Nexxushost Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

SMF - Just Installed!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Author Topic: Uh. What.  (Read 35036 times)

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2015, 07:41:41 PM »

1. I can understand that, but that alone has given me more than enough insight as to who it was.
2. My attitude is completely in line with what anyone would expect from one who was wrongly banished.
3. If you do have visual proof, I would like to see it instead of just saying you have it. Even a PM would work.
Edit: 4. Lists are dumb.

I honestly don't care WHO gave the proof. Since I'm supposedly perma'd, I won't be able to speak with them anymore anyways. But I would like to see that visual proof you're speaking about. If you'd please.
Logged

Crest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • τοῖς τολμῶσιν ἡ τύχη ξύμφορος
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2015, 07:47:57 PM »

Hi, Ombudsman weighing in.

1. Person who provided evidence has asked to remain anonymous, and the staff has a policy of complying with such wishes.
2. Your attitude, Cherry, is completely in line with what any reasonable staff member would expect from someone who's been banned/permabanned in the past, and you're doing a very good job of reinforcing any opinions as to why you should remain banned with said attitude.
3. Mods and Ombuds have enough visual proof to stand by your banning.

@Crest:
Given the user's current behavior, it's not exactly difficult to guess who they were. And if you know who they are, please, feel free to name them :)
The original ban was in place for a reason; the current ban is in place for a similar reason.
The request for proof is always valid, but we don't have any strong precedent for providing it, especially when people have asked to remain anonymous.


If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, but unless something significant changes, we have no reason to reverse the ban.

And what of the public behavior and lack of professionality?
Similarly, I know that the /accusation/ is they're Nazu, who asked about their ban right after the first server crash and was never replied to. 
Why can staff be bothered to give snarky, gif-trendy, unprofessional replies to the users they ban but not reply to questions?
This still stands regardless of if Nazu is or isn't Cheriwhatever.  I went to Nazu to ask him because he tends to lurk in Szurane since his ban.  I think I've chewed him out myself a few times.  But that doesn't mean that the public face of the staff can't use some better handling.

I'm curious about the original ban, regardless of if they are Nazu or aren't.  Like - I hear one story.  I'd love to know if the staff are really banning people over... banning people from user rooms. Or if it was something else.

At this point it just reads like a staff member executing a distaste for someone, and the lack of professional public face doesn't help.

Edit: Also, it's a shallow argument to say a distressed user should stay banned because they show they are distressed.  If they are guilty of a crime (or in this case, a series of crimes, if the original would ever be answered), sure, ban them.  But that's like saying someone with a life sentence who might not have done anything should stay in prison forever because they're upset and it proves they're worth being in prison.

All they're asking for is proof.  If this is a reliable source, that shouldn't be hard.

Similarly, all I've asked is why this gets so much response but the original ban that supposedly sources it still doesn't a year later.

There's bizarre double standards going on here.

Considering I'm pretty sure I know who submitted the information, that might be them being buttrumpled knowing someone has logs of him performing sexual stuff with both an IC and OOC minor.

But hey, what would I know?

Edit edit: The idea that someone is irrational or guilty for asking for proof made me think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 08:07:48 PM by Crest »
Logged

Nazu_Knapp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2015, 08:03:20 PM »

Alright. Alright. What the fuck is this. I've been gone for like -- what, two years now? Lemme sort some shit. God.

Crest, you tried to help me on my ban appeal, but it appears to be an ongoing theme for the GM's to ignore the people they've banned, not give proof of anything - etc etc etc. There's a whole fuckin' PLATTER of wrongness going on here that's honestly made me happy I'm on Szurane instead of TK, because the mods there aren't pants-on-head retarded.

I got banned for "harassing" some dude by banning him from rooms I WAS A MODERATOR IN four, five times. Know why? HE WOULDN'T LEAVE ME ALONE. That in and of itself counts as fucking harassment, if I'm not mistaken. Then.. now, I guess, Cherry gets banned... on the false assumption that SHE IS ME?!?! This shit has got to stop. Familiar. Someone. ANYONE with access to see the IP's associated with her and I. Go check. We're not the same people. Jesus christ on the cross hanging from a sidecar FUCK.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go back to Szurane. Seems I've got a new friend there for now.

EDIT: Actually no. Familiar can stay the fuck away from this. All she does for me is cause problems and headaches even after I've been banned for two goddamned years.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 08:05:23 PM by Nazu_Knapp »
Logged

Vivi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2015, 08:24:28 PM »

Chiming in as well - making this about Fam's behavior and whether or not its good won't really get you anyplace. If thats a discussion that you want to have, sure have it, but its not really relevant to this particular ban.

If we had reason to think she was doing this out of personal spite rather than for a reason, I do not believe webby and rook would hesitate to drop her as a mod, and if I believed the same I'd be advocating such. I agree with Fam's actions in reinstating this ban based on what I have seen.

As far as the original ban goes it was at one point reviewed by ombudsmen and upheld if I recall before everything got wiped, the user getting back in was just a matter of losing prior bans.

As far as proof goes we don't go handing it out because those who turn it in often do not want it to be known it was them and not without reason.

Also this:
Quote
Considering I'm pretty sure I know who submitted the information, that might be them being buttrumpled knowing someone has logs of him performing sexual stuff with both an IC and OOC minor.

Should probably be brought to someone's attention if there is proof of it. As far as I am aware none of the staff have this. If a person is below the age of consent OOCly thats pretty explicitly covered in the AUP
Logged

Crest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • τοῖς τολμῶσιν ἡ τύχη ξύμφορος
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2015, 08:30:17 PM »

Chiming in as well - making this about Fam's behavior and whether or not its good won't really get you anyplace. If thats a discussion that you want to have, sure have it, but its not really relevant to this particular ban.

If we had reason to think she was doing this out of personal spite rather than for a reason, I do not believe webby and rook would hesitate to drop her as a mod, and if I believed the same I'd be advocating such. I agree with Fam's actions in reinstating this ban based on what I have seen.

As far as the original ban goes it was at one point reviewed by ombudsmen and upheld if I recall before everything got wiped, the user getting back in was just a matter of losing prior bans.

As far as proof goes we don't go handing it out because those who turn it in often do not want it to be known it was them and not without reason.

Also this:
Quote
Considering I'm pretty sure I know who submitted the information, that might be them being buttrumpled knowing someone has logs of him performing sexual stuff with both an IC and OOC minor.

Should probably be brought to someone's attention if there is proof of it. As far as I am aware none of the staff have this. If a person is below the age of consent OOCly thats pretty explicitly covered in the AUP

The user was never answered.  A user that is never answered never knows what they did.   The question has been sitting unanswered on the forums. That never got a reply.  This did.  In a very, very inappropriate way for that matter that reeks of personal distaste rather than professionality.

If you have a screencap of something, you can just edit out a username and set the scheme to monochrome to hide color.
If you have a text log that's easier to remove, but similarly is the most arguable piece of evidence on this kind of affair.

If the ombuds reigned in already, honestly, I can't even see that as at all level considering the ombuds response on this forum.  Her behavior was on this thread, and thus there is every right and warrant to discuss this behavior on this thread.  This is not an independent event being brought into the thread.

As for the whole him blackmailing a minor to have digital anal sex with him, let me try to talk to them about it to present those logs.

I could stand to see the true guilty party get erased from this site.
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2015, 08:42:40 PM »

I PM'd Vivi, but if there are any other staff/ombuds that want it, I have logs of him knowingly and forcefully engaging underaged players in sexual encounters. I have the logs of three of these encounters and I am indeed underaged. He has also blackmailed my friends into doing this - it's not attached to this incident, and is a completely private and personal incident. One such player that he did this with was only 14 years old. I have a screenshot of that one and I can send it as well.

Edit: I truly believe this is him trying to cover his own ass, because it was me and the other user in question that were banned recently.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 08:53:36 PM by CherryBerry »
Logged

Vivi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2015, 09:03:06 PM »

Quote
The user was never answered.  A user that is never answered never knows what they did.   The question has been sitting unanswered on the forums. That never got a reply.  This did.  In a very, very inappropriate way for that matter that reeks of personal distaste rather than professionality.

They were made aware of what they did when they were originally banned. This is receiving more attention as if there is a slim possibility we have the wrong person, which at this moment I do not believe we do, it is worth knowing and correcting. At least thats why I'm here, I cannot speak for the rest.

Quote
If the ombuds reigned in already, honestly, I can't even see that as at all level considering the ombuds response on this forum.  Her behavior was on this thread, and thus there is every right and warrant to discuss this behavior on this thread.  This is not an independent event being brought into the thread.

I meant more its not going to impact our decision as a whole on what to do about this incident. I understand I was not completely clear on that part. You are, of course, free to discuss it when and where you want, but I'm not here for that.

Quote
If you have a screencap of something, you can just edit out a username and set the scheme to monochrome to hide color.
If you have a text log that's easier to remove, but similarly is the most arguable piece of evidence on this kind of affair.

Still nope. Its easier to ID people by typing mannerisms than you'd think, and its as much to not let the guilty party know who shared info as anything, who may remember the conversation. They can guess, sure, but we will not confirm or deny.

Quote
As for the whole him blackmailing a minor to have digital anal sex with him, let me try to talk to them about it to present those logs.

Please do. I'll be monitoring this thread (though PMing me in TK is more effective, I do check here sometimes) for any new information about this or the ban, otherwise, I'm out for now.

Speaking of as I type this I got a PM.
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2015, 09:06:23 PM »

Quote
(though PMing me in TK is more effective, I do check here sometimes)

....

I CANNOT PM YOU IN TK.

I was banned, if you may recall.

Edit: Which, by the way, was uncalled for
Logged

Vivi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2015, 09:07:48 PM »

I was not sure at the time of typing that if he was referring to you or some other minor.
Logged

CherryBerry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2015, 09:08:55 PM »

Both of the minors in question here were banned from TK and thus cannot contact you there.

I sent you a PM on the forums, though.
Logged

mysterymegz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2015, 02:48:23 AM »

I still have to agree with a lot of what Crest is saying. One thing is you can show the person that has been banned the information. All you do is take out the name of the person sending the information as Crest has stated in his post. It is unfair that Fam suddenly banned Cherry and someone saying she is someone else. Did anyone check the IP address?

Well I guess not because as Nazu says: ANYONE with access to see the IP's associated with her and I. Go check. We're not the same people"

Assuming someone is someone else without checking is quite bad. Cherry has the right to see the information that has got her banned because right now it seems she has been banned unfairly by Fam. I do agree with a few others too that Fam has been banning people left and right with no reason.

This ban seems to have been action-ed wrongly. Show the proof instead of saying so an so sent us proof. It doesn't mean you actually have proof until the one that has been banned see's that proof. It needs to be fixed because The keep is starting to fall because of random bans and people not being answered when they ask questions.
Logged

Crest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • τοῖς τολμῶσιν ἡ τύχη ξύμφορος
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2015, 03:58:56 AM »

This ban seems to have been action-ed wrongly. Show the proof instead of saying so an so sent us proof. It doesn't mean you actually have proof until the one that has been banned see's that proof. It needs to be fixed because The keep is starting to fall because of random bans and people not being answered when they ask questions.

Again, it's sort of this logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs

But it's true.  After this ban happened a giant phone call started discussing the same issue. The people being banned used to be content generators and RPers, the people who are actual shitlords are still lurking around.

I kinda wanna know even IF this person is who they say they are, what they were actually doing to disrupt anything. I know the answer is going to be "ban evading", but then the original ban was just as questionable. Banning someone forbanning someone from user rooms.  What?  So can I get Ezekiel banned for him going around doing that to me? No? Didn't think so.

Now the child porn, that's something different.

Hell, I don't even trust logs and screenshots unless it's profuse amounts of interactive text like they wrote a small novel just to prove something. Inspect Element and MSPaint are a thing.  So this kind of accusation becomes what?  "They type kind of like this other person"?  I dunno, it's just five flavors of questionable. 
Logged

TheSinisterMinister

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2015, 06:28:07 AM »

Just a casual observation...the fact you're ready to initiate a witch hunt against someone you only THINK it was, is a good reason for them not to tell you who it was.
Logged

TheSinisterMinister

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2015, 06:30:31 AM »

And as I recall...wasn't part of the reason Nazu banned not just the whole banning people from his room thing, but a campaign of harassment, and attempting to fake screenshots/logs himself?
Logged

Crest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
  • τοῖς τολμῶσιν ἡ τύχη ξύμφορος
    • View Profile
Re: Uh. What.
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2015, 07:05:11 AM »

Just a casual observation...the fact you're ready to initiate a witch hunt against someone you only THINK it was, is a good reason for them not to tell you who it was.

No, it's a witchhunt against who I already know it is, and have said logs of doing these things, which have already been submitted to the staff by the victim whether they call his name or not.

I don't know why Nazu supposedly got banned, because the thread never got answered and thus Nazu says he has no idea.  I really only know him from him resultingly swinging through my chat.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10