Indefinite Bannings

[Monk]

You forgot the part where i hit you in the knee.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Prussian to the Iron]

lol i think that episode is on tonight!!!

oh, you forgot 10:

10. You are forced to play Limbo fo the Lost 5 times

this step is meant to rob you of your sanity.

full "walkthrough/review" here http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=400406

[Subotan]

10. You are forced to play Limbo fo the Lost 5 times

this step is meant to rob you of your sanity.

full "walkthrough/review" here http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=400406

That is actually horrifying.

[Prussian to the Iron]

That is actually horrifying.

it truly is. after reading the thread, I tried to read my schoolbooks; i just kept seeing slightly noticable white lettering on a white background. this may actually be a medical condition caused by this game.

"Um, sir...I don't know how to tell you this, but you've got Pixelbitching syndrome"
"Are you sure?"
"Without a doubt."
"...Oh man.....what am I gonna tell my wife? My boss?"
"I'm...so sorry."

[Beskar]

Just to assist Tosa, don't spam his topic. Take it elsewhere.

[Prussian to the Iron]

.....you posted this 3 days after the last post?

[Megas Methuselah]

Elsewhere, boy.

[Subotan]

The circumstances of AP's ban are nowhere near bad enough to warrant a perma-ban. The only privacy violated was Secura's, and that wasn't by AP. Once again, the assertion that the mods have one rule for some Orgahs and another for the others has been proved true. It also appears that the mods have a chronic context deficiency.

[TinCow]

The only privacy violated was Secura's

Incorrect

[KukriKhan]

It also appears that the mods have a chronic context deficiency.

Yeah... it's that pesky iron-y deficiency.

Prescribed treatment: Persistent Privacy Protection.

[CountArach]

The circumstances of AP's ban are nowhere near bad enough to warrant a perma-ban. The only privacy violated was Secura's, and that wasn't by AP. Once again, the assertion that the mods have one rule for some Orgahs and another for the others has been proved true. It also appears that the mods have a chronic context deficiency.

So AP was openly stating ALL OVER THE SITE that he was violating the privacy of members, that he openly stated that he had dirt on at least one member (not Secura, as you claim) and made a point of singling Secura out as one whose privacy could easily be breached (thus at the very least implying that he had some experience in the field) and yet he had nothing at all to do with it? We weighed everything up for as long as we felt necessary and in that time the evidence continued piling up. AP joined the forum fully aware that breaching the privacy of members was a bannable offence and the fact that he did this so flagrantly clearly warrants a ban.

As much as it may appear at times that we pick on the EB Taverners, it is only because they are the ones so consistently breaking the forum rules. Constant violations of rules means harsher crack-downs and this has always been the case across the entire board, even before the group was formed. When so many individuals of a related group are constantly making a game out of toeing the line and trolling the entire forum, harsh measures are called for against that group. Several of the members seem to feed off each other's trolling and attempt to outdo each other and this is not at all the sort of behaviour that this site wishes to have amongst its members.

NOTE: This is not me speaking for all moderators, this is my own opinion. As much as you may like to think it, we are not some group-think program and we do disagree on several things.

EDIT: Oh, and if you really do believe that AP had nothing to do with the breaching of Secura's privacy would you care to tell me how he knew that her privacy had been breached and, if he knew, why he did not raise the issue directly with Moderators so we could take steps to ban the real culprit?

[Husar]

"We are the mod, resistance is futile!"

[Subotan]

Incorrect

Criticism is not a violation of privacy.

That he openly stated that he had dirt on at least one member

There is no way of knowing whether that was a violation of privacy.

and made a point of singling Secura out as one whose privacy could easily be breached

How does warning a forum member about the vulnerabilities in their internet security and privacy, and telling them how to resolve it translate into "singling out"?

(thus at the very least implying that he had some experience in the field)

So knowledge about the inherenet safety flaws of Photobucket and other image hosting sities is enough to get you banned? Wow, just wow.

AP joined the forum fully aware that breaching the privacy of members was a bannable offence and the fact that he did this so flagrantly clearly warrants a ban.

Did Secura raise any complaints? I genuinely don't know, so I can't comment on this until I know whether the individual involved was actually concerned.

When so many individuals of a related group are constantly making a game out of toeing the line and trolling the entire forum, harsh measures are called for against that group. Several of the members seem to feed off each other's trolling and attempt to outdo each other and this is not at all the sort of behaviour that this site wishes to have amongst its members.

Examples, please.

NOTE: This is not me speaking for all moderators, this is my own opinion. As much as you may like to think it, we are not some group-think program and we do disagree on several things.

Likewise, exactly the same for the EB Tavern. But then, this isn't even about that.

EDIT: Oh, and if you really do believe that AP had nothing to do with the breaching of Secura's privacy would you care to tell me how he knew that her privacy had been breached and, if he knew, why he did not raise the issue directly with Moderators so we could take steps to ban the real culprit?

Because as I said before, he had some knowledge of the vulnerabilities of Photobucket and was aware that they could abuse. He contacted Secura directly to let her deal with it, so as not to get some middlemen involved which would be an, er, invasion of privacy.

[pevergreen]

If he thinks he is innocent, why isnt he on here defending himself with an alt account?

Or was that someone else. My memory is bad nowadays.

[Subotan]

Nah, that was me

[TinCow]

Criticism is not a violation of privacy.

Correct, using software to view private photobucket accounts is a violation of privacy.

There is no way of knowing whether that was a violation of privacy.

You seem to be mistaking the Org for a court of law. His statements clearly demonstrated that he had used software to view private photobucket accounts for at least one member of the Org, likely more, as well as numerous classmates of his who are not on the Org. That is sufficient evidence for us, even if it's not good enough for a criminal conviction.

So knowledge about the inherenet safety flaws of Photobucket and other image hosting sities is enough to get you banned? Wow, just wow.

AP confessed to using that knowledge on multiple people who didn't have accounts on the Org, as well as at least one who did. He also made statements indicating that he was looking at the private sections of other Org members who had posted pictures on the forums. Try and get your facts straight if you want to defend him, because you're just making yourself look ridiculous.

[Subotan]

Correct, using software to view private photobucket accounts is a violation of privacy.

This is more than cancelled out by the fact that AP provided Secura with the information required to make her account more secure (Heh, Secure Secura), and prevent someone accessing that account for malicious reasons.

AP confessed to using that knowledge on multiple people who didn't have accounts on the Org

Your point?

He also made statements indicating that he was looking at the private sections of other Org members who had posted pictures on the forums. .

Did you give him a chance to inform the said members of their vulnerability?

[Husar]

Correct, using software to view private photobucket accounts is a violation of privacy.

Hmm.
so if anyone could PM me as to how this could be prevented as I'm not the kind of guy who constantly explores all of the internet's exploits and hacks, I'd appreciate it.
And I'll kill you if you come into my home at night...