NationStates

Drasnia wrote:However, the mods generally delete the offending puppet on the first DEATable offence, then the puppet and the main, puppetsweep, DOS.

Conceded.
Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, since the Predator thing isn't exactly on the same level as RMB spam.

Sygian II wrote:

Leafish wrote:'Raiders are lame'.

Nuuuuuuuuuuu

The name is open, somehow.
However, while I'm certainly tempted, I'm also significantly too lazy to actually get around to doing it.
They are, though <3

Leafish wrote:

Drasnia wrote:However, the mods generally delete the offending puppet on the first DEATable offence, then the puppet and the main, puppetsweep, DOS.

Conceded.
Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, since the Predator thing isn't exactly on the same level as RMB spam.

I think it's more along the lines of pornspam than RMB spam.

Luziyca wrote:

Drasnia wrote:However, the mods generally delete the offending puppet on the first DEATable offence, then the puppet and the main, pupetsweep, DOS.

It's a special circumstance, what with him using Predator and all.

I was answering a hypothetical ("Let's say I post spammy . . . ") with a generalization. Thank you very much.

Drasnia wrote:

Luziyca wrote:It's a special circumstance, what with him using Predator and all.

I was answering a hypothetical ("Let's say I post spammy . . . ") with a generalization. Thank you very much.

It wasn't really a useful comment in the first place.

Luziyca wrote:

Drasnia wrote:However, the mods generally delete the offending puppet on the first DEATable offence, then the puppet and the main, pupetsweep, DOS.

It's a special circumstance, what with him using Predator and all.

He didn't use it. Have you read this thread at all?

Having Predator on computer =/= Using Predator

Zaolat wrote:

Luziyca wrote:It's a special circumstance, what with him using Predator and all.

He didn't use it. Have you read this thread at all?

Having Predator on computer =/= Using Predator

He never had it on his computer either.

General Knot wrote:

Zaolat wrote:He didn't use it. Have you read this thread at all?

Having Predator on computer =/= Using Predator

He never had it on his computer either.

Doesn't matter either way. If I recall he was given NS++. I was just making a point.

Leafish wrote:

Sygian II wrote:Nuuuuuuuuuuu

The name is open, somehow.
However, while I'm certainly tempted, I'm also significantly too lazy to actually get around to doing it.
They are, though <3

I'd advise against that unless you want to run afoul of an angry Game Mod.

Good info that you posted there.

Christian Democrats wrote:I'm waiting on UM. I just promised to reconcile your draft and his once both of you are finished conversing with Texasa.

Just bumping this. Please tell me y'all have finished the appeal, or at least been working on it. Wouldn't want people thinking you were just twiddling your thumbs while you wait for the outrage to die. So, keeping the community in the loop would probably be for the best.

Syberis wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:I'm waiting on UM. I just promised to reconcile your draft and his once both of you are finished conversing with Texasa.

Just bumping this. Please tell me y'all have finished the appeal, or at least been working on it. Wouldn't want people thinking you were just twiddling your thumbs while you wait for the outrage to die. So, keeping the community in the loop would probably be for the best.

Honestly, this whole matter isn't actually anybody's concern but Texasa's. He's been unwilling and unconcerned with appealing his sentence, and United Massachusetts has been slow and inattentive despite his promises to help and my repeated admonitions.

Most recently: http://w11.zetaboards.com/NS_Right_to_Life/topic/11682846/1/#post8610877 (22 minutes before your post)

I don't want to say that I've given up, but I don't think Texasa cares. Why should I care about his penalization when he doesn't?

Christian Democrats wrote:

Syberis wrote:Just bumping this. Please tell me y'all have finished the appeal, or at least been working on it. Wouldn't want people thinking you were just twiddling your thumbs while you wait for the outrage to die. So, keeping the community in the loop would probably be for the best.

Honestly, this whole matter isn't actually anybody's concern but Texasa's. He's been unwilling and unconcerned with appealing his sentence, and United Massachusetts has been slow and inattentive despite his promises to help and my repeated admonitions.

Most recently: http://w11.zetaboards.com/NS_Right_to_Life/topic/11682846/1/#post8610877 (22 minutes before your post)

I don't want to say that I've given up, but I don't think Texasa cares. Why should I care about his penalization when he doesn't?

Although my version of the appeal may not be long, I think it covers everything pertinent that we actually know about the situation. If UM doesn't post a draft within one day, I'm just going to go ahead and ask Texasa to send mine which I wrote about a month ago.

This has gone on long enough.

Ovybia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Honestly, this whole matter isn't actually anybody's concern but Texasa's. He's been unwilling and unconcerned with appealing his sentence, and United Massachusetts has been slow and inattentive despite his promises to help and my repeated admonitions.

Most recently: http://w11.zetaboards.com/NS_Right_to_Life/topic/11682846/1/#post8610877 (22 minutes before your post)

I don't want to say that I've given up, but I don't think Texasa cares. Why should I care about his penalization when he doesn't?

Although my version of the appeal may not be long, I think it covers everything pertinent that we actually know about the situation. If UM doesn't post a draft within one day, I'm just going to go ahead and ask Texasa to send mine which I wrote about a month ago.

This has gone on long enough.

I received his draft yesterday. I'm going to work on reconciling his account and yours.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Ovybia wrote:Although my version of the appeal may not be long, I think it covers everything pertinent that we actually know about the situation. If UM doesn't post a draft within one day, I'm just going to go ahead and ask Texasa to send mine which I wrote about a month ago.

This has gone on long enough.

I received his draft yesterday. I'm going to work on reconciling his account and yours.

I hope to hear good news about the appeal soon. The way this has been handled is very unchristian, I'd say.

If the individual you have chosen to represent a fairly obviously innocent man was dragging his feet, shouldn't you have assigned someone else? Or done it yourself? I probably could have written the appeal in 15 minutes by copy-pasting chunks of this thread.

Syberis wrote:The way this has been handled is very unchristian, I'd say.

If the individual you have chosen to represent a fairly obviously innocent man was dragging his feet, shouldn't you have assigned someone else? Or done it yourself? I probably could have written the appeal in 15 minutes by copy-pasting chunks of this thread.

First, two players volunteered; they weren't chosen. Second, it's difficult to write an appeal for someone who has been uncooperative, disengaged, and largely incoherent. He tried to reincriminate himself just recently, but his post didn't make any sense.

Pro Life Nation wrote:Found My Puppet's Account on DEN's off-site forum! Boscov's is convicted! Texasa is innocent! Boscov's is Texasa's Puppet! http://w11.zetaboards.com/DEN/profile/4181155/

Is this what you mean? Doesnt look like "attempting to reincriminate." Looks to me like it's someone who wants their nation back, but has issues with communication, and misunderstanding what predator is, still. Which should serve as proof of his innocence.

You still could put something together largely without his input, as many major raiding figures have explained repeatedly why it's absurd. Like I said, copy, paste, point him to a GHR, and help the kid get his nation back. Half an hour, tops. Promising help and then dragging your feet is a shitty thing to do, especially when you give thin excuses.

Syberis wrote:I probably could have written the appeal in 15 minutes

You're looking at somebody who already did that about a month ago.

Christian Democrats wrote:Second, it's difficult to write an appeal for someone who has been uncooperative, disengaged, and largely incoherent.

See, I'm a little confused by the logic being applied to this case. Apparently, all it takes to be added to the punishment list is a confusing, incoherent "confession" that boarders on pure gibberish. So why is it the case that a punishment can be handed out based upon a GHR apparently written in gobbledygook twaddle speak but the appeal must be in perfectly coherent English?

I say if the Moderation could understand Texasa's disjointed mutterings as an admission of guilt, then they should also be able to understand the same language in an appeal.

Syberis wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:I received his draft yesterday. I'm going to work on reconciling his account and yours.

I hope to hear good news about the appeal soon. The way this has been handled is very unchristian, I'd say.

But hey, defenders are the moralists

Syberis wrote:If the individual you have chosen to represent a fairly obviously innocent man was dragging his feet, shouldn't you have assigned someone else? Or done it yourself? I probably could have written the appeal in 15 minutes by copy-pasting chunks of this thread.

As CD points out, it's pretty difficult to represent someone who attempts to re-confess continuously with nonsense. He seems to want this punishment.

If you have an issue with his punishment (I no longer do), write an appeal yourself. No one is stopping you.

Evil Wolf wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Second, it's difficult to write an appeal for someone who has been uncooperative, disengaged, and largely incoherent.

See, I'm a little confused by the logic being applied to this case. Apparently, all it takes to be added to the punishment list is a confusing, incoherent "confession" that boarders on pure gibberish. So why is it the case that a punishment can be handed out based upon a GHR apparently written in gobbledygook twaddle speak but the appeal must be in perfectly coherent English?

I say if the Moderation could understand Texasa's disjointed mutterings as an admission of guilt, then they should also be able to understand the same language in an appeal.

I think Sedge mentioned this up-thread, but he "confessed," and we followed up with some specific questions which he answered, which resulted in his punishment. If you want to confess to rule breaking, we will punish you. Same goes if anyone wants to claim to be a secret puppet of Frak, etc. I'll willingly nuke your nation accordingly, despite personal skepticism that [popular GP player] is secretly Frak.

Guy wrote:If you have an issue with his punishment (I no longer do), write an appeal yourself. No one is stopping you.

Actually, I have to clarify that we don't accept 3rd-party appeals.

Mousebumples wrote:I think Sedge mentioned this up-thread, but he "confessed," and we followed up with some specific questions which he answered, which resulted in his punishment. If you want to confess to rule breaking, we will punish you. Same goes if anyone wants to claim to be a secret puppet of Frak, etc. I'll willingly nuke your nation accordingly, despite personal skepticism that [popular GP player] is secretly Frak.

That seems a lot simpler suicide by mod than going on insane rants across the forum, porn spamming the forum etc.

Also for those who have received WA bans etc. will they get some kind of notification when it ends, so they don't end up going an hour early, and getting another 3 months.

Guy wrote:As CD points out, it's pretty difficult to represent someone who attempts to re-confess continuously with nonsense. He seems to want this punishment.

I disagree with CD on the second point. Texasa may be incoherent but he is doing his best. He does not want this punishment and his actions clearly show that. The problem is it's very hard to get his story straight. But, we've had his story straight for many weeks now and we can't blame him for our slowness after that point. It's true that he could have been more persistent but I still don't think we can put all of the blame on him for the long length of this process.

I've asked CD to reconcile the two drafts as quickly as possible. I don't think we should give up now. I still plan on asking Texasa to simply submit my version of the appeal if this process continues to stall.

Ovybia wrote:

Guy wrote:As CD points out, it's pretty difficult to represent someone who attempts to re-confess continuously with nonsense. He seems to want this punishment.

I disagree with CD on the second point. Texasa may be incoherent but he is doing his best. He does not want this punishment and his actions clearly show that. The problem is it's very hard to get his story straight. But, we've had his story straight for many weeks now and we can't blame him for our slowness after that point. It's true that he could have been more persistent but I still don't think we can put all of the blame on him for the long length of this process.

I've asked CD to reconcile the two drafts as quickly as possible. I don't think we should give up now. I still plan on asking Texasa to simply submit my version of the appeal if this process continues to stall.

I don't want to be rude, Ovybia; but I highly doubt that the moderators would accept your draft unmodified.

Wooooo 1,000th post!

PS I hope this gets sorted out soon