When asked to clean it up a little... - Page 9

Gothic.net · 04-01-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solumina

So you all go through our PMs?

Anyway if there was a specific reason for the ban then why not put that in the ban notice?

Like maggot said, It was because he offered the file/link via PM in his public post. No deep sleuthing there.

There are a few ways to ban someone and only one prompts for a reason. I think this is new and we're not used to it. We'll see if we can be better about leaving reason in the future, but I did figure I responded in the thread that was a problem when the ban occurred, so it wasn't without some explanation.

Bonquisha Brown · 04-01-2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

You asked in private, but since you've also asked in public, I'll post the same answer I sent in private.

Because Man in Room 5 got a warning for posting stolen content from New Music Express. Man in Room Five reacted appropriately, but Jack immediately offered the same stolen content via private message. That's just senseless.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=14587

We can not have Gothic.net offering stolen files, particularly stolen from organizations like NME. This isn't some opaque whimsical banning. Warnings were given, and it should just be obvious.

So you gave Man In Room 5 a warning, but none to Jack? You handled that situation very professionally...

Gothic.net · 04-01-2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonquisha Brown

So you gave Man In Room 5 a warning, but none to Jack? You handled that situation very professionally...

The warning was clear in the thread.

Bonquisha Brown · 04-01-2009, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

The warning was clear in the thread.

This is all I saw:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man in Room 5

I had a download link in the original post so you could get it in PDF but it got deleted for copyright reasons, rendering this entire thread pretty much pointless.

Although, I have to confess, I'm surprised at how many people already own the printed copy.

It doesn't mention MiR5 was warned anywhere. For all we know, he did it because of his personal ethics, as opposed to being forced to take it down. Or are you referring to the warning you gave Jack after he was banned. And even then, did offering a download really merit a permanent banning?

Gothic.net · 04-01-2009, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonquisha Brown

This is all I saw: It doesn't mention MiR5 was warned anywhere. For all we know, he did it because of his personal ethics, as opposed to being forced to take it down. Or are you referring to the warning you gave Jack after he was banned. And even then, did offering a download really merit a permanent banning?

Yes, it did merit banning. Stolen content is a serious issue and is not ambiguous. Jack reacted to MiR5's post about the link being taken down for legitimate issues and being warned, by offering the same file via PM. Again, this is not opaque and has been clearly explained.

It was clear enough in the thread that what he was doing was a problem.

Cicero · 04-01-2009, 05:52 AM

I read that thread just before and from MiR5's message I assumed the website he'd linked to had been removed, rather than Gothic.net removing the link. From an outsiders point of view it REALLY didn't look like he'd had a warning from the admins. It wasn't clear at all.

I bet Jack read the message in the same way, which is why he offered to send it to people.

Seriously, jack_the_knife was a perfectly good member save for ONE mistake - I really don't think that warrants an IP ban.

Man In Room 5 · 04-01-2009, 06:35 AM

As much as I hate to defend authority figures Gothic.net has a pretty strong case here. I posted a link to a pirate copy of copyrighted material on 02-14-2009 and Dirtclod deleted the link and sent me a warning PM on 03-18-2009. The warning PM said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtNap

The NME Goth book in digital pdf form appears to be a product for sale, so posting links to pirated versions is an obvious problem. If there is some mistake here, I apologize, but your post has been edited to remove the download link.

A notice was also put at the bottom of my post which says, "Last edited by DirtNap; 03-18-2009 at 05:37 PM. Reason: Posted potentially stolen content".

My 2nd post in that thread says

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

I had a download link in the original post so you could get it in PDF but it got deleted for copyright reasons, rendering this entire thread pretty much pointless.

I assumed everyone would understand that Gnet had deleted the link rather than think the site I linked to had gone down, altho--now that Cicero points it out--I can see where someone might have misread it. I assumed Jack understood all this and was offering the file in PM as a "workaround" to Gnet policy, but maybe that isn't the case at all and he misunderstood in the way Cicero argues.

Honestly, I knew I was pushing the limit when I posted the link but that was before our beloved mods suddenly returned from exile and I assumed I'd get away with it. I did get away with it until someone bumped the thread back into the "new posts" area and Dirtclod noticed it. Then, with our beloved mods suddenly on the prowl, Jack pushes the limit again by offering the same file in PM knowing full well that the mods were active again. I think Jack was cool and I won't speak badly of him, but if it was me I wouldn't have tested the limits again so soon after seeing them enforced.

Solumina · 04-01-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Like maggot said, It was because he offered the file/link via PM in his public post. No deep sleuthing there.

Ah good to know, I kind of missed the whole thing so I was kind of curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

There are a few ways to ban someone and only one prompts for a reason. I think this is new and we're not used to it. We'll see if we can be better about leaving reason in the future, but I did figure I responded in the thread that was a problem when the ban occurred, so it wasn't without some explanation.

Okay, my question was more general than this particular banning as others have been banned without a reason given.

Malice In Wonderland · 04-01-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cicero

I read that thread just before and from MiR5's message I assumed the website he'd linked to had been removed, rather than Gothic.net removing the link. From an outsiders point of view it REALLY didn't look like he'd had a warning from the admins. It wasn't clear at all.

I bet Jack read the message in the same way, which is why he offered to send it to people.

Seriously, jack_the_knife was a perfectly good member save for ONE mistake - I really don't think that warrants an IP ban.

This is EXACTLY what I thought when i checked the thread out.

Raptor · 04-01-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man In Room 5

A notice was also put at the bottom of my post which says, "Last edited by DirtNap; 03-18-2009 at 05:37 PM. Reason: Posted potentially stolen content".

Ah. That's really small writing and on the first post of the thread, which it's likely Jack would not have re-read. If he missed it then MIR5's post didn't actually state that he had been warned by the admin.

blackwater1110 · 04-06-2009, 08:31 PM

Dear G.net,

If Jack_the_knife explains that he wasn't aware of the links policy because he read the post wrong, issues an apology, and warns other members not to post links to stolen content, will you restore his account?

Gothic.net · 04-06-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

Dear G.net,

If Jack_the_knife explains that he wasn't aware of the links policy because he read the post wrong, issues an apology, and warns other members not to post links to stolen content, will you restore his account?

Describe his choice in icon again?

Underwater Ophelia · 04-06-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Describe his choice in icon again?

Oh come on, that wasn't a big deal.

Gothic.net · 04-07-2009, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Oh come on, that wasn't a big deal.

Wasn't aware? Read the post wrong? 'Oh come on' indeed.

Sir Canvas Corpsey · 04-07-2009, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Wasn't aware? Read the post wrong? 'Oh come on' indeed.

Connection between his avatar and his post and his potential awareness or lack of awareness is speculative at best.

Does the fact a kid has a swastika on his wallet and the fact he beat up an jewish kid mean he's a nazi/follows nazi ideals?

Not necessarily, people will use controversial stuff purely as a sign of defiance sometimes disregarding deeper meaning or maybe the kid was actually a Hinduist and the Jewish kid just happened to steal his wallet.

Gothic.net · 04-07-2009, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Canvas Corpsey

Connection between his avatar and his post and his potential awareness or lack of awareness is speculative at best.

Does the fact a kid has a swastika on his wallet and the fact he beat up an jewish kid mean he's a nazi/follows nazi ideals?

Not necessarily, people will use controversial stuff purely as a sign of defiance sometimes disregarding deeper meaning or maybe the kid was actually a Hinduist and the Jewish kid just happened to steal his wallet.

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

Sir Canvas Corpsey · 04-07-2009, 01:12 AM

And?

You're just trying to deflect attention away from my points by picking up on the fact that I happened to use Nazis in part of my comparison.

Bonquisha Brown · 04-07-2009, 03:19 AM

Yeah, that was a cheap shot, Gothic.net. Also, what did Jack's choice of avatar have to do with the particular post? He had that avatar before the post in question. It was in reaction to Dirtnap flexing his internet forum admin muscles and censoring us. As I recall, one of the premises of this forum is not having restrictions on posting. But Jack never got an actual warning and as Cicero said, the "warning" you stated was incoherent at best. This forum needs to treat it's older members better.

HumanePain · 04-07-2009, 03:30 AM

Older doesn't mean better.

Back to the previous discussion:

"In Germany, a Nazometer is a mock measurement device suggested by German comedian Harald Schmidt (and causing a minor scandal).[10] The device allegedly screens spoken language and will give alarms even at minor Nazi-specific allegations as "Autobahn", "Eva", "Herman" or "Rammstein".
"

HAHA!

"In a Christmas Day review of The Spirit, New York Times movie critic A.O. Scott suggested that "a similar axiom" to Godwin's Law, "applied to Hollywood, would stipulate that every movie star must eventually dress up in a German military uniform."
"

BWUHAHAHA!

Oh thank you for posting that link, hilarious!
Reductio ad Hitlerum...chortle...guffaw...

Raptor · 04-07-2009, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Wasn't aware? Read the post wrong? 'Oh come on' indeed.

The notice by Dirtnap was tiny and in a place that anyone who had previous viewed the thread wouldn't necessarily check. I only saw it when MIR5 pointed it out, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

MIR5's post was obvious, but doesn't mention a warning.

Gothic.net · 04-07-2009, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonquisha Brown

Yeah, that was a cheap shot, Gothic.net. Also, what did Jack's choice of avatar have to do with the particular post? He had that avatar before the post in question. It was in reaction to Dirtnap flexing his internet forum admin muscles and censoring us. As I recall, one of the premises of this forum is not having restrictions on posting. But Jack never got an actual warning and as Cicero said, the "warning" you stated was incoherent at best. This forum needs to treat it's older members better.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=14996

maggot · 04-07-2009, 07:19 AM

Just because she's supposedly a troll doesn't make her point any less valid.

Raptor · 04-07-2009, 07:43 AM

No response to me?

Cicero · 04-07-2009, 07:50 AM

There don't seem to have been any responses to the reasonable explanations for Jack_the_Knife's single mistake of a post.

Gothic.net · 04-07-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

No response to me?

All of these arguments are failing. Is there the most infinitesimal chance Jack followed what was going on close enough to immediately re-offer the stolen content that had just been removed, as a response to the person who had just been warned and conveyed that warning publicly, while not paying close enough attention to notice that what he was doing was very wrong? No.

But say for a moment, there was the slightest sliver of a chance that is what happened. Why should someone who loudly displayed that much contempt for the administration and moderation of this site be given the benefit of the doubt? What did he possibly do to deserve that?

He defiantly offered banned stolen content, in reaction to warnings being given and links to stolen content being removed by the administration. End of story.