We fight for you vegex!

or I will

united we stand, shatterd we fall

YES!

Team work: Shared victory, Shared defeat.

Remember that.

shared pain is half the pain.

But a shared ban is still a ban.

i count a ban less then a possible friend

*waves*

*hugs nuzzling* =3

Yeah....Dave Hyena is stalking this journal right now



But on the real, that is still noty fair. I know blah blah blah life isint fair stufff but yeah that sucks ass.

I miss TGH. *sigh*

As a thread you wrote out was entitled:
"Admins do the darnedest things"

in b4 this journal gets deleted

It probably will because I'm a troll

I agree with you: this is unfair.

On the other hand, it is possible that bastnfalkr is mentally ill and unable to control his apparently psychotic messages; but in a case like that, I would have to wonder if allowing him to remain here would be the best option for his mental health; perhaps a life away from the Internet would improve his grasp on reality. I don't know... and more to the point, I never will know.

But I do feel that bastnfalkr went completely out of control, and if anything else, who owes you and -- everyone else that he insulted -- an immediate apology.


Mark

I doubt it

The adim's excuse to why he wasn't banned was because he was defending himself in my journal. How was he defending himself when he attacked people before I made my journal?

This is hypocrisy at it's worst

I'm sorry, that should have read:

"...If anything else, he owes you -- and everyone else that he insulted -- an immediate apology."

I should never type when I'm angry. ;)


Mark

I suppose, but I'm just not sure what to do anymore without worring about being banned for my vocal opinions

On this point, I would agree *completely* with Wolfblade, and I would urge you to follow his advice:

"Don't poke at other people. Don't draw attention to pointless stupid drama that doesn't even concern you."

*Especially* when one of the participants writes as if he were deeply psychotic. People like that are best avoided....


Mark

Nobody's stalking Vegex's journal. 9_9

I'm watching him now because I liked the Artist spotlight idea, and was happy to see Vegex trying to shift focus to some of the positive around here rather than getting stuck in all the negative.

Negative journals are fine.

Pointing to a specific person negatively, or drawing more attention to already ridiculous drama that does not involve you, is not.

Vegex, you want him suspended for harassing people, well he wants the same of you for harassing him. You didn't need to get involved over there, and the people who had no business with that fight but chose to go poke at him and get an even worse reaction out of him all contributed to making a bad situation worse.

So should I suspend you both? I can hardly justify banhammering one of you without smacking you both since you BOTH had a part in the drama.

I could have handed out a dozen bans or more over the past 3 days for some of the stupid shit people have been doing (not just this fight), and have been told I SHOULD have by many people. But whatever people may say or think of me, I am NOT banhappy. I don't want to suspend or ban ANYONE if the drama and retardedness can end without me NEEDING to do so.

So how about everyone just stay out of other peoples' drama, and try and be constructive around here? Involving yourself only made that issue bigger and stupider, and remember, YOU are the one who has earned himself too many strikes already, while this is the first we have had from this guy (to my knowledge). So if anybody is going to be "adminned" at, you'd be the one worse off for it.

That journal wasn't meant to focus on or attack anyone in it, I'll I asked was what they were talking about

I did NOT harrass him

Not in the journal, no. But you were pestering him on the other pages of the fight.

And there is NO need for you to make a journal linking other uninvolved people to drama that doesn't concern or involve you. It was someone else having a fight, and you are upset that he attacked people who commented to him, but YOU are sending MORE people over there to think they need to have their say, only to get them smacked by him too.

WHY is this such a hard concept? Don't poke at other people. Don't draw attention to pointless stupid drama that doesn't even concern you. Don't go and say something to someone about their fight that isn't your business and then get pissed that they lash back at you for it.

@_<

I'm sorry, Wolfblade, but I have to disagree with your assessment of these events.

Vegex was not the only one who asked what the discussion was all about; many people did. And bastnfalkr lashed out at *everyone* who asked, not only at Vegex.

For bastnfalkr to accuse others of harassment in this case reveals either hypocrisy on his part, or a profound lack of self awareness; and for you to suggest that Vegex is equally to blame seems to me both unfair and unhelpful.


Mark

People saw someone being dramatic, and stuck their noses in and got bit.

Yes, I saw that he lashed out at everyone.

"everyone" never had any real reason to be there to begin with. If you see drama that doesn't concern you, keep moving. If you NEED to satisfy curiosity and ask, and get a nasty response for no reason, then realize how any further conversation will go and walk away.

Or knowingly jump into drama that isn't your business and accept what follows as a consequence of your own choice.

Both sides are hypocritical to accuse each other of harassment. He did not ask people to be there, so they got themselves involved in the fight. But he responded overly aggressively so he can't claim harassment either because he kept it going.

Vegex is not equally to blame for the conflict as a whole, as it had nothing to do with him.

Vegex is to blame for his OWN involvement and part in it, as is anyone else who was not a part of the issue but chose to put themselves in the line of fire.

On these points, I have to *agree* with your assessment, and I thank you for that reply.

My primary concern, here, is that I do not want to see interesting and promising artists end up in trouble, or banned; I do not want them to think that they have to censor everything they say and do; I do not want them to feel that they are being watched for their potential screw-ups instead of for their art.

The recents bannings have many of us on edge. As you probably know, that "sandwich meme" began as a protest against the less-than diplomatic tactics of a trial administrator, who should have allowed an actual administrator to handle things; and quite a few of us are deeply angered that TheGreatHamster's account was banned along with her troll account -- I can support the banning of the troll, but banning the *artist* has deprived FA of some very interesting and idiosyncratic cartoon work that showed a great deal of promise.

I can understand that a site like FA must be difficult and frustrating to administer, but at the same time, I feel that there must be better ways to maintain the peace, to maintain a set of community standards while, at the same time, maintaining an atmosphere of open creativity.

I have no idea what the solutions might be... but I would love to see a few ideas tossed around. :)


Mark

You know, you'd make a wonderful admin Mark, you're so thoughtful

Thank you, Vegex! But as a Canadian, I can't *help* but be thoughtful; it requires no effort on my part. It must be something in the maple syrup.... ;)


Mark

FA needs more help from people like you and are short-handed on Admins, you should talk to Wolfblade about becoming an admin in the future

We don't want to see promising artists go away either.

But if we see someone interfering with other peoples' enjoyment of the site, often, and we warn them to stop, often, to the point of even issuing suspensions - all of which Vegex here has gotten - then eventually we really have little choice other than forcing everyone to put up with someone making trouble or getting rid of the problem.

Vegex is clearly trying to be better about what he's been warned of, but he still has a little ways to go. And he HAS been warned plenty of times, so he really does need to be careful.

As for any recent bannings, all I can say (despite knowing and agreeing how frustrating it is to be told this) is this: you guys usually don't have the whole picture.

TheGreatHamster was not banned on a whim based on ONE troll account. I agree, that would be a bit overboard. She has not only had a history of ignoring admin warnings and intentionally inflaming drama issues on the site and forum, but she has made a troll account to upload harassing images before, and was told specifically not to do it again or she would have her primary account banned.

She chose to do it again, so it is by her own decision, fully aware of the consequence, that she is now banned.

And really, THAT is the biggest difficulty with being an administrator. You are ALWAYS criticized because people NEVER have the full picture. We could solve that of course, by publicly posting everything a person has done and logs and screencaps showing their behavior and WHY we do what we do.

But then that's a bit much, and starts to look like just slandering people. So we'd be accused of using the site to ruin the name of "people we don't like."

Really, the only way to maintain community standards is just to maintain them. We have to accept that not everyone will always see or understand why we take actions we do.

You guys are welcome to question us (I don't know any community with rules that puts up with as MUCH questioning as we get), but people need to remember to keep it mature and respectful. "OMG you admins suck, fuck you all, bring back teh lulz" is not likely to be taken as a serious complaint from a genuine community member. :P

I don't know of any online art community out there that is as open as this one is in general. But we really CAN'T be open to people just trying to blow someone else's fun just because they get a kick out of it. Or people letting their personal disagreements explode to the point of sucking completely uninvolved people into the mess.

We're not here for all the serious business. It's just entertainment. So when people do stuff that is only entertaining to THEM, while directly and intentionally taking away the entertainment value for others, well, that's just not okay.

ew, that was a big one. Sorry. XD

Well, it was also necessary, and your points were both clear and reasonable; I appreciate your words.

If I had solutions, I would gladly share them; but I have none. I do think these demands are difficult to balance, yet at the same time, I regret the loss of someone like TheGreatHamster: a cartoonist whose taste I often questioned, and whose attitudes seemed deeply conflicted... yet still someone who contributed interesting and unusual work to the site. If there were an on-site campaign to allow her back (with conditions, of course), I would sign up immediately... just as I did everything I could to plead the case for Vegex and for his return: I wanted to see how his drawings would develop.

And from my perspective, *that* is the bottom line: the art is what brought me here in the first place, and the art is what keeps me here. If I were forced to choose between community and art, I would choose art.

Yet at the same time, I recognize the limitations of that choice, and I recognize the importance of a friendly, welcoming (or, at the very least, neutral) community for the quality of art... which makes the points I've raised here less than helpful, I'm afraid. But I feel that I had to say them. :)


Mark

*nods*

It is an odd balancing act. We don't want to eject artists, but at the same time, we don't want artists to avoid this site because they see us allowing unwarranted harassing behavior from other artists.

We'll never make EVERYONE happy no matter how hard we try, so I feel the smartest thing is to at least try to make the site appealing to the people who aren't going to make it UNappealing to even more potential contributors.

And really, you hit the nail on the head. We don't expect everyone to be happy fluffy love-time bestest friends (though it's often been said that is my fiendish and diabolical ultimate goal 9_9 ). But we DO expect people to at the very least be neutral to one another, if they do not feel inclined to be friendly.

see since all your posts are really long I only read the first two lines


so you're saying it's cool for him to be a fuckass because it "WUDNT DEIR BIZNIZZ"

lulz.

Admitting you don't even read what I say, then trying to state what I'm saying is really funny.

What I'm saying is that it isn't cool for ANYONE to be a fuckass. But people also can't complain if they merrily throw gas on a fire and end up burned.

And I guess it might fall on deaf ears since you only read two lines and won't see this one, but I'm gonna go ahead and give you a warning right here to shuffle off elsewhere if all you're going to do is intentionally misinterpret anything that's said here.

ok I read your whole post not just where you're saying that it's cool to go crazy because people draw someone as a "prey draggy."


I stand by my statement

Well, then I regret to inform you that you are simply incorrect.

As I said in an earlier post, it is really not that difficult:

"Don't poke at other people. Don't draw attention to pointless stupid drama that doesn't even concern you."

And again I ask: is it REALLY that difficult to understand that the basis behind most of what I've said is just for people to not be a dick to someone who has done nothing to you?

It's pretty hard to understand you because you have two modus operendi: say as much as possible while saying as little as possible, or toss out a ton of ideas and hope one of them is accepted.

You're a terrible communicator, dude.

Well, believe it or not, that opinion is in the extreme minority.

Outside of people who seem to have a habit of being involved in poor behavior of their own choice, I get very little negative feedback and quite a bit of encouragement and thanks/appreciation for my method.

I >will< try to adjust my method of communication when dealing with the minority element that seems to have trouble understanding me.

But since the majority shows approval to my usual approach, then I will continue using my usual approach the majority of the time.

Hey there,

Cant help but but in and interject my 32 cents worth.

;)

1: Considering what you've had to deal with just in the incident that this journal. One could break down the people who replied and how the replied into so few groups, for instance...

Two, key groups...

Group A: Those (out of over 200 responses) who contributed with any indication that they could understand anything that was going on, and actually cared to understand, and/or had the capability to understand, and could or would read past two or more sentences. = Minority.

Group B: Those who indicated that they for some reason or the other, such as, but not limited to, tl;dr and improper use of the English language, they could not, or refuse to understand. = Not only the majority, but the majority by a freakin land slide.

I'm not saying that your wrong by saying that the opinion of there being some unsaid rule about only being restricted to responses of two sentences or less, or you risk being misunderstood, is the "extreme minority", throughout the fandom, or just the user's of FA, but how, in all the responses that were born of this incident, did my tl;dr, bring out so many who seemingly believe along the same lines as the user your replying to here, and not one user, outside the scope of those actually involved, contribute to the contrary?

Then there is the minor groups that showed up in the over 200 responses, in several journals, and someone's art gallery that reared their fuzzy heads, like...

Group A: Those who actually could site both honest purpose/reason for intervening, and offer legitimate contribution. = Extreme Minority

Group B: Those, who even after being asked, why and how, they were intervening, or to offer something to validate their contribution, refused to offer anything more than continuing their "quasi professional" interjections. = Extreme Majority.

*giggles*

Why in heavens name does it sound like there are so many, in the fandom (or just limited to the mass response to this incident) who speak like they so obviously dont have a PHD, and or the credentials, and/or the backing of some almighty entity to back what they say, but for how they word things, seemingly think that they do?

I mean, you Wolfblade are "arguing" now, with someone who is speaking against an Admin of FA (who has held and holds that position of authority for many reasons), who is standing by his saying that, for you using two or more sentences, he refuses (although it might be worth mentioning that he admits to contradicting his own rules of engagement in order to back his initial statement, which he still stands by.) to understand what you said, and because its tl;dr, it gets to be believed as something as lame as... "it's cool for him to be a fuckass because it "WUDNT DEIR BIZNIZZ""

How come he and so many others think they can get off spouting this senseless bull shit, and go on to think that anyone who asks for validation, be it in one word or 1000, must be punished for emo or drama (capital crimes in the fandom).

2. You said: I >will< try to adjust my method of communication when dealing with the minority element that seems to have trouble understanding me.

First of all, this "kid" dosnt know how fucking awesome you are that you would go to such an nearly impossible extent, just to do him a favor, so he and the likes of him can understand what you say.

You might want to consider writing a manifesto, I'll slip it in with my other holy books, and preach some of your words along with the other greats...

For, if you can figure out how to do what your saying your willing to try to do here... its worthy of being noted as truly "guru", be it for the minority, or the majority.

Peace, Hugs, and Big Time Blessings...
...and, above all else, LOVE!

One very important factor you need to add to your equation of minority vs majority:

The VAST majority of the site do not even get involved in stuff like this AT ALL when it does not concern them.

So I think that affects your equation in that;

Majority = better things to do than dive face-first into someone else's steaming pile of drama (or try and start one when they can't find one to dive into). Let's call them Group C.

Minority = people who get involved in someone else's drama. Which would be your Group A (those who get involved with genuine intent to help reach resolution) and your Group B (those who incite/inflame drama when a suitable lulzfest does not crop up naturally).

Now, the groups you have described fall under that OVERALL minority. So as far as JUST looking at the minority of the WHOLE community is concerned, then yes, the majority of that minority fall under your group B. And the minority of the minority, the EXTREME minority of the whole site would be, sadly, your group A; Those who do get involved in the problems they see, but for the purpose of resolving them as opposed to ignoring the problems (group C - nothing wrong with just minding your own business) or making them worse (group B - the real issue with ANY group of people).

This is almost starting to sound like algebra...

A + B - C / (pick "a whole" number)

=

What The Fuck!

I'm not disagreeing with ya, but you almost went over my head there. You must not have been posting that for the majority of the minority, eh?

;)

Hopefully they (the majority of this minority) dont try to actually figure out what you said here... you may accidentally be at fault for some of them suffering nose bleeds and or aneurysm.

Never the less, I think you and myself, being in what ever group we are, need some serious R&R, at least from this incident. Need or not, I have no choice (current situation in life) to depart from this cacophony till tomorrow (Sunday) evening, if not Monday morning.

I am addressing the PM's, but wont be able to respond any more here, or there, or anywhere concerning this and these matter, until said times.

I hope you can manage some R&R as well, between now and then.

Peace, Hugs, and Big Time Blessings...
...and, above all else, LOVE!

Basti

PS: I soooooo havnt changed how I think of you.

Negative opinions about someone or something is not harassment. The mods continue to misuse the term.

You can't have negative journals (or comments) without the negativity being directed at something or someone, and the mere act of targetting is, by the mods' improper definition of harassment, bannable. The effective consequence of this is that people can be negative on the site so long as it is about something completely general or obvious or it must go unnoticed. When the collective public raises an eyebrow, the mods can and often do cite their incorrect definition of "targetting" harassment. The whole thing leads to massive censorship, chilled speech, and prevents Krystal from enjoying her sandwich.

Hey, guess what?

People getting pissed off and fighting over trivial stuff, OR, making a civil rights case out of rules on an internet entertainment site, is all that "Serious Business" you hear people talking about.

We're not here for serious business.

We're here for people of a specifi community to share a mutual interest in the personal creative talents of themselves and others.

So if people want to talk about themselves, or their Art, or even vent about something that bothers them, hey, that's all okay.

But when people want to engage in petty personal feuds, launch attacks at other members of this community, or be generally disrespectful, assinine, or inflammatory to any person/group they happen to dislike for whatever reason, well, that sort of thing makes this place decidedly unpleasant to hang around at times.

All that stuff is what LJ is for anyway. :3

Come here, hang out, have fun, be cool to other people or at the very least be neutral. Nobody expects everyone to be bestest best buddies - but we DO expect people who are supposed to be mature adults to be able to refrain from being a douche to a stranger for no good reason and kill the chill for everyone else.

Whatever YOUR personal definition of harassment may be, the one that matters as far as the site's rules are concerned is whatever the SITE'S definition of harassment is. And if you are intentionally and knowingly directing behavior at a specific individual or group for the apparent purpose, or with the unavoidable outcome, of causing them distress, anger, or upset; hey, that's harassment.

And you can take it somewhere else.

P.S: This does not mean when someone gets pissy over something that is NOT directed at them at all but they choose to be offended anyway. Those people are told to chill and move along.

To be here for art is to be here for all legitimate anthropomorphic art, even that which is offensive. Picking and choosing by saying some "harasses" because it targets people, aside from misusing the word, also ignores the fact that satire and criticism is a valid form of art. In fact, it was deemed so important that fair use exclusions were made for them in copyright law. As an artist yourself, you are acutely aware of the effects of censorship. Drama is not the only casualty here and you know it.

The overall point people have been screaming at you for months and will continue to do so is ban behavior, not art. Ignore me if you want, but know that the drama created by this censorship far outweighs the drama that would exist, otherwise.

Finally, I've also been witness to several infamous mod deletions which contradict your last statement.

This is a very simple matter.

You are not going to agree with the stance the site takes on this matter, and the site is not going to agree with the attitude you present. That's just being honest.

You want people to be free to attack and ridicule one another if they feel the need to do so, and we don't see that the volunteer staff of people putting their own time and energy into trying to maintain this as an enjoyable and welcoming community should be forced to deal with the explosively unwelcoming BS that results from such images. Nor should the significant majority of users who have no problem enjoying this service without NEEDING to be able to attack and criticize and ridicule those they dislike be forced to deal with such behavior either.

This service is not to be used as a vehicle for people to carry out their own personal disputes and grudgematches.

It is your opinion that the drama caused by upholding the rules and standards that are stated for this community and which every user agrees to by their use of this service (a VERY different thing from just "censorship") will cause more drama than allowing people to disregard the rules as they see fit when they have a personal gripe with another user/individual.

I happen to disagree.

Strongly.

Lastly, I have no doubt that you can cite instances where an admin has acted foolishly or contrary to what I have stated. Try as we might to be perfect, we are of course only human, and as such are far from perfection.

If you would care to state the cases you mention, and any of them are remotely recent (as opposed to being long passed issues) then I will personally see to it that they are looked into, and if any mistakes need be corrected, corrections will be made.

But I am sad to say that if the only way to make you happy with myself or the administration as a whole is to allow people to freely conduct intentionally disruptive and hostile/inflammatory behavior targeting other members of this community, then you simply are not likely to EVER be pleased with this administration.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my desire is to give the trolls free reign, or are just misrepresenting what I have been saying. There is a fine line between satire/criticism and abuse, and if you equate and ignore that distinction, art becomes sanitary and expression chilled. My criticism has been that the ToS and staff opinion does exactly that, which does not reflect reality.

It is my opinion that the drama and reputation stains caused by the consequences of a few sections of the ToS will cause more drama than a few ninnies who don't know how to ignore a people. The former ends up making FA out to be a community of dubious and double ethical standards (e.g., bestiality art is okay but controversial art isn't), while the latter makes out FA to be a place of drama. Every furry site on the internet is inherently dramatic, including the ones I run. That is what I am saying, not the strawman you posed. "Upholding the rules" is still censorship if the rules censor.

I think you are also mistaken about my opinions of this site and the administration, but there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing things further.

Then let me ask you this:

Who is to draw the line between an image that is satire, and an image that is abuse?

Who do you propose is qualified to make that distinction if not anyone on the present administrative staff?

Because that is the problem. Everyone has a different opinion. You feel yours is right and mine wrong, I disagree. I feel myself and the staff and the vast majority of the site are better off with the current attitude, you disagree.

When I see an image, drawn of someone else's character, and placing that character in situations that the owner is known to very strongly dislike, I consider that abuse. I see that, and can't think of a possible reason for the image other than to get the character's owner upset. People might say "I just wanted that guy to lighten up, and make the point that it is just a drawing, and he shouldn't get so upset over it." I say, who and what gives them the right to tell the other person precisely what degree of personal attachment they are allowed to have to their character?

If I have misread your intentions and opinions, then I do apologize. And I sincerely ask right here that you correct my misperceptions.

Explain to me what YOU feel would qualify as a harassing image, if not the sorts of images we have been dealing with lately. Present me with a workable, enforcable wording for a rule we could post that would make sense to users as a defining line between what is acceptable satire, and what is simply harassment.

Because until someone, ANYONE, can provide us with a means of distinguishing one from the other, than "satire" that happens to target/involve a single individual and has, as far as we can determine, a clear intent to upset or anger them, will be considered harassment.

It is easy to tell us we are doing something wrong. It is also easy to tell us a vague general notion of what you think we should do instead.

The hard part is coming up with the "how" of doing what you propose that won't end up with just as much, if not more (in my opinion, the latter is almost certain) drama, confusion, and pissed-off users. We can't think up a way to do what you propose that will be workable without unreasonable demands on our staff AND the rest of the community, but we are open to suggestions if you can do so (that means come up with the rule to make the distinction, a policy for dealing with people who disagree with our judgment of the application of that rule, what to do with people who are found to be harassing by YOUR standards, etc, etc).

Most people, when presented with this point say "it's not my job to come up with all that, it's yours."

To which I would respond "precisely. And we are doing what we feel is the best method."

Never have I denied that the owners/maintainers of the site should draw that line. I am just suggesting you redraw it in the interest of reducing drama and moderator workload, bannings, censorship, and pleasing users. How foolish it would be to leave it entirely up to the users, and yet equally as foolish to ignore feedback!

"I feel myself and the staff and the vast majority of the site are better off with the current attitude, you disagree."

Only if my opinion is roughly "throw the site to the trolls." How many Krystal icons and fanart sprang up, again? How many comments did all those threads get? A lot of users are upset, but luckily for you, not a lot of them are vocal, because hey, that's negative.

"When I see an image, drawn of someone else's character, and placing that character in situations that the owner is known to very strongly dislike, I consider that abuse. I see that, and can't think of a possible reason for the image other than to get the character's owner upset."

I would ask, do you think Disney, Nintendo, et cetera wouldn't strongly dislike seeing their trademarked characters drawn in your porn? You draw Teddy Ruxpin porn. I think such situations are exactly the kind they strongly dislike, and they have made public statements along those lines. By your own actions and definitions, you abuse these companies. Is your porn okay because it's somehow not abusive in that way? Maybe because Disney isn't a user, or because they haven't said anything specifically regarding your pieces, or maybe they don't count because they're a multi-million dollar corporation? Why are you exempt from your own standards and FA's own rules? :-P

My point is there ARE other reasons for the image to exist, other than to get the character's creator upset.

I should also point out, your use of the term "owner" is nebulous, and you should be careful. You can't copyright an idea, only a form of an idea. That means that a character concept can't legally be "owned" or restricted by traditional means.

>Explain to me what YOU feel would qualify as a harassing image, if not the sorts of images we have been dealing with lately. Present me with a workable, enforcable wording for a rule we could post that would make sense to users as a defining line between what is acceptable satire, and what is simply harassment.

>Because until someone, ANYONE, can provide us with a means of distinguishing one from the other, than "satire" that happens to target/involve a single individual and has, as far as we can determine, a clear intent to upset or anger them, will be considered harassment.

>It is easy to tell us we are doing something wrong. It is also easy to tell us a vague general notion of what you think we should do instead.

>Because until someone, ANYONE, can provide us with a means of distinguishing one from the other, than "satire" that happens to target/involve a single individual and has, as far as we can determine, a clear intent to upset or anger them, will be considered harassment.

>It is easy to tell us we are doing something wrong. It is also easy to tell us a vague general notion of what you think we should do instead.

>The hard part is coming up with the "how" of doing what you propose that won't end up with just as much, if not more (in my opinion, the latter is almost certain) drama, confusion, and pissed-off users. We can't think up a way to do what you propose that will be workable without unreasonable demands on our staff AND the rest of the community, but we are open to suggestions if you can do so (that means come up with the rule to make the distinction, a policy for dealing with people who disagree with our judgment of the application of that rule, what to do with people who are found to be harassing by YOUR standards, etc, etc).

>Most people, when presented with this point say "it's not my job to come up with all that, it's yours."

>To which I would respond "precisely. And we are doing what we feel is the best method."

You are quite correct, and I require more time to formulate the reply you have requested. The policy for my site simply won't work for yours, nor will it easily scale to your mod layout. I will have one for you, though. I am posting this partial reply because I didn't want to post nothing.

*should not draw that line

*cough*needpics*cough*
ARTICLE GETONMSN

Some things I've noticed you got yourself involved where it was none of your business. Sometimes you just got to leave things to fix on their own.

Well said!



Mark

Is this about that asshole scaley again?
sure i'm in, purely because i'm an evil angel >=3

wtf is dis shit

-bigmike

I have no idea.


-Dirk Diggler

*hands you a cross bow with a red hot nail* I've been playing half life2 deathmatch all day. XD

Ignore him, that's the only advice I can give...

I guess the rule here is don't be a vigilante, unless I misunderstood.

there is no difference, here

if they ban for stuff like that then they should set up strickt rules... but I guess that's just immpossible

heh, you love startin' shit, don't you. kudos on that.

Them crazies! *shakes fist at indeterminate crazies*