IRC Policy??

[Ramsus]

Yes, but a tolerant atmosphere was present when tea was around for that duration. ZeaLitY demonstrated his ability to actively kick Laith because he was banned, for instance.
Proof:

*** mode/#compendium [+o ZeaLitY] by ChanServ
*** mode/#compendium [+b *!*44dcaa57@*.com] by ZeaLitY
*** Laith was kicked from #compendium by ZeaLitY [ZeaLitY]
<tea>
<kando> lmao
<tea> I take it you napped, Z.
<ZeaLitY> Today BROJ PMed me congratulating me for banning Laith and expressing thanks that IRC wouldn't so fucking stupid now
<Ramsus> The best way to set the tone, however, is by example.
<Jutty> I still don't understand why he was banned.
<Ramsus> Just something to keep in mind.
<ZeaLitY> He's been banned twice before for the exact same thing
<ZeaLitY> He trolls and antagonizes members; I received complaints on the forums and IRC both
<tea> brb
<Jutty> I do think it was because he didn't agree with you and was generally disliked by the "popular kids".
<Ramsus> Actually, he's been banned a few times in the past.
<Jutty> And I don't understand why you would tell someone to kill themselves.
<Jutty> Over an irc conversation.
* Carnivol thought it was a well established fact that internet isn't exactly the place you should put first on the list for "serious business"
<Jutty> I wasn't here for it tho so I only know about heresay.
<kando> ZeaLitY: for the record
<kando> teling someone to kill themselves
<kando> is quite sociopathic
<kando> just a little fyi
<tea> k b
*** ZeaLitY [~ZeaLitY@75.25.70.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 20 seconds]"

Yet nobody did this to tea... Why? I feel no real effort was made to keep tea off #compendium, but apparently for Laith there was.

EDIT: Added entire log, to prevent suspicion.

The first week or so seemed tolerated because teaflower and Agasa were supposedly investigating the ROM leak a little more.

After that, her still being in #compendium basically came down to the fact that teaflower just whines too much and acts overly pathetic about the matter, and then causes other people to whine over her case as well, making it hard to just straight up kickban her while she's there. Nobody wants to be the target of all that whining and complaining, so it went ignored for another week or so. Eventually someone had to do it though, especially since #compendium was just becoming a hangout joint for supposedly banned members.

When it comes to forum and IRC banning, there are much of the same reasons for each that banning occurs, such as Spamming, Flaming, trolling...etc etc etc.

But when it comes to IRC banning, as long as the IRC user is not breaking the rules of the IRC (even if they somehow where banned on the forums), it is not worth banning them at all.

I will use Teaflower as an example, for she was a productive member of this forum. Even though she was banned from the forum, she did not break any rules on the IRC. So, therefore, banning her from the IRC was an action that was not worth it. It would be different if she were abusing the IRC, but in this case she did not.

The same follows for many other members who followed IRC rules yet were banned from the forums.

Banning from the IRC is something that should be taken with care. IRC is a public chat, therefore gives rights for all users (including banned forum members) to use it as long as they are following the guidelines for the IRC.

You make it sound like those individuals banned were banned because of forum offences, but they were not. They were banned for things like the CE leak or for being disruptive in the IRC channel. That's why your argument, and every iteration of it here, doesn't apply to anyone banned from the IRC channel except Shadow D Darkman. The purpose of the other individuals' bans were either to remove them from the site's community or to explicitly remove them from the IRC channel.

Furthermore, notice that we run our own private chat server. Our IRC server is for use by the Compendium and its community. It is not a general-use, public IRC server. But even if that weren't the case, remember that these individuals aren't banned from the server, they're banned from the #compendium channel.

[Temporal Knight]

A leaked whatever is a jurisdiction that frustrates the forums rules, let alone the rules of the owner of that leaked information and what-not.

I can also state, about Teaflower, that from what I know, there is an opinion of whining in the case. She talks to those she trusts, as if they were her family. Among such a thing, she relied on this forum as a get-away and a "home", if you will. I bet, if given a second chance, and knowingly (I speak to her almost every day when I am on), she would not have done such a thing. Even on the first offensive, she meerly was enticed and made the wrong decision. You can smoke, but you can also quite.

In any case of the matter, I do feel that this ordeal should be monitored more thoroughly and carefully. I understand that there is a reason at hand for many a member's banning from the IRC channel, but there is also a large amount of nonsense from it as well.

And by nonsense, I mean that this ordeal is being taken too far. As I stated before, just because a member violated a rule on the forum does not mean they are violating the rules on the IRC program. I have seen (for I have experience in both moderation and administrating a web-forum much like this) that many a good member have been banned, but they continue to contribute positive, healthy, and rule-following chat on things such as the IRC and other. It is when a member is breaking the IRC rules and abusing the IRC that they should be banned, not simply chatting with "friends".

[BROJ]

Yes, but a tolerant atmosphere was present when tea was around for that duration. ZeaLitY demonstrated his ability to actively kick Laith because he was banned, for instance.
Proof:

...

Yet nobody did this to tea... Why? I feel no real effort was made to keep tea off #compendium, but apparently for Laith there was.

EDIT: Added entire log, to prevent suspicion.

The first week or so seemed tolerated because teaflower and Agasa were supposedly investigating the ROM leak a little more.

After that, her still being in #compendium basically came down to the fact that teaflower just whines too much and acts overly pathetic about the matter, and then causes other people to whine over her case as well, making it hard to just straight up kickban her while she's there. Nobody wants to be the target of all that whining and complaining, so it went ignored for another week or so. Eventually someone had to do it though, especially since #compendium was just becoming a hangout joint for supposedly banned members.

First off, good argument(I'm not whining, just arguing for sport ), and I think a few more moves and I might have to admit defeat. But...

This was never made official, so why are you using it as an official defense now? At any rate, I question the MO of ZeaLitY in your argument. If I remember correctly, ZeaLitY didn't believe tea one bit as the chat logs made it an 'open and shut' case and he expressed such. Not to mention, tea purportedly almost put ZeaLitY, JP et al in jail for her actions, so why would ZeaLitY consider something that could have affected his real life as lesser priority than the case of Laith and IRC?

[Ramsus]

A leaked whatever is a jurisdiction that frustrates the forums rules, let alone the rules of the owner of that leaked information and what-not.

You fail to understand that the CE leak could have led to SE issuing a take down request on our server. That means, not only would the forums or the site have disappeared, but also the IRC service would have been taken down as a consequence of her actions with the leak. As such, I don't believe that the CE leak is just a "forum rules" issue, nor that she should be able to continue to use the same service that her actions risked destroying.

Also, there's only been 4 IRC bans, one of which was for IRC behavior (Laith), and the other two for involvement with the CE leak. The last one (Shadow D Darkman) was temporary until the banning policy got sorted out and should be removed as soon as he can get an IRC client, join the server, and message one of the IRC operators.

First off, good argument(I'm not whining, just arguing for sport ), and I think a few more moves and I might have to admit defeat. But...

This was never made official, so why are you using it as an official defense now? At any rate, I question the MO of ZeaLitY in your argument. If I remember correctly, ZeaLitY didn't believe tea one bit as the chat logs made it an 'open and shut' case and he expressed such. Not to mention, tea purportedly almost put ZeaLitY, JP et al in jail for her actions, so why would ZeaLitY consider something that could have affected his real life as lesser priority than the case of Laith and IRC?

I overrode Zeality's jurisdiction in the case of the IRC service and the CE leakers, even though he had wanted them immediately banned from the service (it was official, just not explicitly stated outside of the admin forum, but it was intended to be implied by the announcement). Then he went away to Europe for a few weeks and came back to find the leak hadn't caused the shutdown of the site or any legal action, so he had probably cooled down on the matter for the time being and was waiting for me to make a final decision on the IRC bans in regards to the CE leakers and then carry out the final actions of banning them, especially since it was only a week or so ago that he probably learned how to ban people from the IRC channel.

Laith's ban, on the other hand, Zeality had sole jurisdiction over, not to mention the support of the admins, and he was also acting on more recent and as of then yet unaddressed causes, so I wouldn't compare the two cases.

[ZeaLitY]

This was never made official, so why are you using it as an official defense now?

The IRC was new, and because of the same reason that few things are ever updated around here; most of us are busy. I didn't consider these people lesser priority, but the policies hadn't been established yet.

And by nonsense, I mean that this ordeal is being taken too far.

Ah, yes. Let's welcome back Teaflower, and legitimize the entire leak, severely weakening our grounds of compliance with the C&D and encouraging other members to leak later versions since there are apparently no consequences. (If you're a girl, that is, since not a damn person is sticking up for Arutoa, who barely did anything besides condone and help a little.) Tea's position has already been weakened by her two attempts to get back on the site with an alias.

Also, we only had concrete evidence of the people involved with the leak on June 1, so we didn't move to ban anyone before then.

[ZaichikArky]

Tea's position has already been weakened by her two attempts to get back on the site with an alias.

Z, you just can't prove that. She said that one of the names you accuse her for was her helping to register a friend from her computer. As for the other one, she doesn't even know about.

Besides, no one is even arguing about her being banned from the forums. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

[BROJ]

I overrode Zeality's jurisdiction in the case of the IRC service and the CE leakers, even though he had wanted them immediately banned from the service. Then he went away to Europe for a few weeks and came back to find the leak hadn't caused the shutdown of the site or any legal action, so he had probably cooled down on the matter for the time being and was waiting for me to make a final decision on the IRC bans in regards to the CE leakers and then carry out the final actions of banning them, especially since it was only a week or so ago that he probably learned how to ban people from the IRC channel.

With Laith's ban, on the other hand, he had sole jurisdiction over as well as the support of the admins, and he was also acting on more recent and as yet unaddressed causes, so I wouldn't compare the two cases.

*sigh* So you had jurisdiction over it. I see...

Good times, but it looks like you win this time. Sorry for taking time out of your schedule, and no hard feelings towards the admin, I just wanted to have a little fun.

[Ramsus]

Tea's position has already been weakened by her two attempts to get back on the site with an alias.

Z, you just can't prove that. She said that one of the names you accuse her for was her helping to register a friend from her computer. As for the other one, she doesn't even know about.

Besides, no one is even arguing about her being banned from the forums. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

Probably because it implies that she doesn't care about the reason of her ban and just wants to be back within the community. Allowing her to stay in the IRC channel while she has that outlook only encourages her to further circumvent her forum ban as well rather than live up to the consequences.

As far as duplicate accounts are concerned -- the same home IP address or e-mail addresses known to belong to banned users are more than probable cause to ban new accounts. Otherwise, bans become unenforceable.

[ZeaLitY]

Her language style was very obviously used both times, with liberal ellipses, "Yo."s, and "...want"s. I mean, it was really obvious

[ZaichikArky]

I don't know, I'm not sure why she'd lie about that.

The point is, if she wanted to, she could rejoin easily, but she wants your approval, because it means something to her. Since she doesn't have your approval, so won't rejoin.

It's easy to circumvent bans these days, anyone could do it.

So it isn't so much about getting her back in, it's asking you to reconsider site bans. But since you won't, then there really isn't much else to say.

[Temporal Knight]

Ah, from how this is being handled by other members, it seemed to me that an unorthodox amount of banning was going on in the IRC (due to my absence, and from biased viewing).

But, I still do believe (as I am sure many of us do), that this "issue" needs to be sorted out. Sometimes a forum can become a freedom for hope.

[Ramsus]

I don't know, I'm not sure why she'd lie about that.

The point is, if she wanted to, she could rejoin easily, but she wants your approval, because it means something to her. Since she doesn't have your approval, so won't rejoin.

It's easy to circumvent bans these days, anyone could do it.

So it isn't so much about getting her back in, it's asking you to reconsider site bans. But since you won't, then there really isn't much else to say.

As far as I'm concerned, as a result of this discussion, the scope of bans should be determined by the cause of the ban.

People banned for technically disrupting any of the site's functions or services (i.e. attempting to hack them or gain extra permissions) or for using those services to post or publish illegal or highly offensive content should be banned site-wide from all services, but otherwise the bans will be specific to the services being disrupted by that user's behavior.

The rest of the discussion here revolving around teaflower's ban has been in regards to the scope of the ban justified by the cause of her ban, and it's been determined (in my opinion), that a site wide ban is appropriate in this case. If you wish to disagree, do so directly, but don't just repeat the same arguments that have been addressed unless you can find a flaw in the reasoning behind the counter-argument that leaves them somehow unaddressed in your eyes.

Ah, from how this is being handled by other members, it seemed to me that an unorthodox amount of banning was going on in the IRC (due to my absence, and from biased viewing).

But, I still do believe (as I am sure many of us do), that this "issue" needs to be sorted out. Sometimes a forum can become a freedom for hope.

This matter has been sorted out and new, explicit policy on bans is being drafted. The end result is that almost none of the existing bans change under the new policy though.

[IAmSerge]

I just have a few things to say:

Yes.  Tea helped/took part in the leak.  Yes, she tried to return to the site under aliases.  Yes, its understandable that you banned her both ways.
However, I have to contest you when you start to describe her like a whiny bitch, or anything about her being annoying.  Any time I've been on irc she has been just like any other person on the irc.  Please, if you would, post a chat log or something showing this, and I will believe and resepct it.

However, if we wish to talk about annoying... Laith was annoying.  yes indeed.  But rethinking Shadow D Darkman's irc ban?  Umm, he was just as bad as Laith, in my opinion.

Shall I go even further?  Yes, I shall.

You, yourself, ZeaLitY, have been quite an annoying at times as well (albeit not as often), like when you post your "FUCK BALLS FISHSHIT DICKSTICKS SHIT ASSCOCK FUCK" rants on irc, and all the supposed "surreal" humor.

Yes, I went there.  I know that some people have said that sometimes its just you and your rage and anger being let out, but that still doesn't make it not annoying.

Yeah, go ahead, turn this on me if you wish.  My forum posts may be short, and you may think they're annoying, but usually I try to refrain from posting something unless its for a legit reason, like to say I liked something someone said, or maybe to post my short 2 cents into a conversation, or to go along with a joke.  However if you still wish to say that my posts are annoying, I will respect that as long as you don't start saying other things that have no basis, or a legitimate basis, from my point of view.

Also, the reason so many people on irc were disappointed in tea leaving, and cared nothing much about the other people, is because tea was really the only one of those people that were ever constantly on irc, she made herself known on irc.  
If I knew Arutoa or whoever or anyone else that was related to the incident (that I had any care for) then sure, I would be disappointed in their banning/leaving as well.  Thing is, more people knew her than the others.  Nothing to do with her girlyness (directly, that is.  Her girlyness might have affected/caused some of her irc and forum popularity).

I'm not saying this all out of "I have something against you!!!!".  I'm stating this as a "Lets just get down to it."


EDIT: also, it might be constructive to help stop this dispute if someone was to compile a list of arguments, counter arguments, and counter counters to all the reasons why/why not the banning should take place.  I personally have no care either way, but some people do.  I would make this list myself, however I dont know, and never knew, many of the arguments and counters argued in this situation... so...

[V_Translanka]

I don't know, I'm not sure why she'd lie about that.

When you get down to it, isn't the leak a kind of lie? I'm not saying that would be a reason, but one could see that as justification for further ethical/moral situations, I think...If you're willing to do one, then the other (especially lesser) would be that much easier to do...

[ZeaLitY]

However, I have to contest you when you start to describe her like a whiny bitch, or anything about her being annoying.  Any time I've been on irc she has been just like any other person on the irc.  Please, if you would, post a chat log or something showing this, and I will believe and resepct it.

I've had to deal with other people protesting her own ban for a few days, and she's IMed me on MSN to ask about if things can go back to the way they were for a few days, now. This isn't mentioning all the white-knighting and e-pussying that was going on over her.

You, yourself, ZeaLitY, have been quite an annoying at times as well (albeit not as often), like when you post your "FUCK BALLS FISHSHIT DICKSTICKS SHIT ASSCOCK FUCK" rants on irc, and all the supposed "surreal" humor.

It's distinct, because it's 1) enjoyed by some members of the community who also participate in it, 2) not malicious in any way, shape, or form, and 3) not trolling. I'm not insulting people or impinging upon their fun.

She risked the entire Chrono Compendium and the personal well-being and financial weal of myself and Agent 12. She nearly made it so no one could enjoy the Compendium: not me, not you, not lurkers, not random visitors stopping by for a quick piece of information. And she's been banned. How can you people support such an incredible breach of ethics and justice by doubting the validity of a ban given for an action that endangered the entire site and threatened two people with extortionate fines?