Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

imabanned?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not necessarily.

Mouthwash's account was closed by request of Eitan.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.
Debate.org Moderator
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:41:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how you instigate "restraining orders" in order to prevent flame wars.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:54:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 10:41:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I love how you instigate "restraining orders" in order to prevent flame wars.

Actually it's not me who instigates them. The members come to me expressing the problem and they mutually agree that it's the reasonable solution. In most cases I tell members they've been reported a few times by whoever and they realize they crossed the line and don't do it again. These things happen pretty frequently, and only in rare cases is this mutually accepted restraint condition applied. Since both members have agreed to it, they expect me to enforce it.
Debate.org Moderator
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:15:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I feel like there would be benefit to making a post making these agreed-upon "restraining orders" public. That way, a member can refer to it, and make it clear why they might not be responding to something. Not that anyone is obligated to explain their lack of response, of course, but it might give an outlet to a frustrated member who wants to respond to something that has yet again annoyed them. Rather than responding, they can simply post the link to their respective restraining order.

Plus it allows the rest of DDO to understand an otherwise surprising lack of response.

Or maybe i'm crazy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:35:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:15:01 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I feel like there would be benefit to making a post making these agreed-upon "restraining orders" public. That way, a member can refer to it, and make it clear why they might not be responding to something. Not that anyone is obligated to explain their lack of response, of course, but it might give an outlet to a frustrated member who wants to respond to something that has yet again annoyed them. Rather than responding, they can simply post the link to their respective restraining order.

Plus it allows the rest of DDO to understand an otherwise surprising lack of response.

Or maybe i'm crazy.

Doesn't really work that way. The formal examples remove a condition that would lead to that scenario. These members also choose to do this voluntarily. They are under no obligation to have it made publicly known that they have such a problem with a member that they had to do this. The only cases where it would be public is where a violation occurred and a ban had to be explained like this one.

But just so members see exactly what these members are agreeing to, this is the formal language of the agreement. Both members have to agree, and they do so upon their own accord. It goes without saying then that these only happen when both agree that there is no other solution to the conflict between them.

"You agree not to engage the other person in any way explicitly or implicitly through 1.) forum threads, 2.) debates, 3.) profile comments, 4.) PMs, or 5.) Opinions. You also agree not to talk about the other person publicly either implicitly or explicitly. Any violation of this agreement will lead to an immediate temporary closing of the offenders account for no greater than 3 days for the first offense, increasing to a week for the second, and by a week for any successive violation, to a maximum of one month and potentially a permanent ban if it persists beyond this. The interpretation of a violation of this agreement will be entirely at the discretion of the DDO president and not up to appeal by either party."

Because of the specifics and severity of the language, members are encouraged to work to be more civil towards each other rather than requiring such a thing needing to be agreed to. But in some cases, it's the only option, and it's what they opt to do.

It's necessary to point out that in this particular case it was not as formal an agreement like the above, but a less formal one in which they both agreed to no longer interact with one another. Nonetheless a similar, yet less severe, consequence is applied. This has generally been a successful way to avoiding repeated bullying, harassment, and constant flame wars, and in this case a fairly minor consequence is being applied to a much greater issue in the hopes that it prevents these types of things from building up to much worse conditions.
Debate.org Moderator
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:38:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

Can I PLEASE go to jail wherever you live?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:39:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

That's a bit dramatic don't you think?

His account is closed for one day for failure to abide by a significant agreement and when warned about it, not stop. Imabench is a good friend of mine, and it's unfortunate that this occurred, but he will be the first to say that this was a fair result of what happened.
Debate.org Moderator
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:39:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:35:43 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:15:01 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I feel like there would be benefit to making a post making these agreed-upon "restraining orders" public. That way, a member can refer to it, and make it clear why they might not be responding to something. Not that anyone is obligated to explain their lack of response, of course, but it might give an outlet to a frustrated member who wants to respond to something that has yet again annoyed them. Rather than responding, they can simply post the link to their respective restraining order.

Plus it allows the rest of DDO to understand an otherwise surprising lack of response.

Or maybe i'm crazy.

Doesn't really work that way. The formal examples remove a condition that would lead to that scenario.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I get the agreement (and I think it's neat you've posted it so thanks), but if two members have voluntarily agreed to not interact, that doesn't remove the actual desire to respond...I guess I was just saying that referring to their agreement could be a way to respond that wouldn't escalate the situation, while still giving vent to that desire, which might have given bench pause.

But then, the ways of bench are beyond the understanding of us mere mortals. For he is a bench.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:41:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:38:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

Can I PLEASE go to jail wherever you live?

Why would you want to do that?
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:42:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:39:05 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

That's a bit dramatic don't you think?

His account is closed for one day for failure to abide by a significant agreement and when warned about it, not stop. Imabench is a good friend of mine, and it's unfortunate that this occurred, but he will be the first to say that this was a fair result of what happened.

I was joking.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:47:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:39:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:35:43 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:15:01 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I feel like there would be benefit to making a post making these agreed-upon "restraining orders" public. That way, a member can refer to it, and make it clear why they might not be responding to something. Not that anyone is obligated to explain their lack of response, of course, but it might give an outlet to a frustrated member who wants to respond to something that has yet again annoyed them. Rather than responding, they can simply post the link to their respective restraining order.

Plus it allows the rest of DDO to understand an otherwise surprising lack of response.

Or maybe i'm crazy.

Doesn't really work that way. The formal examples remove a condition that would lead to that scenario.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I get the agreement (and I think it's neat you've posted it so thanks), but if two members have voluntarily agreed to not interact, that doesn't remove the actual desire to respond...I guess I was just saying that referring to their agreement could be a way to respond that wouldn't escalate the situation, while still giving vent to that desire, which might have given bench pause.

But then, the ways of bench are beyond the understanding of us mere mortals. For he is a bench.

Bench initially replied with a response that wasn't even a grey area. If he desperately wanted to reply to a comment and not violate the informal agreement he could have done so in a more civil manner.

In general though, the loss of being able to respond to a comment one really wants to reply to, is the results of a members inability to engage in discourse with civility.

Any response isn't allowed. Even posting the order or alluding to anything creates potentially antagonistic behavior. It's better to just remove any possibility in these rare cases.

Let me just say that these things are rare. They don't come about over night. It happens because members engage in discourse well beyond what is acceptable on several occasions. These conversation are reported many times, and after they happen several times, these members come to me, or I am forced to step in and request that they find a solution to the incivility they are displaying. These are rare as I said, but in each case was entirely necessary.
Debate.org Moderator
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:51:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:47:37 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:39:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:35:43 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:15:01 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I feel like there would be benefit to making a post making these agreed-upon "restraining orders" public. That way, a member can refer to it, and make it clear why they might not be responding to something. Not that anyone is obligated to explain their lack of response, of course, but it might give an outlet to a frustrated member who wants to respond to something that has yet again annoyed them. Rather than responding, they can simply post the link to their respective restraining order.

Plus it allows the rest of DDO to understand an otherwise surprising lack of response.

Or maybe i'm crazy.

Doesn't really work that way. The formal examples remove a condition that would lead to that scenario.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I get the agreement (and I think it's neat you've posted it so thanks), but if two members have voluntarily agreed to not interact, that doesn't remove the actual desire to respond...I guess I was just saying that referring to their agreement could be a way to respond that wouldn't escalate the situation, while still giving vent to that desire, which might have given bench pause.

But then, the ways of bench are beyond the understanding of us mere mortals. For he is a bench.

Bench initially replied with a response that wasn't even a grey area. If he desperately wanted to reply to a comment and not violate the informal agreement he could have done so in a more civil manner.

In general though, the loss of being able to respond to a comment one really wants to reply to, is the results of a members inability to engage in discourse with civility.

Any response isn't allowed. Even posting the order or alluding to anything creates potentially antagonistic behavior. It's better to just remove any possibility in these rare cases.

Let me just say that these things are rare. They don't come about over night. It happens because members engage in discourse well beyond what is acceptable on several occasions. These conversation are reported many times, and after they happen several times, these members come to me, or I am forced to step in and request that they find a solution to the incivility they are displaying. These are rare as I said, but in each case was entirely necessary.

I probably am just too empathetic to a desire to respond to something that one feels, rightly or wrongly, is ridiculous, even if that response is just to indicate that one cannot respond.

I totally understand your point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:53:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:42:12 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:39:05 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

That's a bit dramatic don't you think?

His account is closed for one day for failure to abide by a significant agreement and when warned about it, not stop. Imabench is a good friend of mine, and it's unfortunate that this occurred, but he will be the first to say that this was a fair result of what happened.

I was joking.

Oh.. well either way then.. I don't think it's equivalent to jail. Though I do feel bad that this has happened. Bench is my friend and I know he understands that this is what was necessary, but I didn't necessarily want it to be a public spectacle, and I feel worse for that than the ban itself. But I hope he knows that it goes with the territory of being a high profile member.

Public shaming is not part of any penalty, but this was something that was very much public to begin with.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:56:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:51:20 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:47:37 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:39:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:35:43 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:15:01 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I feel like there would be benefit to making a post making these agreed-upon "restraining orders" public. That way, a member can refer to it, and make it clear why they might not be responding to something. Not that anyone is obligated to explain their lack of response, of course, but it might give an outlet to a frustrated member who wants to respond to something that has yet again annoyed them. Rather than responding, they can simply post the link to their respective restraining order.

Plus it allows the rest of DDO to understand an otherwise surprising lack of response.

Or maybe i'm crazy.

Doesn't really work that way. The formal examples remove a condition that would lead to that scenario.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I get the agreement (and I think it's neat you've posted it so thanks), but if two members have voluntarily agreed to not interact, that doesn't remove the actual desire to respond...I guess I was just saying that referring to their agreement could be a way to respond that wouldn't escalate the situation, while still giving vent to that desire, which might have given bench pause.

But then, the ways of bench are beyond the understanding of us mere mortals. For he is a bench.

Bench initially replied with a response that wasn't even a grey area. If he desperately wanted to reply to a comment and not violate the informal agreement he could have done so in a more civil manner.

In general though, the loss of being able to respond to a comment one really wants to reply to, is the results of a members inability to engage in discourse with civility.

Any response isn't allowed. Even posting the order or alluding to anything creates potentially antagonistic behavior. It's better to just remove any possibility in these rare cases.

Let me just say that these things are rare. They don't come about over night. It happens because members engage in discourse well beyond what is acceptable on several occasions. These conversation are reported many times, and after they happen several times, these members come to me, or I am forced to step in and request that they find a solution to the incivility they are displaying. These are rare as I said, but in each case was entirely necessary.

I probably am just too empathetic to a desire to respond to something that one feels, rightly or wrongly, is ridiculous, even if that response is just to indicate that one cannot respond.

I totally understand your point.

That's understandable, and I know it can be difficult not to. But this is the scenario as unfortunate as it may be. Several members have taken that formally upon themselves so that their DDO experience can be enjoyed without drama. It has also resulted in less drama for everyone else ultimately. I'm not sure it's ideal, but aside from constant temp-bans when these interactions go way passed the line, I'm not sure of what other solution there is.
Debate.org Moderator
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 2:22:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:53:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:42:12 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:39:05 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

That's a bit dramatic don't you think?

His account is closed for one day for failure to abide by a significant agreement and when warned about it, not stop. Imabench is a good friend of mine, and it's unfortunate that this occurred, but he will be the first to say that this was a fair result of what happened.

I was joking.

Oh.. well either way then.. I don't think it's equivalent to jail. Though I do feel bad that this has happened. Bench is my friend and I know he understands that this is what was necessary, but I didn't necessarily want it to be a public spectacle, and I feel worse for that than the ban itself. But I hope he knows that it goes with the territory of being a high profile member.

Public shaming is not part of any penalty, but this was something that was very much public to begin with.

I brought this up so I'm the one who technically publicly shamed him. I was just curious, didn't mean to make a public spectacle out of imabench's temporary ban.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 2:36:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 2:22:49 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:53:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:42:12 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:39:05 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

That's a bit dramatic don't you think?

His account is closed for one day for failure to abide by a significant agreement and when warned about it, not stop. Imabench is a good friend of mine, and it's unfortunate that this occurred, but he will be the first to say that this was a fair result of what happened.

I was joking.

Oh.. well either way then.. I don't think it's equivalent to jail. Though I do feel bad that this has happened. Bench is my friend and I know he understands that this is what was necessary, but I didn't necessarily want it to be a public spectacle, and I feel worse for that than the ban itself. But I hope he knows that it goes with the territory of being a high profile member.

Public shaming is not part of any penalty, but this was something that was very much public to begin with.

I brought this up so I'm the one who technically publicly shamed him. I was just curious, didn't mean to make a public spectacle out of imabench's temporary ban.

Not your fault. There are no questions that are off limits and if in the rare case they are I'll let you know. Members generally have a right to know about these things, and when they don't (because of privacy issues or otherwise) I'll make that apparent too. But this was a public issue that would have been appropriately brought up if it wasn't you, so it gave us an opportunity to discuss some important issues, and hopefully circumstances requiring a temp-ban of this sort can be avoided in the future.
Debate.org Moderator
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 7:07:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Eh, that's not that bad. And it sounds justified.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 10:46:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:41:22 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:38:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/11/2013 1:32:53 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 10:32:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
He is temp-banned for a violation of an agreement he and I made regarding his interactions with Sadolite.

His account will be reopened tomorrow evening.

Just to give some insight into how some conflicts are resolved... When it becomes clear that certain members are incapable of interacting civilly with each other they are asked to refrain from responding to any of that members comments at all. Both members agree to it and it usually solves the problem. Several such arrangements currently exist between members on the site. Some of these are very formal "restraining orders", if you will. Some are little less formal, but are enforced nonetheless.

Imabench responded to a comment by Sadolite in a very uncivil manner, thus a flame war between them ensued. Sadolite was out of line as well, but aside from his responses to Bench's comments, had followed exactly what the three of us agreed to.

So, you put him in jail for a set amount of time because he violated a restraining order?

Can I PLEASE go to jail wherever you live?

Why would you want to do that?

I think his point is that what you call "jail" isn't to bad. So if committing a felony or something like that just gets you banned from DDO, that's pretty good. That being said, I totally disagree, being banned from DDO, even if for only a short time, is infinitely worse than any sort of jail (never mind the fact that you wouldn't have internet access in jail). I believe a ban from DDO is a cruel inhuman and unusual punishment, but alas must be done in some cases in order to ensure the integrity oof the site. It is also justified due to the fact that they have disgraced DDO, which IMHO should be punishable by death. I would take prison over a DDO ban any day.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...