Member Discussions

Nameless2: So...my email service is blacklisted by mudconnect, your email bounces as a result of it, and this is my fault...how?

So, I am not a liar? Or is this question hypothetical?

I don't recall saying that my bounced mail was your fault. What I do recall saying is that I tried to email you and my mail bounced, and then I became a liar.

What I do feel was your fault was that you posted libelous content twice after having the first be removed.

I also tend to feel that any resolution that could have been done which would have involved your account being restored was tossed out the door when you started acting like the kind of unpleasant person I refuse to deal with unless I have to.

For the interest of everyone else reading this I will post the email I sent to Nameless's email account that he used to signup Nameless2, this was sent immediately after he signed up as I was hoping to explain what happened and resolve this issue but apparently I was unjustified in believing he would receive this having received his new password a few minutes earlier at the same address:

From: admin@mudconnector.com
To: (removed for privacy)
Subject: New Member Signup: Nameless2 (fwd)


Nameless, I tried contacting you at the email address associated with the
Nameless_ account to explain why your post was removed, but my mail
bounced and I had no way to reach you. When I saw you reposted I suspended
your account.

I tried to contact you to explain that your post contained libelous
accusations and upon receipt of an abuse report about the post I wanted to
extend a warning about that to you as we won't tolerate that any longer.

I have no problem unsuspending your other account as long as you have no
plans to post the same content a third time - your call.

-TMC Admin

Nameless, I know you place the blame for what happened on me and I believe you are out of your mind. Your original post and subsequent repost even realizing the original was removed was what started this, and your subsequent responses are what ended this. Everything else is an attempt by you to place the blame elsewhere, try looking in the mirror if you want to see who could have ended this much in a much happier turnout or prevented it from ever occuring.

-Icculus

Of course I don't believe that if someone else does something that makes it okay... but in this case I think what's being done is okay, and given that the vast majority of product advertisements out there do similar things, I don't believe I'm alone in that respect. Sure, it may be rude to insinuate that someone else's product sucks by a statement like: "Our burgers aren't as greasy as those other guys", or something similar... but I don't believe it to be wrong. My roommates are extremely rude to me, but I don't believe them to be "immoral" because of it... just rude. Likewise, I don't think they should have their right to be rude revoked... if that were even possible... hey, if they want to be rude to me... I think they should go for it. Therein lies the difference... making a claim which is not only irrelevant but also *damaging* is different than being *rude* for a relevant reason. Like, if instead of just being rude to me, they went around making up gossip about me and telling all my friends... *That*, I believe, would be immoral.

Anyway,... (in the nicest way possible)... it's rather getting to the point where I think you just wanted to make a scene. In arguing all of this, are you really trying to say that you *shouldn't* have been punished for intentionally going against the ruling of the owner and administrator by posting content which was deemed unacceptably worded? Keep in mind, that's why you were reprimanded... not because you posted inappropriate content alone.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

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?

While I don't know, I'm assuming he means your email service had mudconnector.com listed as a spam service. I've seen that happen before with legitimate emails and the website/business just has to contact the service in question and prove that they are in fact a legitimate business/website and do not participate in spam emails(once they know of the problem of course).

What I do feel was your fault was that you posted libelous content twice after having the first be removed.

Again, you're using that inane personal definition of "libel" instead of what the actual definition is. My content wasn't libelous. You just act like it is, because it offends your precious sugar daddy.

I also tend to feel that any resolution that could have been done which would have involved your account being restored was tossed out the door when you started acting like the kind of unpleasant person I refuse to deal with unless I have to.

Yeah. That's right. You ban my account and delete my posts, and I'm at fault for being unpleasant about it. Gotcha. I mean, why handle a questionable content problem the right way all along, when you can do it your backwards way, then "refuse to deal with it" like an stubborn kid. With Serapis's methaphorical whining, you fight right in alongside him with your basic "WAAAAAA. YOU CALLED ME A LIAR. I HATE YOU NOW." Grow the hell up, Icculus.

...to explain why your post was removed, but my mail bounced and I had no way to reach you.

Icculus, are you really that dense? The owner and person running a FORUM has no way to reach me at all? Excuse me while I laugh, because that's just too damn funny. How damn hard would it be for you to go to the discussion tab, click new topic, and type in a message there for me to read? Aparently, too hard. Because you didn't do that, or even try to. There was a span of over three hours or more between when I got banned, till when the new account became active when the authentication database was updated per each six-hour cycle, that you could have posted a message that I would have damn well saw. But that's just too damn obvious for you.

Nameless, I know you place the blame for what happened on me and I believe you are out of your mind.

And I believe, increasingly so each day now, that you really shouldn't be in control of a forum as you have no idea what you're doing anymore.

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).

I think you recollection is right on. It was fixed, but it did take that other thread before it was done. As an aside, I'm glad that you've established this report function, as I've found it difficult to reach the administration in the past.

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.

So, suppose I'm right, and you do get a whole lot of reports about all kinds of things, how will you find the time to investigate all these allegations?
With the report-function, you may save some time by making it unnecessary to trawl through the forums every day, but by instituting yourself as judge over right and wrong, you might end up spending a lot of time on making these calls - and on a questionable basis, I might add.
You'll rarely have the priviledge of actually knowing the truth of the matter at hand - this case here will probably be the easiest you'll ever have.

BTW - I have little time and/or net access myself, so please excuse if my replies are up to a couple days late. I meant to reply to Tyche yesterday, FX.

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.

Well, that's my one concern about an ungoverned site - that it might turn into a shouting gallery where it's all about being loud, obnoxious and witty at the expense of other members.
In the end, I'd rather have the hassle of fighting that kind of behavior, than I'd have to watch my words from fear of whom I'd piss off and what they might 'report' as a result.

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 believe that you intend not to treat them differently - I'm just saying I don't believe you're capable of doing so.
You're not a senior Tibetan monk, after all ;-)

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.

So personal harassment is a valid reason to have people reprimanded and, I gather, eventually banned? I'm liking this less and less. Half the posts on this forum might be construed to be personal harassment. This is very, extremely bad.
Bad, Bad, Bad :-(

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

Responsibility is a good thing when you extend it to cover yourself and your own behaviour.
Taking responsibility over other people is step one in taking control of them.

Thanks,
Mass

(Comment added by Massaria on Sun Dec 3 11:38:15 2006)

Forgot this from another post:

Andrew:

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.

I'm not entirely sure we understand eachother here.
I certainly didn't refer to your trouble with Nameless_ in the part where I advised writing "This man is a liar."
I was replying to Matt... but I quess it could apply equally to the way you could have handled his initial post.

Tyche:

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.

Wha...? I was dumbfounded reading this. I'm still uncertain whether playing the devil's advocate involves make-believe - but it didn't last I checked - so am I to understand this as the truth?

I haven't been able to follow the forums much these past 6 months time - did I miss a big discussion on this or what?

It seems people have a habit of meeting Tyche's posts with a suspicious silence; aside from this post, his later post on having a report go unnoticed is still being stone-walled - it's a very loud silence, in my eyes.
Why aren't people reacting to this post?!

Thanks,
Mass.

http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG&area=general&message=16718#16718

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

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.

Right. He cares about what's written here on these forums, if not primarily, then at least additionally, because he has advitisers to worry about.
Thanks for supporting my point.

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 didn't request a new feature, and it is relevant whether I was ignored or not.

I believe, instead, he was asking you if you had ever reported innapropriate content and were ignored... which is relvant.

While I've never used the report function (though I've wished for such a function often enough ;-), this feature is fairly new. It'll see more use after this discussion, and I'm sure Tyche wont be the only one who's treated differently.

The rest of your post hangs on those points... so there's not much a point in discussing them as well.

I beg the differ, and so do you, it seems - you continue to debate the points for another 15 sentenses.

My advise to you: Stop apologising for your poor comprehension and spelling and get some sleep in stead.

...I stopped talking about your post and made another point involving what I initially discussed... (and by the way, it was two sentences anyway)... and I never apologized for my spelling, I just said it sucks in response to it being brought up. It's fair enough for me to be honest with myself. Besides, it's not like I was being unpleasant or rude about it, though you're treating me like I was.

Right. He cares about what's written here on these forums, if not primarily, then at least additionally, because he has advitisers to worry about.
Thanks for supporting my point.
........Which is why he wants to keep the discussion in a reasonable state... which is why he wants to moderate things when a user takes offense.... which is why he wants to have a report function for users to click on when they do take offense..... I don't see how this is supporting your point, but alright... you're welcome.

I didn't request a new feature, and it is relevant whether I was ignored or not.
No, you didn't request a new feature... my apologies... you requested a bug fix, or something along those lines. It was not inappropriate content, though, which is the point. The point was being argued that serapis' word carries additional weight when it comes to reporting abuse because of his status on the site, which would only be proven by someone reporting nearly identical inappropriate content and being ignored. That cannot be supplied, but a situation *can* be supplied when nearly identical inappropriate content was reported by someone else and *not* ignored, and a nearly identical course of action was taken. Serapis wasn't abusing some weighted say he has over the site... he was just using his right to report content, and Icculus deemed it to be unacceptably worded.

While I've never used the report function (though I've wished for such a function often enough ;-), this feature is fairly new. It'll see more use after this discussion, and I'm sure Tyche wont be the only one who's treated differently.
Though I may be mistaken, I'm pretty sure it's been around for quite a while. As I recall, the situation with Scandum was brought up by it... and I believe the discussion thereafter mentioned it, though I'm not going to go looking for it now. That was a while ago. And personally, I think you're misjudging things. It's not my opinion that everyone will start jumping on reporting things now... but in either case, it's all just a matter of opinion, on both our parts. If a problem arose with the function, Icculus would find a way to deal with it, I'm sure.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

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

Tyche, the tos has fairly specific instructions for how a victim of copyright infringement should report that to us, please see the section titled 'Copyright Violations:' in that document. I did not receive a DMCA copyright infringement notification about this, though if I had it would have been investigated immediately.

-Icculus

Massaria: So personal harassment is a valid reason to have people reprimanded and, I gather, eventually banned? I'm liking this less and less. Half the posts on this forum might be construed to be personal harassment. This is very, extremely bad.

If someone feels they are being personally harassed I think they have the right to report it and I think they have the right to complain about it and expect that something might be done about it. You may not agree with that and that is perfectly acceptable, but thats how I feel about it.

-Icculus

This is really beneath my exalted being, but it's a slow sunday night.

...I stopped talking about your post and made another point involving what I initially discussed... (and by the way, it was two sentences anyway)...

You didn't stop. The rest of the original post was those two sentenses, half the post or so.

The edit is clearly directed at me (it's got my name in it, dangit!), and goes on about all kinds of more or less relevant situations which is meant to show how Matt shouldn't be burdened with the responsibility of speaking for himself - which was what I told him to do.

Besides, it's not like I was being unpleasant or rude about it, though you're treating me like I was.

I think you're being both unpleasant and rude when you first dismiss my points because you're of the opinion you've refuted their basis, and then go on discussing them.

On to the topic at hand:

Right. He cares about what's written here on these forums, if not primarily, then at least additionally, because he has advitisers to worry about.
Thanks for supporting my point.
........Which is why he wants to keep the discussion in a reasonable state... which is why he wants to moderate things when a user takes offense.... which is why he wants to have a report function for users to click on when they do take offense..... I don't see how this is supporting your point, but alright... you're welcome.

The reason (or at least one reason) why Andrew wants to keep the discussion in a reasonable state, why he wants to moderate things when a user takes offense and why he wants to have a report function for users to click on when they do take offense, is that he'd like his supporters to see that he can censor the boards when something nasty is written about those supporters. It makes them feel safe and in a spending mood.

It was not inappropriate content, though, which is the point. The point was being argued that serapis' word carries additional weight when it comes to reporting abuse because of his status on the site, which would only be proven by someone reporting nearly identical inappropriate content and being ignored. That cannot be supplied, ...

I don't believe I've ever said that icculus has, is or will be ignoring people - just that he will be treating them (their reports) differently and that he can't help but to do so.
You mention proof, which is at the heart of my argument. If people set their minds to it, they can produce large volumes of fictional documentation for all kinds of things, and as long as andrew isn't part of the dispute, he will have nowhere to turn except past behavior, which is unfair, or perhaps - just maybe - how these people may effect his economy. In a guessing game like that, I know I'd choose economic safety over '50% chance of justice' - wouldn't you?

Though I may be mistaken, I'm pretty sure it's been around for quite a while.

You're right, I guess it is a matter of definition. I say it's fairly new, you say it's been around for quite a while - in either case it's within these past 6 months, I believe.
I could very well be wrong, but it doesn't really matter - what matters is that we're discussing it now.

If a problem arose with the function, Icculus would find a way to deal with it, I'm sure.

The problem is already there. It's inherent in the way he's set himself up to be a judge who'll partial in all cases involving Matt and Wolfpaw (and others), which is not few. Proofs and claims will have to be reviewed and investigated, and as long as one side of the dispute is paying the judge's bills, it can never be fair.

In the cases where Andrew's supporters aren't involved, you'd be right to argue that it would be an unbiased judgement. But removal of posts is still censorship, and the judgement would be arbitrary, since evidence is easily produced in almost every case.

Thanks,
Mass

Tyche, the tos has fairly specific instructions for how a victim of copyright infringement should report that to us, please see the section titled 'Copyright Violations:' in that document. I did not receive a DMCA copyright infringement notification about this, though if I had it would have been investigated immediately.

I figured that was the case, and since I'm not the victim of the infringement I won't be filing a DMCA notification. Yet the infringing material remains posted.

So if I post the full text of say McCaffery's Dragon Riders of Pern or Tolkein's "The Hobbit" it's going to stay up until you get a DMCA request from them, no matter how many complaints you get?



(Comment added by Tyche on Sun Dec 3 15:52:29 2006)

It seems that posting copyrighted material is against the TOS, and there's a high standard, forms to fill out. Yet some wahoo screams libel and there's no forms to fill out. Maybe you should require they send a letter from their lawyer expressing intent to file suit. It's a curious reversal of standard, since you aren't affected by the presence of libel yet you are by copyright infringement.

I'm still uncertain whether playing the devil's advocate involves make-believe - but it didn't last I checked - so am I to understand this as the truth?

It just means arguing a position you don't hold. You don't need to make false statements to do so. Yes I think what I wrote is accurate.

Massaria: Well then I apologize for projecting hostility, as it wasn't intended. You are, however, in a debate with a number of people... I don't think it's fair to say that refuting points is rude in this context.

You didn't stop. The rest of the original post was those two sentenses, half the post or so.
...About a different point than was discussed in the rest of the post I was responding to. Anyway, it doesn't matter... I was only defending myself against the claim I was... essentially... contradicting myself. Or, more appropriately, being an idiot.

...is that he'd like his supporters to see that he can censor the boards when something nasty is written about those supporters. It makes them feel safe and in a spending mood.
...Or it's because of the reason he says, which I think is much more likely. Supporters or not, would you want to run a forum that was filled up with garbage and spam, which caused noone ever post anything actually reasonable or relevant. I don't want to see porn when I come here, and I think that's a reasonable request, which doesn't involve conspiracy. I don't understand how you can hold the stance that Icculus is censoring everything bad that's said about his advertisers. Serapis gets attacked more here than anyone else... only second, (perhaps), to Medevia, which I believe is another smaller advertiser.

I don't believe I've ever said that icculus has, is or will be ignoring people...
Then there isn't abuse of the report system. If everyone has an equal opportunity to report abuse, and everyone's requests are taken into consideration and dealt with, then noone is getting any special treatment. You're treating this as though it's one person against another, which it's not. One person reports the abuse, then whether or not the abuse is deemed unacceptable is determined, and the report is dealt with. No past behavior needs to be taken into account, nor does anything about either individual. In fact, it wouldn't much surprise me if Icculus didn't even look at the name of the person reporting the abuse before looking at what was reported, because the person reporting it will hardly ever matter.

The problem is already there. It's inherent in the way he's set himself up to be a judge
And there is noone else that would be judge instead, who would satisfy your requirements for impartiality. The only other option is to not allow any moderation whatsoever, which would, once again, allow for porn, obscenity and senseless irrelevant advertising into these forums... which I, and many other people (Icculus included, I believe), don't want.

since evidence is easily produced in almost every case.
And once again, this isn't a trial. There is no evidence. In fact, it may be a good idea to note that most situations where evidence *is* required to prove some kind of abuse Icculus doesn't tend to take part in. The copyright discussion Tyche was having with Icculus is a great example... where copy-written material isn't removed without legal proof of it being used without authorization. When we're talking about things like what Nameless said... and what Scandum did... we're not talking about any evidence except what was written in that one case. I've never used obscenity on these forums before, but if I suddenly went out of my way to bypass the automatic censors to post an extremely vulgar message, should it be ignored because I can provide evidence I've never done it before, or that what I said wasn't "legally" vulgar? That's not how the way things are done... so evidence is irrelevant. The content of the message is judged and action is taken, if necessary... that's all.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Sun Dec 3 16:44:35 2006)

I think Icculus has been pretty impartial and reasonable for as long as I've been reading these forums. I also think it's unfair to insinuate that he's being anything otherwise solely because of a single incident which *happened* to involve an advertiser. This isn't the first time a post has been removed, but there were no public outcries those other times... Only when it happens to involve someone you already don't like, then it becomes unfair.

*sigh*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Tyche: I figured that was the case, and since I'm not the victim of the infringement I won't be filing a DMCA notification. Yet the infringing material remains posted.

So if I post the full text of say McCaffery's Dragon Riders of Pern or Tolkein's "The Hobbit" it's going to stay up until you get a DMCA request from them, no matter how many complaints you get?

My preference would be that the copyright holder contact me, either with the formal process the DMCA outlines or directly via email, etc - outside of that it'd be handled on a case by case basis.

Tyche: It seems that posting copyrighted material is against the TOS, and there's a high standard, forms to fill out. Yet some wahoo screams libel and there's no forms to fill out. Maybe you should require they send a letter from their lawyer expressing intent to file suit. It's a curious reversal of standard, since you aren't affected by the presence of libel yet you are by copyright infringement.

The high standard (copyright) comes straight from the DMCA, their requirements provide a nice basis for me to work with. With libel it will never be as easy, unless as in this case where I am one of the people involved and have first hand knowledge. A situation may very well come down to my requesting an attorney's formal complaint or even waiting for a judge to issue a court order to make a decision if I am unable to make one myself.

-Icculus

The reason why most of us treated this post from Tyche with total silence is that we knew all too well that his description of the incident was totally adequate, that most of us reacted with shock and disgust when the practice of subliminal keywords became common knowledge, but also that the horse already had been beaten to death in the other thread that Cratylus linked to. We had already wasted our breath and energy on that thread, and the outcome - (which can be studied in the present result of any search attempt) - was so disappointing, that further arguing obviously was meaningless.

I cannot speak for others of course, but at least to me that relevation was totally disillusioning. Particularly since it came on top of a perfectly reasonable request for a search option for free Muds, (supported by a majority of the posters), being ignored.

I haven't felt the same for the site since, and I believe that a possible reason why certain topics are getting more and more inflamed is a result of a pretty large number of posters being rather frustrated, feeling that we are reduced to second rate members, since we are running free muds and cannot afford to pay for banners.

Well said, Molly.

Well, I guess its time for me to chime in with my two cents worth. First I just want to make it clear that I have seen the post in question and honestly wonder why Sarapis made such an issue about it. It was two lines in lengthy post looking for a new mud to play. There are whole threads devoted to slamming IRE yet no libel flag was raised. I can understand Icculus being upset.

With that said, I just need to say that this is a private site owned by Icculus. What that means, and I’m sorry to say this, is that if everyone other than advertisers are second rate members then that’s the way it is and not amount of bitching or what have you is going to change that. Icculus runs this site the way he feels is the best for it. Which includes making sure he keeps the source of income he has (with in reason of course). Think what would happen if IRE thought that TMC was just to hostile and decided to pull it’s ads. While it might make a number of the general members happy, it would mean a loss of money used to keep up the site to Icculus.

Going back to the reason why the post in question was pulled. The only person I can see that can claim libel is Icculus, so because of that one fact I think it was the right decision. Sarapis, I’m sorry but I would find it hard to believe that the comment would cause you to lose and business, and judging by the other posts and threads in these forums, I would be willing to guess that IRE is already not well thought of by the general membership (nothing personal, I really don’t care what your business practices are as long as they are legal...which I’m sure they are). Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Here is my final comment to both Icculus and Sarapis. If you guys haven’t figured it out yet, whatever you do is under a microscope. Fair or not, its the way it is. This is just a guess, but I think its because it is widely thought that Sarapis has some major sway over the management and handling of this site. This maybe where the usage of the word ‘corrupt’, came from. I guess I just want to say you shouldn’t be surprised by threads like these.

Well, that’s it. You all can agree or disagree as you see fit.

> First I just want to make it clear that I have seen the post
> in question and honestly wonder why Sarapis made such an
> issue about it. It was two lines in lengthy post looking
> for a new mud to play. There are whole threads devoted to
> slamming IRE yet no libel flag was raised.

I would guess it's because flame threads still brings attention to the muds (the old "any publicity is good publicity" thing), while the post in question was looking for a mud, and explicitly excluded IRE muds. That's not a trend that IRE will want mud-seekers to follow, particularly after paying to have their muds show up in every search. If people can just post mud requests to get around the advertising campaign then it reduces the value of that advertising.

I'm not saying the post wasn't libellous, nor that it shouldn't have been removed, but this situation is very different to a flame thread, and there is a stronger motivation to ask Icculus to remove it. I believe that if Icculus had been asked to remove the flame threads which contained equally offensive remarks, he would have done so. But if he wasn't asked, there's no reason to expect him to remove them. In this respect I agree with Icculus's response.

However I also agree with Molly's comments concerning Tyche's post. I found the embedded HTML keywords thing particularly offensive as my own mud (and codebase) - GodWars - was one of the keywords IRE was using to draw in players. Considering the amount of mud auditing work I've done for TMC over the years, I felt rather offended that Icculus would allow IRE to cash in on my success using a secret and privately negotiated exception to the rules. But at the end of the day it's Icculus's site, and his decision on how to run it. If I strongly disagree with his decisions, I can always leave and go elsewhere.

Supporters or not, would you want to run a forum that was filled up with garbage and spam, which caused noone ever post anything actually reasonable or relevant. I don't want to see porn when I come here, and I think that's a reasonable request, which doesn't involve conspiracy.

I think it's fine that andrew 'censors' irrelevent advertisements, spam, porn and what have you - I'm speaking out against his censoring of a members opinion, slandering or libel - call it what you will. People should be allowed to make their mud-related allegations, however daft they might be.
I don't know to what conspiracy you're refering.

I don't understand how you can hold the stance that Icculus is censoring everything bad that's said about his advertisers. Serapis gets attacked more here than anyone else...

I don't - I hold the stance that Icculus is unable to be impartial when he makes calls about whether a given post is libel or persoanal harassment or whatever. As you say yourself, IRE is involved in a lot of these hate-threads; He'll have to make a lot of those calls, I believe.

Then there isn't abuse of the report system. If everyone has an equal opportunity to report abuse, and everyone's requests are taken into consideration and dealt with, then noone is getting any special treatment.

Yes, everyone can make a report and every report is taken into consideration and dealt with - what I'm saying (and repeating here for the umpthieth time), is that the consideration and dealing with wont be impartial in the cases where IRE or another major supporter is involved. Andrew simply can't help but taking circumstances that are irrelevant to the situation, into consideration.

And there is noone else that would be judge instead, who would satisfy your requirements for impartiality.<>blockquote>

I understand you're getting into the habit of putting words into my mouth, but this is stretching it a bit.
If Andrew handed over these calls to someone else - someone without financial ties to the community - I'd still call it censorship, but at least it would be impartial or consistent censorship.

<blockquote>The only other option is to not allow any moderation whatsoever, which would, once again, allow for porn, obscenity and senseless irrelevant advertising into these forums

It's not the only other option. Another would be to moderate porn, irrelevant advitisements and obscenity, and allow the members to have their say - even if it's a lie.

And once again, this isn't a trial. There is no evidence.

It most certainly is a trial. Andrew is the judge, and in all the cases where he isn't involved (and where the cases isn't about whether *CENSORED* is a no-no word), he'll require some basis on which to form an opinion - in other terms, evidence.

I think Icculus has been pretty impartial and reasonable for as long as I've been reading these forums.

I do too - it's too bad he's set himself up in this way. At the very least he'll be less impartial in the future.

I also think it's unfair to insinuate that he's being anything otherwise solely because of a single incident which *happened* to involve an advertiser.

I'm not insuniating anything. I've said it out loud many times over now.
Andrew can't help but be impartial!

This isn't the first time a post has been removed, but there were no public outcries those other times... Only when it happens to involve someone you already don't like, then it becomes unfair.

Please, Jess, do not think you know who I like or dislike.
Like is a relative word. I like Matt less than Molly, but more than scandum. All in all I like him better than most people here - if our perceptions of other people on the net are worth a damn at all.

I'm out of time :-(

Massaria.

Massaria wrote:

Andrew can't help but be impartial!

I think you're saying the opposite of what you mean.

--matt

Massaria: I didn't mean to say *you* don't like him... What I mean is that this has happened more than once before, but it wasn't ever a problem, until all of the sudden it concerns Serapis. There is no difference between what happened with Nameless and what happened with Scandum... they both did something that was reported due to being offensive, had their posts removed, reposted their posts, and got reprimanded. The singular difference between either case is that everyone seemed to side with Icculus about Scandum, and more than a few people seem to side with Nameless when it came to Serapis.

I still stand by my point before that this isn't a trial, and Icculus isn't a judge. Evidence doesn't come into play here because the singular, and only important thing when determining if a post should be removed should be (and I believe is), the post itself. That is the only piece of evidence. There is no trial, where both parties get to argue their case. There is no accounting for previous behavior. There is no need to even know who made the post, or the report. If the post is inappropriate, it is inappropriate. By saying that the process is a trial, or that Icculus is the judge, you are insinuating that the post in question isn't the most important part of the decision-making process. Such that, for example, I can post profanity against the TOS, but because I've been good up to now, the profane post gets to stick around. (i.e. My being me outweighs the violation), which isn't the way things have worked up through now.

As you say yourself, IRE is involved in a lot of these hate-threads; He'll (Icculus) have to make a lot of those calls, I believe.
IRE has been involved in quite a bit of bashing since the report functionality was added, and this is the first situation (that I know of, at least... and I believe I would have heard about it had it happened before), which Serapis has used such functionality to report abuse to his company. I don't agree with the preemptive stance you're taking that the report functionality *will* be abused in the future, so it should be removed *now*. I think it's served its purpose quite well, and has been used reasonably by Icculus (which you agreed to), up to this point. If that changes in the future, I'm sure the situation will be re-evaluated. As was pointed out, the MUD community is pretty good about bringing things like that into the open.

...is that the consideration and dealing with wont be impartial in the cases where IRE or another major supporter is involved. ...... Andrew simply can't help but taking circumstances that are irrelevant to the situation, into consideration.
And I'm saying that's an unfair statement. I believe he has, up to this point, and I believe he will continue to. If it is your belief that he will give weight to certain individuals in the future, then we'll have to wait and see if that's the case... and if so, respond to it accordingly then. And as for the first part... no, what you're saying is that it's *possible* that consideration regarding these matters won't be impartial when an advertiser is involved, and you're also saying that you believe that will be the case. There is a distinction there, because it is certainly more than possible to be impartial from a logical and literal perspective. If Icculus didn't look at the name of the person reporting the abuse, for example, he couldn't possibly be anything *but* impartial. What I'm saying, is that I'm disagreeing with your belief that he *will be* impartial, and I'm saying that I think it's unfair to base such a belief that he will be on no past experience.

Finally, it all comes down to the fact that Icculus has the right to keep his site in a condition he feels is most appropriate. That's not to repeat what everyone else has said already, but only to note that Icculus makes (at least part of) his livelihood from advertising on this site, which is made possible solely by the fact that the site is a good reference material for MUDs, and a good forum for civil MUD-related discussion. Were either of those two conditions to be compromised, advertising on his site would become less valuable. For that reason, it may be a great idea to allow anyone to say anything they want... but you have to keep in mind that allowing them to do so financially burdens Icculus, as the number of pointless flames and obscene (or otherwise profane) content grows. After all, there are plenty of other places you can find, all over, that aren't governed by any moderation. *shrug*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Very few of you are being entertaining so get! Shoo! *waves wrinkled hands*

Don't make me get out my cane.

By the way does anyone know of a mud with a good pbase and complex economy that is not one of those rip-off, cash for perks IRE games with 'Serapis the Asshat' in charge?

See I'm getting tired of those redundant IRE games and their shallow game morals. Plus, I ran out of cash to mail in for game credits and I'm starting to suck.

Fortunately some players in the mud helped me out with cash-raising suggestions\comments that worked for them:
*Dads credit cards are not under 24 hour guard are they?
*Is your daughter cute?
*Got any 'extra' organs?

You know I will miss playing there. Oh well.

Andrew can't help but be impartial!

I think you're saying the opposite of what you mean.

Hm. Possibly - In that case thank you.

I think it should be obvious to anyone worth communicating with, but what I was trying to say, was that Andrew will be partail to one party in said circumstances.

Thanks again.