Trolls really being taken care of by Trevor?

[StreetFighter]

.

[Remag]

With all due respect and in all objectivity I have to agree that simply using the Ignore button will not alleviate the disruption and effect trollz will have on Lackey. It is not about what you or I do not want to hear from someone but what everyone else is hearing from that person that may affect a loss in popularity resulting in a loss of game time or availability, especially since Trollz tend to be relentless and stalk. Hence, it is about the fact that few may want to play with you because you did not hear of and defend against certain false accusations, etc.

I suggest future volunteer moderators for Lackey as it continues to grow. It can only strengthen the community.

Regards,

Gamer Remag

[Cyrus]

x2

Maybe if everyone didn't feed the trolls they wouldn't run so rampant. Ignore, end of problem. Trolls get bored if no one responds to them.

[Remag]

On the contrary Sei, I absolutely sympathize with your feelings about this as I have experienced similar in real life and on interwebz forum. You are completely correct in your appraisal that such dialogue as that is not a simple matter of disruptive trolliness.

Cyrus, "don't feed the trolls and they go away" is a misnomer. An interpretation that is known to be untrue, quoted commonly because of popularity and wide reference?long before their true natures were known overall.

Hungry trollz are not going to go away when you refuse the food you have that they want.

Simple.

Like a crazed animal raving for your food, often times, the best way to chase them off is to make some noise they do not want to hear or are not used to hearing. There is no universal thing to say that will send any troll packing just like different animals run from different kinds of frequencies. Some flee to the sound of a little chiming and others to more intimidating tunes. This anology fits very well if you understand why and from where in their brains and past experiences trollz do troll.   

That brings me share from my knowledge that, often times, ignoring them makes it worse or the inaction does not help to change things at all and so they continue with their quest to harass you or someone else for what is most of the time essentially attention they needed and did not get or are used to getting in a sadomasochistic way.

So, sometimes it is okay and logical to set up or throw a crumb toward the troll as long as not inviting it into the den to sup.

What is especially effective is when the community backs each other up by voicing zero tolerance towards certain behaviour whilst not lowering oneself to quite the same.

       

[Picks-at-Flies]

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  The whole purpose of trolling is to get a rise from people, and to rant at Trevor for the behaviour of one person is unhelpful.  Tyler Durden (in all his aliases) is the most persistent and annoying troll I've ever seen and yet every time I see him what do I also see?  I see people trying to reason with him or at least shouting at him.  He is also fairly canny and I think it's fair to say that he will have a crack at getting around whatever security we put up.

This is mostly a one-man show, so can we try to be patient and supportive while Trevor fixes the current non-human problems (and works on registration)?

Yours,
PaF

[Remag]

No need to be afraid of disagreement Picks. Or agreement for that matter, hehe. I agree that whoever undertakes such a endeavor as Lackey would have to prioritize and thus put operational issues before enforcing infractions. I am sure most of are grateful for what Trevor and others have done for us in bringing Lackey to our comps but I agree that a bit more patience can only help all. Some slack is the least we should offer those working on Lackey and brings me to say...

While I agree on one or two points points of view Sei has I also disagree with what I perceive to be sensational misplacement of burden or presumptive exagerations in this thread such as...

For example, how can one explicitly say...

1) What Trevor thinks (aside from how he has chosen to deal with a scenario in   the immediate) or

2) How anything will be permitted on Lackey and that it may become a joke (when Trevor has acted to moderate on our behalves recently) or

3) How if you ignore certain activity it always goes away or

4) That the community is fading away because the administrator is not dealing with trollz (again, when he clearly has recently) or

5) That there is only one troll active at Lackey whom it is (un)fair to say will have a go at hacking it? 

Please, these are assumptions that do not help with the Lackey we care about. And please do not get me wrong I think we all care about Lackey and are doing what we think is right but more patience before we enact .. yes.

While it is fine and sometimes necessary to appeal regarding excessive infractions such is the case with the Palmer, a confrontational tone towards those with the power to make stated requested changes does not help to elicit positive results.

Nothing personal here, just trying to help.

[Picks-at-Flies]

Agreed

[Trevor]

I will not force people to be nice to each other, even if that were feasible (which it isn't). I will stop extreme abuse, or spamming behavior.

Spamming behaviour is when a person floods the chat with stuff that is likely to annoy people.

As far as what constitutes extreme abuse, that is harder to define. Something that is likely to offend most people is likely to be considered as such. "Die in a fire" is not extreme. "You're a fucking nigger pussy!" is more an example of what I'm talking about.

If someone spams or says something extremely offensive, report it to me as described in a different forum topic, and I will ban them.

If someone wants to say "I hope you die in a bus crash", that's a mean thing to say, unless it's in response to something that warrants that. If someone says that to you while you're playing at a local real life CCG club, you don't run home and cry to your mother, or call a cop. A mature person will dismiss it as that person being a jerk and then avoid them. As far as Lackey goes, you have 2 choices:
Disregard what they say, as you would when a 5 year old calls you a doodyhead. Or, if you don't even want to see that stuff, you also have the option of having Lackey ignore that person, and you won't even see their comments.

I'm really busy doing actual coding. Please only report extreme abuse.

[Remag]

While I completely understand most of the reasoning on this Trevor, ahm going to put my armchair lawyer hat on for a bit(e). 

From what I see in this thread no one is asking you to force people to be nice to each other. It is impossible and there is also our liberty in freedom of speech to consider.

However, what I do see someone asking for here is the protection of our personal freedom (a liberty) from oppression, whatever the kind to say the least. Abuse IS defined as application to a wrong or bad purpose, perversion and even "a rude expression intended to offend or hurt."

Freedom of speech on one hand, freedom from oppression on the other. I do not think that the former was ever intended to be acceptable at the cost of the latter, unless true. But this not a matter of truth. This is, however, more than a matter of someone making another gloomy or sad just in implications. While Palmers kind of shit does not weigh heavily on the senses and spirit of all, it does on many.

It's like saying, "Someone has the right to take someones elses right away," and if I am not mistaken, cops hand out tickets for that on the road. My mother would likely just give em the finger and a taste of some good ole road rage.

Another distinction I feel needs voicing is that a malicious "Death Wish" is not in the same ball park as a 5 year old calling you a "Doody Head." Not even in the same jurisdiction for that matter.

By the by, in any statutory definition of a crime (offense, even abuses), malice must be taken as requiring either: (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or  (2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).

Also, think about what is implied in a "Death Wish". That it is one persons opinion that the other should not live or be allowed to live. What does that do to the others possible interactions, reputation, popularity or state (peace) of mind? Beyond the aforementioned, that would lead others to believe the same or perhaps judge the person unfavorably which would represent some kind of a loss. It can definately be construed as a threat considering all the sociopaths out there.   

And that is not even mentioning how allowing "death wishes" or similar offenses would reflect on Lackey.

Anyway, just my two cents and again, nothing personal.

Whatever you say goes chief just thought I would reveal the other half of the picture.

[Trevor]

While I completely understand most of the reasoning on this Trevor, ahm going to put my armchair lawyer hat on for a bit(e). 

From what I see in this thread no one is asking you to force people to be nice to each other. It is impossible and there is also our liberty in freedom of speech to consider.

However, what I do see someone asking for here is the protection of our personal freedom (a liberty) from oppression, whatever the kind to say the least. Abuse IS defined as application to a wrong or bad purpose, perversion and even "a rude expression intended to offend or hurt."

Freedom of speech on one hand, freedom from oppression on the other. I do not think that the former was ever intended to be acceptable at the cost of the latter, unless true. But this not a matter of truth. This is, however, more than a matter of someone making another gloomy or sad just in implications. While Palmers kind of shit does not weigh heavily on the senses and spirit of all, it does on many.

It's like saying, "Someone has the right to take someones elses right away," and if I am not mistaken, cops hand out tickets for that on the road. My mother would likely just give em the finger and a taste of some good ole road rage.

Another distinction I feel needs voicing is that a malicious "Death Wish" is not in the same ball park as a 5 year old calling you a "Doody Head." Not even in the same jurisdiction for that matter.

By the by, in any statutory definition of a crime (offense, even abuses), malice must be taken as requiring either: (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or  (2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).

Also, think about what is implied in a "Death Wish". That it is one persons opinion that the other should not live or be allowed to live. What does that do to the others possible interactions, reputation, popularity or state (peace) of mind? Beyond the aforementioned, that would lead others to believe the same or perhaps judge the person unfavorably which would represent some kind of a loss. It can definately be construed as a threat considering all the sociopaths out there.   

And that is not even mentioning how allowing "death wishes" or similar offenses would reflect on Lackey.

Anyway, just my two cents and again, nothing personal.

Whatever you say goes chief just thought I would reveal the other half of the picture.

Remag, you have a very poor understanding of the law. Wishing that someone dies is completely different from threatening to kill them. The latter is a crime, while the former is protected under the first amendment.
"Abuse" is a very vague term. Some kinds of abuse are perfectly legal. Some kinds of "abuse" are even morally justifiable. The kind of abuse that I will police is the extreme kind, as I have previously stated. While it is difficult to create a clear rule of what is and is not allowed, I suggest players err on the safe side and adhere to the golden rule: Don't be a douchebag. People who follow the golden rule will not be banned.

No cop would "give out tickets" for something like one person wishing another person dies (unless this is also accompanied by a threat). In the case of a threat, it would be a criminal matter and tickets aren't issued for things like that. You can even walk right up to a cop and tell him "I hope a bus hits you" and there is no legal thing he can do.

[Trevor]

DemonicSei, you do realize your picture of the little girl in front the the house on fire with the caption "Innocent" is ironic, right? You using that as your signature implies that you are pretending to be innocent, but are actually guilty.
Ya might want to change that...

[Remag]

First off, in no way am I advocating for any one person here. Okay, Sei? It is a topic of interest for me. And my motivations are indeed truly innocent and for community.

My statement (which was an attempt at some humor) regarding the a cop giving a ticket has been misinterpreted. When I wrote that, "cops hand out tickets for that on the road" it was refering to the double entendre (meaning) in the statement "to take someones elses right away" as in someones right away on the road. As in the traffic violation. A joke to lighten things up. Thus, the smily. 

I know of I was leaning toward criminal definition regarding "malice" but I thought it was still appropriate for a greater understanding of the fine lines. I am also aware of and comprehend all you have stated in your response Trevor. Disregard that, but not the other points. Because, my whole point was indeed rather a question that is, "Should Palmers right to abuse under the first ammendment supercede Demonic Sei's right to freedom of oppression?"

And I have indeed clearly outlined how Palmers repeated "hate speech" was an oppressive form of abuse, even if in the least of examples.

That is (not) funny Sei ...? I thought that signature was an attempt at cute irony myself at first and was it not in your post responding to me? Definately looks representative.   

Edit to add: I do not intend to, nor am I, "Burning down the house." I am attempting to support it. Please forgive me for my imperfections.

[Trevor]

Remag, I explained why I've put that picture there in a previous post... but someone deleted it (either Trevor or Alastair). I was not aiming YOU at all... I was mocking the vision of Trevor towards Arnold Palmer's actions. Sorry if someone removed the post... another fact on how "freedom of speech" is permitted ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM!

The entire topic was moved by Alastair to the admin section.
I don't want to speculate ex post facto why he moved it.

Regarding free speech, there is no legal obligation for me to not curtail people's speech within Lackey. I will restrict what is said when I think it is in the best interest of the community as a whole. I have posted general guidelines, but I will post formal rules when I get the time.

[Alastair]

Remag, I explained why I've put that picture there in a previous post... but someone deleted it (either Trevor or Alastair). I was not aiming YOU at all... I was mocking the vision of Trevor towards Arnold Palmer's actions. Sorry if someone removed the post... another fact on how "freedom of speech" is permitted ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM!

The thread I moved had nothing to do with the picture on the previous page. The thread I moved I did so because it had degenerated from a simple abuse report into a troll fest. I left a statement up in its place telling you that it had been moved, and in fact given that you then asked me about what I said in the game lobby it's obvious you did see it.

[Remag]

A troll fest would imply, beyond the obvious, more than one troll coming together for a fest(ival).

Since it would appear I am lumped into this would you kindly explain how and why you think I am a part of your judgement regarding such?

Not feeling the love here, especially concerning my contributions. Are things so insecure here as to warrant such defensiveness? Sorry for taking a stance.

By the way, again, I do not side with Sei so much as inquire into the issue for definition and yes his tone and manner is becoming trollish. Add to say that I should have clarified that I do not think Palmer should be banned for such statements, however, a warning would not hurt and would be justifiable as well as sensical.