling of the owner and administrator of the site, when you failed to respond to his attempts to make contact with you. I'm surprised you didn't expect as much... unless you wanted to make a scene out of it. The banning is justified... the post is the only relevant point here, and that has to do with the TOS. I don't think anyone would dissagree... though you're more than welcomed to take the stance that it's okay for you to go around doing whatever you want, against the wishes of the authority/owner/administrator anywhere without expecting any reprecussions whatsoever... Whether or not the post went against the TOS is up for debate, but it really doesn't make any difference. It was a flame, which claimed something which could have been damaging to IRE and/or mudconnector, and it was reported. It was serapis' right to report it, quite obviously, as it is his right to report anything he doesn't like for whatever reason (though he doesn't). At the point of it being reported, it was then in Icculus' hands... he can't just ignore the report, as that would be irresponsible. He has to either decide that the post is unreasonable (and hence could be worded in a reasonable way), or that the post is reasonable and should not need to be reworded. This is about whether the post could and should be reworded... that's all. You could have said so many other things, that weren't pointless flames. Examples of this include: "I don't want a game like IRE's", "I don't like IRE", "I don't want a game which accepts donations", "I don't want a commercial game", "I don't want a game that advertises", "I want a small game", "I want a game where everyone is on an equal playing field"... and quite obviously many more.

The analogy about murder I made wasn't comparing you to a convict... you were not convicted.... it was to make a different point. All Icculus did was to request that you repost your thread in a way which wasn't so offensive to various parties, and wasn't potentially damaging to IRE and the site. If you want the TOS changed so there is no "moderation"... and anyone can say anything, and noone can be asked to change anything, then that's a completely different issue. Bring that up as the topic, then, instead of saying "I'm right, this was an injustice", when clearly the TOS say it's not.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

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.

So we're left with 'producing evidence'. I recall many a discussion on these fora, where people produce 'evidence' to support some claim. Some times the evidence is proven genuine, other times is proven false - but mostly it's up to the members to decide for themselves who/what they believe.
In this one case Andrew might have been able to tell truth from lie, by virtue of standing at the business end of the accusations himself (apparently).
I guess that's an easy and fair call. But what of the next accusations, which are, naturally, accompanied by the proper documentation?
Will he just shrug, go "I dunno" and leave the accusations be (ultimately validating the documentation by default), or will just chance it in a case-by-case basis, hoping to judge correctly more than half the time?

I don't know, but either way it sucks bigtime. At its' most favourable, it's censorship - at worst it's inconsequent censorship.

I don't need to refute a random forum poster making ridiculous accusations w/o a shred of evidence, sorry. Nobody should have to.

You're quite right, you don't need to. Silence has worked many, many times.
You're a businessman making money of off people's desires and wants; you're apt to end up the punchingbag of those who've been left unfulfilled by your product. If the claims are rediculous, give us some credit by allowing us to judge so for ourselves. I believe most of us a quite capable of doing so.
You don't need to refute unfounded accusations, but if you did you'd probably end up with having adjectives such as 'mature', 'calm' and 'professional' attached to your person, is stead of 'crybaby', 'whiner' and worse.

At the very least, you must admit that your reputation has suffered from this thread, and that it's possible, even likely, that it's suffered more than it would've if you'd just written "This man is a liar. This is my first and last reply to this thread", in reply to Nameless_'s first post.

mass

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've never complained about posts (granted, I've never had reason to either), but for argument's sake: This was ignored
You may or may not have done something about the problem (I doubt it, though, since others have had the problem since then), but I couldn't know, could I? I was ignored.
And I think it's safe to assume that it wouldn't have gone unaswered had it been Matt's signature on that post.

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.

Actually, I was very careful not to accuse you of anything. I may have hinted that I too was concerned about your independence, but I certainly never got near accusing you of ignoring some people while responding to others.
Please do not read into my posts what isn't there (yet, at least ;-)

To clarify my position, I think that you must necessarily pay more attention to requests made by the likes of Matt (those who are paying customers), than you do to those of the likes of me (whatever you percieve me to be, it isn't someone you earn money from directly). These people are simply much more important to you, and the kind of leverage they hold is much more powerful than anything we (everyone else), could hope to achieve.
If you make a conscious effort to even out the level of importance you attribute to the people who contact you (something that requires the serenity of a senior Tibetan monk, at the very least), you're likely to miss the target - possibly leading to a less favourable view on requests made by fanancial supporters.
I'd venture that even if you succeed consciously, you'll fail subconsciously. I don't know first thing about your economy, but I think capitalism is sufficiently rooted in all of us, that we can't help but destinguish between those who influence our financial situation and those who are ultimately irrelevant to it.

To re-state my original point, I think you're doing the community a disservice (by deciding for us what we can write and read) and wasting time in the process.
Why is it that you feel you need that clause in the TOS? Why do you even permit the members to report this kind of improper material? If I understand Matt correctly, you're not responsible for what other people post on this forum - no-one would be able to sue you, had you left Nameless_'s post where it was (right?).

If that's the case, why are you bothering? It seems like a lot of work for no real reason.

Mass

So that means it's okay for you to slander/insult the community then? Because it isn't legally defined as libel?

Is that why the multiple requests to remove that original insulting banner of yours were ignored too?

Massaria... I'm going to guess that he cares what's posted here, and the impression his users have of his site (if only from a financial standpoint), because if he has no users... he has no advertisers either. I think it's been covered that he isn't worried about being sued. Additionally, I don't believe he was asking you if you had ever made any request for a new feature that was ignored... as that's irrelevant. I believe, instead, he was asking you if you had ever reported innapropriate content and were ignored... which is relvant. The rest of your post hangs on those points... so there's not much a point in discussing them as well. As was previously brought up, you cannot say that Serapis' report was dealt with because he has any special favor here unless you can provide ample evidence that other such reports from non-advertisers were *not* dealt with... which I'm sure you can't do since I trust Icculus when he says that he's received few reports of abuse, and that (most?) all have been dealt with accordingly. I, however, am able to provide a clear example of a near identical situation when a non-advertiser reported a violation of the TOS, and an identical course of action was taken against the offender.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Sat Dec 2 18:01:59 2006)

And Massaria... I don't understand the first 2/3 of your first post... but that could be because I've spent the last 16 hours staring at a computer screen programming... after getting little sleep... so my mind is perhaps shut off. --- Anyway, regarding the last part, I happen to agree with Serapis' point that he shouldn't be required to defend himself against anyone slandering his name in violation of the TOS. Similarly, he shouldn't be required to prove who broke into his house, or why there was flood damage to claim insurance money to right such an injustice. Another individual, who's job it is to prove such things, takes that responsibility away. All he does, is make a report that it happened, and the "administrator", so to speak, handles the rest. Regardless, as I've said, that's irrelevant due to the fact that it is in violation of the TOS... and the only way for it to *become* his responsibility to defend himself against such things is for the TOS to be changed, which should be clear probably won't be happening due to the fact that (I believe) Icculus and others, (such as myself), would like to keep these forums free of certain innapropriate content... like pornography, non mud-related advertisements, and pointless obscenity.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

From Molly:

So that means it's okay for you to slander/insult the community then? Because it isn't legally defined as libel?

Is that why the multiple requests to remove that original insulting banner of yours were ignored too?



Is this to me? Matt hasn't responded to your last post, I did. If it is, I wonder how I slandered/insulted the community. And the banner ad isn't mine, I've done no advertising on TMC, except for immortals, which I've not done in several months.

The only reason I ask these questions, Molly is because AFAIK, I'm the only one who responded directly to your first post, and you also did a snippet of mine. Just don't want to get confused...comes with age, as Osirus.

No, she responded to serapis. This is the quote from "In Reply To":
I could explain to you how it's not possible to libel a community, since only individuals and those granted person-like-status by law (LLCs, for instance), can be libeled, but you're not really interested in reality are you?
-matt

Though off the topic of Nameless's thing... I have to say that I don't see Serapis' original advertisement as all that bad, honestly. In this particular situation, we're talking about the distinction between saying "Joe sucks", and saying "the P.T.A.s sucks", where Joe is in a local PTA... the former is a direct insult, whereas the latter is a general comment. Joe may be offended by both, but the former is more likely to be more offensive. Anyway... back to why I don't think it's all that bad. It may be unfortunate to think about, but most advertisements say similar things about their competitors... in fact, I've been watching tv for the past couple hours while programming, and I've only seen about 3 product advertisements that didn't, in some way, pose a negative comment about their competition. It's very common to do things like that... and though I do see the correlation between these two events, I have to say that I rather agree with the way things worked out. Nameless posted a direct insult, and stated a fallacy involving corruption (and thus moral injustice) between one individual and another... whereas Serapis said his game was better than everyone elses, because *everyone else* made games with shallow themes. The second may be a bit arrogant, but removing it would be a bit too much moderation for my tastes. *shrug*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

*sigh* Mann_jess, do you really, truly and honestly believe that just because "everyone else is doing it" (figuratively speaking), that makes it ok?

Massaria: I've never complained about posts (granted, I've never had reason to either), but for argument's sake: This was ignored

That problem was fixed and I think I recall another thread about that same problem which I happened to catch and did post in (I want to stress the think because it is possible I am remembering a different bug/thread). The trouble is not that I am ignoring anyone but that I just do not have the time to keep up with the forums, this is another reason why I wanted to provide the report links, they could be used to report a bug just as easily as a tos violation.

Massaria:
Why is it that you feel you need that clause in the TOS? Why do you even permit the members to report this kind of improper material? If I understand Matt correctly, you're not responsible for what other people post on this forum - no-one would be able to sue you, had you left Nameless_'s post where it was (right?).

The tos is constructed the way it is because I don't believe it is responsible of me to allow anyone to post anything they want in a forum open to the public. This comes from years of watching the mud community interactions and seeing how some of the people in the community choose to behave in a public forum (poorly, at best). I'd rather provide the guidelines for what is not acceptable and allow the members to report content that they feel is inappropriate/falls outside of what is acceptable. I do not treat reports any differently if they are about Matt/IRE or any other member and Matt is not the only member to have used the report system to have the terms of the tos be enforced when necessary. I won't post the member names but it was only 6-8 weeks ago when another member posted a report about being personally harassed and the other member involved was reprimanded for their behavior, if the members involved are reading and want to chime in about it if they may, but I won't disclose the names otherwise.

The guidelines are not about being sued or not sued, its about being responsible on a public site that my name is attached to.

-Icculus

mann_jess: Nameless... you were only temporarily banned, and that was because you directly went against the ruling of the owner and administrator of the site, when you failed to respond to his attempts to make contact with you.

Actually, I won't be returning his Nameless_ account to him, though as I have told him he can keep his new one. I decided (and notified him in a reply to one of his emails) that I did not want to extend anything more to him (outside of providing the normal TMC website/service) due to him accusing me of lying to him, several times publicly and in his email.

Massaria: ... if you'd just written "This man is a liar. This is my first and last reply to this thread", in reply to Nameless_'s first post.

The saddest thing for me is that I did not lie, I really did send an email to him and it really did bounce (and it turns out to be a spam/blacklisting issue - which has since been addressed) but Nameless never asked me about it, or to see the bounced mail/headers, he passed judgement that I lied and told all of you such. At this point I am far beyond caring what he believes, but my concern is that anyone else may think there is merit. If anyone else reading this would like to see a copy of the bounced mail just send me an email and ask, I'll clear out his email and his server's IP to protect his privacy but leave the rest intact.

-Icculus

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.

I can only give you one example since I've only made one report. Never heard anything back.

From: "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@alltel.net>
To: <admin@mudconnector.com>
Subject: your attention
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:35:40 -0500
This poster m_m is posting copyrighted material repeatedly.

http://www.mudconnector.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=promotions&message=14696#14696
http://www.mudconnector.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=admin_ethics&message=8474#8474

--
J. Lambert 

The saddest thing for me is that I did not lie, I really did send an email to him and it really did bounce (and it turns out to be a spam/blacklisting issue - which has since been addressed)

So...my email service is blacklisted by mudconnect, your email bounces as a result of it, and this is my fault...how?