06 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Sure, and then what, they ban that MUD too…?


My best guess is that what Kiasyn meant is that i haven't tried to circumvent his ill-considered ban.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
06 Jun, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
When someone on a mud is violating rules, they usually get a number of warnings, and if they are not admins, their admins are also notified as possible. Whether warnings are issued is obviously dependent on the type of behavior. Sufficiently disruptive behavior (at our discretion) can subject a mud to immediate action without warning. But this is extremely rare. Warnings are provided when reasonable. If the behavior doesn't stop, then that mud may be excluded from the channel where it's causing problems. If the mud then causes problems on other channels, it may be banned from the server entirely. This is a drastic and very unusual situation.


I guess you got warnings, etc, as stated in the rules? I read that link but couldn't see where you did, or the ban point tbh.
06 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
flumpy said:
Quote
When someone on a mud is violating rules, they usually get a number of warnings, and if they are not admins, their admins are also notified as possible. Whether warnings are issued is obviously dependent on the type of behavior. Sufficiently disruptive behavior (at our discretion) can subject a mud to immediate action without warning. But this is extremely rare. Warnings are provided when reasonable. If the behavior doesn't stop, then that mud may be excluded from the channel where it's causing problems. If the mud then causes problems on other channels, it may be banned from the server entirely. This is a drastic and very unusual situation.


I guess you got warnings, etc, as stated in the rules? I read that link but couldn't see where you did, or the ban point tbh.


Depends on how you look at "warning" I guess. Since this was basically an internet argument which ended with
"I'm admin so I win", some of the statements could go either way.

As to the ban point, it was right around here:



After Lyanic's statement, I didn't receive anything else that night, and the stuff me and Sini
said didn't make it out to IMC2.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
07 Jun, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
/rules said:
4) The following are not tolerated on public channels:
* unwarranted hostility

All of these will be judged by our subjective opinion of what constitutes a violation.


Yeah we all saw what you and Davion did.
I can't think of any polite words to describe it.
07 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
kiasyn said:
/rules said:
4) The following are not tolerated on public channels:
* unwarranted hostility

All of these will be judged by our subjective opinion of what constitutes a violation.


Yeah we all saw what you and Davion did.
I can't think of any polite words to describe it.


What's rude about 3 stooges join the nazi party? :)
07 Jun, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
What's rude about 3 stooges join the nazi party? :)


Well I'm not really hip to the current terminology used on MudBytes. I would guess that "stooges" would translate to "stupid cunts" and "nazis" would translate to "fascist cocksuckers" in current MudBytes lingo. I'm not really sure about it though. And whether it is acceptable or not depends solely on the target of the commentary. The more important concept is their overt assurance that they will continue to act in an objectively disordered manner.
07 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, that is true for some people on imc, certainly. :)
07 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Runter said:
What's rude about 3 stooges join the nazi party? :)


Well I'm not really hip to the current terminology used on MudBytes. I would guess that "stooges" would translate to "stupid cunts" and "nazis" would translate to "fascist cocksuckers" in current MudBytes lingo. I'm not really sure about it though. And whether it is acceptable or not depends solely on the target of the commentary. The more important concept is their overt assurance that they will continue to act in an objectively disordered manner.

So, saying something like this is a bannable offense on ichat but is fine on MB?
07 Jun, 2010, 3squire wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
If it weren't for the spelling and the sentences, wouldn't anyone who wandered into this forum believe it was populated by thirteen-year-old girls.

I wonder if this was what 4chan and Usenet are like?
07 Jun, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
3squire said:
If it weren't for the spelling and the sentences, wouldn't anyone who wandered into this forum believe it was populated by thirteen-year-old girls.


Would that there were girls in charge. I've found them to be far more capable of teamwork and handling communication and interpersonal problems.
08 Jun, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Would that there were girls in charge. I've found them to be far more capable of teamwork and handling communication and interpersonal problems.

And they're squishier.
08 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
More fun to look at too. Also, Tyche: stop being sexist. :sad:
08 Jun, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
And they're squishier.

Not every problem under the sun requires directed goal-oriented behavior.

Koron said:
More fun to look at too. Also, Tyche: stop being sexist. :sad:


Psychologists and sociologists define my views as "benevolent sexism" and they link it to all sorts of insidious evils in the world. They've even discovered a strong correlation with it to conservative ideology and religious beliefs. Rather than being :sad:, it might be helpful to view it as a sort of mental handicap or form of mild retardation.
20.0/33