Jump to content

Aypop

Members
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aypop

  1. Ban for jackrabbit898 on c.nerd.nu for Widespread griefing on C, fire spam, lag machine building. nerd.nu/appeal by jchance on 2014-08-14T08:23:45 (no more bans, no notes)

     

    I kicked you on your alt account so we can sort this older ban out. Evading a ban is a punishable offense in our server rules. 

     

    However, I'm willing to unban your first account. You've stated you've read the rules, and I'm willing to take a chance. 

     

    Your account jackrabbit898 is unbanned. Welcome back. 

     

    EDIT: I'd like to amend that I did not ban you on your account xjackrabbit898x. I kicked you and suggested you appeal your other account's ban. 

  2. I'd just like to point out that Skraps was not the first to appeal their note: Eehee was. 

     

    EDIT: If anyone did it earlier, feel free to correct me. 

     

    https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3078-note-appeal-eehee-mrloud15/?hl=eehee

     

    https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3081-note-appeal-eehee-anyone-other-than-jchancemrloud15/?hl=eehee

     

    https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3082-note-appeal-version-30-eehee/?hl=eehee

     

    I cannot speak for the admins, but from what I can see the major reason for keeping notes is to highlight behaviors of trolling/griefing etc, and if those behaviors are consistent or unappealed then they will be kept. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. So if retaliation isn't on the cards, why is who made the post even important?

    Also, as long as I don't name the person, all you've got is a guess and no proof. Acting on that would be foolish, hence your pressing me to name the person. Unluckily for you, I feel absolutely no obligation to confirm any of your suspicions. I won't incriminate another person just because you made me a pinkie promise that you wouldn't have a go at them.

    The bottom line is I don't trust you, and this little exchange has done a world of hurt to your position in my opinion.

     

    There are logs that can confirm parts of what that anon mod is saying and tie it back to someone (i.e the claiming the modreq before an admin took it, etc). He is not pressing you to name the person at all. He knows exactly who it is, has probably talked to him/her privately, and the mod in question has not been named openly (even in private mod chat). He is asking you to consult this anon mod once more and confirm that there was no harm nor foul. 

     

    To be honest, there are plenty of people that feel the same way as the anon mod, myself included. I've been in a position once or twice where an admin commandeered what I was doing because they had prior experience, more information, etc. I have not done so without protest, and I have requested and gotten followup discussion. Even though I disagreed with the admins in question, I expressed my scruples in a non-inflammatory way. 

     

    It's like I'm a city police officer and my case gets taken over by the FBI. All I can do is hand over the case work and followup under their terms. That's how any bureaucracy works.

    • Upvote 3
  4. Ban for lukexj on c.nerd.nu for ~600 griefing + block spam nerd.nu/appeal by Boredeth on 2012-03-09T17:44:12 (2 more bans, no notes)

     

    Please wait while Boredeth, your banning moderator, responds to your appeal. Please give 48 hours before bumping your appeal. 

  5. Ban for aires on c.nerd.nu for Griefing on C. No constructive edits. Homophobia. nerd.nu/appeal by Dumbo52 on 2013-02-04T17:59:00 (no more bans, no notes)

     

    If you don't remember joining our servers before, your account may be compromised. I highly suggest changing your password to secure your account.

     

    Please wait while Dumbo52, your banning moderator, responds to your appeal. Please give 48 hours before bumping your appeal. 

  6. Some thoughts and discussion topics:

     

    1) how does one determine what is toxic and what is simply annoying or undesirable?

    2) just because someone performs a toxic action does not mean that person is categorically bad or beyond redemption.

    3) just because an action is disruptive does not mean that it is a threat to the stability of a system on the whole.

        (I am of the opinion that some apparently toxic behavior can actually be a good thing. See: immunotherapy, vaccines, discordianism, homeopathy)

    4) It is not surprising or novel that being a dick is generally undesirable, and tends to engender dislike, distrust, or a reputation for being a dick

    5) Understanding the underlying psychological motivations behind disruptive behavior may help in mitigating and managing it

     

    I don't particularly think defining, describing, or defining "toxic" in a painstaking way is going to help much. I would just characterize it as long-term calculated disruptiveness without a reasonable end (I would consider a reasonable end to be pointing out a flaw in a rule or mod decision). To be honest I've only rarely seen what I'd characterize as toxic behavior. 

     

    I think one remedy to staff/player relations is to avoid overly professional stoic behavior and err on the side of informal sociable behavior. Staff should strive to be approachable so that players can address their concerns to them. This includes being receptive to new ideas and following up on conversations. If what some people have said in this thread is true about toxicity resulting from failure of the staff to talk with players and address concerns, then this would be an obvious solution.

     

    On that note, from what I've seen within staff for the past few months, the admins have listened and responded plenty to player concerns. Are there things that we can improve? Sure. But you can't say efforts haven't been made to be accommodating. 

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...