My Rant Thread - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

My Rant Thread

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Joseph_Silver
Mar 12, 2009 13:31:50 http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1159799

Hey ORCS, I was wondering if I crossed the line by starting that thread. I went through the Code of Conduct before even posting the thread to see if it would violate any of the rules.

I figured that if it's alright to post harsh criticism of 4E in the forums it would also be okay to do the same to an unnamed website.

Initially, I didn't name the site I was complaining about, but when told by a poster that it wouldn't be advertising if I posted the name, I did so.

So anyway, did I do anything wrong?
#2
wrecan
Mar 12, 2009 13:35:14 The ORCs don't respond to threads. If you want to ask them why a thread was closed, you should contact Customer Service (link at bottom of the page).

In my unofficial opinion, the problem with the thread was that (unbeknownst to you), you were discussing a fellow forum member in a disparaging way. Whether or not it was true is immaterial. That could be construed as a violation of Section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
#3
spellwyrm
Mar 12, 2009 16:21:02
In my unofficial opinion, the problem with the thread was that (unbeknown to you), you were discussing a fellow forum member in a disparaging way. Whether or not it was true is immaterial. That could be construed as a violation of Section 3 of the Code of Conduct.

Yeah, pretty much how I saw it. Even though I didn't really help in that regard, but I've met too many people like the accused not to say something when someone sticks their nose into someone Else's business. Hope you find the "official" answers though.
#4
ace_of_time
Mar 12, 2009 19:02:44 I thought you could post links as long as it was not to a shopping site or a site that is used for copyright stuff? Has that changed?
#5
wrecan
Mar 12, 2009 19:29:09 Not to my knowledge. I you have a specific complaint, you should take it up with Customer Service.
#6
Webster
Mar 12, 2009 20:41:34 Also, we're here to discuss D&D, not bash other sites. That's not the purpose of the forums.
#7
jlaurhughes_dup
Mar 12, 2009 23:03:05 I have visited Terres, and the less said about it the better. I can understand your position on the site and some of its admins, because it seems that they don't want to answer questions when they are asked in earnest, and even threaten with IP banning when questions are asked in earnest.

I was not confrontational, or meaning to be argumentative. I like knowing who I am playing with and their motives in gaming... is that a crime somewhere that I am not aware of?
#8
roslyn
Mar 13, 2009 2:39:28
I have visited Terres, and the less said about it the better. I can understand your position on the site and some of its admins, because it seems that they don't want to answer questions when they are asked in earnest, and even threaten with IP banning when questions are asked in earnest.

I was not confrontational, or meaning to be argumentative. I like knowing who I am playing with and their motives in gaming... is that a crime somewhere that I am not aware of?

I wasn't going to touch this thread, but please. You spent two hours belittling the site, to me about 30, then to Imara, who came on specifically because you were pitching a fit, and you argued with him for 90 solid minutes before he gave up and left. Then you took it up with me again.

Hell, spin it however you like. A whole room-full of people, including at least one there to see if I was the Ogress Joseph tried so hard to portray me as, witnessed this, and I'll just say that you ignored their efforts to shut you up for your own good.

Yes, you are banned. No threat, it's done. Not something we do lightly at all (Joseph isn't, nor are there any plans to), but you were rude, arrogant, condescending, and above all dead wrong.

Since you didn't get it there, I'll try to explain here:

1. No, we don't allow Shadar-Kai, and clearly indicate why we don't. You asked why, I told you (as well as telling you it wasn't my decision to make so please don't give me a hard time over it) and you complained. You told me that the chat obviously hadn't been thought out because your favorite race wasn't playable.

2. No, we don't allow Swordmages, or any other Classes from setting-specific (be it FR, Eberron, or whatever) material, or Dragon Magazine, or any source but the ones we specifically support. You argued this with me, then you argued it with Imara. (I'm going to guess your precious Shadar-Kai PC is one?)

3. No, we don't allow Brutal weapons. Largely because the extra rolls they entail in a big combat clogs our dice roller. You argued about THIS with Imara to the point that he asked the entire room if he was crazy for thinking that the chance to roll a 1 on 1d6 is... 1 in 6. Something that you apparently browbeat him about not being the case as part of one of your weirdly constructed arguments.

4. No, we... Wait, I think you should get the idea. We have made choices about what suits our chat, our setting, etc. Without wanting to play any tiny violins, we've spent hundreds of hours and a thousand or more dollars building it, for others to enjoy. So, basically, we get to pick what you use, and any prospective players get to decide for themselves whether they want to play there. We happily solicit feedback. Nagging staff for 2+ hours while insulting them and claiming that your many obnoxious accusations are, in your words, the result of you "not being very good socially" and yet, when told you are being VERY offensive, by a whole room, you barrel on.

Finally, when asked politely to go, and not come back, you announced you would do no such thing, so yes, you got banned.

As an aside to Joseph, from where I sit, I don't know if you violated any terms here, but coming here lying, slandering, and when called on it, making increasingly vague assertions about your posting history here, in the face of people who saw, first hand, your malfeasance and called you on it here, then accusing me of "hacking" one of their accounts to make myself look better (good thing they're a long time poster here in the same name, so he could attest that your accusation was nonsense)...

Well, if it's not against Terms of Service here, it really should be.
#9
roslyn
Mar 13, 2009 3:02:18
The ORCs don't respond to threads. If you want to ask them why a thread was closed, you should contact Customer Service (link at bottom of the page).

In my unofficial opinion, the problem with the thread was that (unbeknownst to you), you were discussing a fellow forum member in a disparaging way. Whether or not it was true is immaterial. That could be construed as a violation of Section 3 of the Code of Conduct.

Respectfully, he knows perfectly well I'm a fellow forum member, since he freely admitted he got the link to our chat from my post, here.

Not that it really matters, but the guy's started two threads ragging on me, stuck one in his .sig, lied through his teeth, etc., so I posit that any suggestion that he is acting unknowingly is made of fail.
#10
ORC_Spork
Mar 13, 2009 3:19:25 Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in it’s place.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Joseph_Silver Mar 12, 2009 13:31:50	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1159799 Hey ORCS, I was wondering if I crossed the line by starting that thread. I went through the Code of Conduct before even posting the thread to see if it would violate any of the rules. I figured that if it's alright to post harsh criticism of 4E in the forums it would also be okay to do the same to an unnamed website. Initially, I didn't name the site I was complaining about, but when told by a poster that it wouldn't be advertising if I posted the name, I did so. So anyway, did I do anything wrong?
#2 wrecan Mar 12, 2009 13:35:14	The ORCs don't respond to threads. If you want to ask them why a thread was closed, you should contact Customer Service (link at bottom of the page). In my unofficial opinion, the problem with the thread was that (unbeknownst to you), you were discussing a fellow forum member in a disparaging way. Whether or not it was true is immaterial. That could be construed as a violation of Section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
#3 spellwyrm Mar 12, 2009 16:21:02	In my unofficial opinion, the problem with the thread was that (unbeknown to you), you were discussing a fellow forum member in a disparaging way. Whether or not it was true is immaterial. That could be construed as a violation of Section 3 of the Code of Conduct. Yeah, pretty much how I saw it. Even though I didn't really help in that regard, but I've met too many people like the accused not to say something when someone sticks their nose into someone Else's business. Hope you find the "official" answers though.
#4 ace_of_time Mar 12, 2009 19:02:44	I thought you could post links as long as it was not to a shopping site or a site that is used for copyright stuff? Has that changed?
#5 wrecan Mar 12, 2009 19:29:09	Not to my knowledge. I you have a specific complaint, you should take it up with Customer Service.
#6 Webster Mar 12, 2009 20:41:34	Also, we're here to discuss D&D, not bash other sites. That's not the purpose of the forums.
#7 jlaurhughes_dup Mar 12, 2009 23:03:05	I have visited Terres, and the less said about it the better. I can understand your position on the site and some of its admins, because it seems that they don't want to answer questions when they are asked in earnest, and even threaten with IP banning when questions are asked in earnest. I was not confrontational, or meaning to be argumentative. I like knowing who I am playing with and their motives in gaming... is that a crime somewhere that I am not aware of?
#8 roslyn Mar 13, 2009 2:39:28	I have visited Terres, and the less said about it the better. I can understand your position on the site and some of its admins, because it seems that they don't want to answer questions when they are asked in earnest, and even threaten with IP banning when questions are asked in earnest. I was not confrontational, or meaning to be argumentative. I like knowing who I am playing with and their motives in gaming... is that a crime somewhere that I am not aware of? I wasn't going to touch this thread, but please. You spent two hours belittling the site, to me about 30, then to Imara, who came on specifically because you were pitching a fit, and you argued with him for 90 solid minutes before he gave up and left. Then you took it up with me again. Hell, spin it however you like. A whole room-full of people, including at least one there to see if I was the Ogress Joseph tried so hard to portray me as, witnessed this, and I'll just say that you ignored their efforts to shut you up for your own good. Yes, you are banned. No threat, it's done. Not something we do lightly at all (Joseph isn't, nor are there any plans to), but you were rude, arrogant, condescending, and above all dead wrong. Since you didn't get it there, I'll try to explain here: 1. No, we don't allow Shadar-Kai, and clearly indicate why we don't. You asked why, I told you (as well as telling you it wasn't my decision to make so please don't give me a hard time over it) and you complained. You told me that the chat obviously hadn't been thought out because your favorite race wasn't playable. 2. No, we don't allow Swordmages, or any other Classes from setting-specific (be it FR, Eberron, or whatever) material, or Dragon Magazine, or any source but the ones we specifically support. You argued this with me, then you argued it with Imara. (I'm going to guess your precious Shadar-Kai PC is one?) 3. No, we don't allow Brutal weapons. Largely because the extra rolls they entail in a big combat clogs our dice roller. You argued about THIS with Imara to the point that he asked the entire room if he was crazy for thinking that the chance to roll a 1 on 1d6 is... 1 in 6. Something that you apparently browbeat him about not being the case as part of one of your weirdly constructed arguments. 4. No, we... Wait, I think you should get the idea. We have made choices about what suits our chat, our setting, etc. Without wanting to play any tiny violins, we've spent hundreds of hours and a thousand or more dollars building it, for others to enjoy. So, basically, we get to pick what you use, and any prospective players get to decide for themselves whether they want to play there. We happily solicit feedback. Nagging staff for 2+ hours while insulting them and claiming that your many obnoxious accusations are, in your words, the result of you "not being very good socially" and yet, when told you are being VERY offensive, by a whole room, you barrel on. Finally, when asked politely to go, and not come back, you announced you would do no such thing, so yes, you got banned. As an aside to Joseph, from where I sit, I don't know if you violated any terms here, but coming here lying, slandering, and when called on it, making increasingly vague assertions about your posting history here, in the face of people who saw, first hand, your malfeasance and called you on it here, then accusing me of "hacking" one of their accounts to make myself look better (good thing they're a long time poster here in the same name, so he could attest that your accusation was nonsense)... Well, if it's not against Terms of Service here, it really should be.
#9 roslyn Mar 13, 2009 3:02:18	The ORCs don't respond to threads. If you want to ask them why a thread was closed, you should contact Customer Service (link at bottom of the page). In my unofficial opinion, the problem with the thread was that (unbeknownst to you), you were discussing a fellow forum member in a disparaging way. Whether or not it was true is immaterial. That could be construed as a violation of Section 3 of the Code of Conduct. Respectfully, he knows perfectly well I'm a fellow forum member, since he freely admitted he got the link to our chat from my post, here. Not that it really matters, but the guy's started two threads ragging on me, stuck one in his .sig, lied through his teeth, etc., so I posit that any suggestion that he is acting unknowingly is made of fail.
#10 ORC_Spork Mar 13, 2009 3:19:25	Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in it’s place.