PDA

View Full Version : Since posting private history is illegal...


GoZelda
01-09-2006, 09:21 PM
What would the punishment for staff be if they encouraged someone to post private history?

Also:

Hey I just build this website! Please check it out and post any information you have for it.
Learn to build a website, that is crap.

Would you think that is a flame post?

Draenin
01-09-2006, 10:24 PM
1. Leeches.
2. Yes.

XGoLink
01-09-2006, 10:44 PM
Fire the staff

Yes. The one who said that should be punished!

excaliber7388
01-09-2006, 11:12 PM
1 fire
2 yes

Googi
01-09-2006, 11:41 PM
1. That rule is probably the stupidest on the forums.
2. No. It's not a direct insult against a person.

ApothiX
01-09-2006, 11:45 PM
1) Depends on what the offence is. If it's you getting scammed and the staff member asking for the conversation between you guys, then I think it's logical that you give them the evidence they need o_O

2) It's constructive criticism, he's giving you advice by telling you to learn how to build a website :)

Sam
01-09-2006, 11:54 PM
Are you talking about this website (http://www.freewebs.com/stormymoon/)?

Maybe it was harsh to say it's crap, but its not one of the best at all.

ApothiX
01-09-2006, 11:58 PM
Are you talking about this website (http://www.freewebs.com/stormymoon/)?

Maybe it was harsh to say it's crap, but its not one of the best at all.
Erm, I'm going to have to agree with whoever said it was crap. The layout is lacking, the color scheme makes me want to have a seizure and the content is far from.. entertaining?

Minoc
01-09-2006, 11:58 PM
1. None, that rule should be removed.
2. No.

protagonist
01-10-2006, 02:05 AM
1) Stupid rule. People shouldn't say things they wouldn't want everyone to hear. This is the internet, not confession.

2) No. Honesty should not be against the rules, ever.

Yen
01-10-2006, 03:18 AM
I don't think you're allowed to give out a PM history without the other person's consent, since it can be modified? If staff were supposed to have access to PM history, it'd probably log on the server. :/

napo_p2p
01-10-2006, 04:00 AM
Erm, I'm going to have to agree with whoever said it was crap. The layout is lacking, the color scheme makes me want to have a seizure and the content is far from.. entertaining?

Same here.

And for the topic:
1) Fire (punishiment for breaking that so-called 'rule'). Rehire.
2) Nope, unless the website has feelings.

protagonist
01-10-2006, 05:43 AM
I don't think you're allowed to give out a PM history without the other person's consent, since it can be modified? If staff were supposed to have access to PM history, it'd probably log on the server. :/
Do you know how big the PM folder would be? O_o

Darlene159
01-10-2006, 07:39 AM
I don't think you're allowed to give out a PM history without the other person's consent, since it can be modified? Wow, someone who actually gets it.... :megaeek:

napo_p2p
01-10-2006, 08:44 AM
Wow, someone who actually gets it.... :megaeek:

I don't get it.

CidNight1142
01-10-2006, 10:31 AM
Pretty simple. For example. A harmless pm like:
"I LOVE whittling!"
could be changed easily into
"I LOVE hitler!"
and we all know Hitler is totally uncool.

xAndrewx
01-10-2006, 10:54 AM
No, the other person gave you permission.
No, the website does suck. You must think it's amazing to not agree.

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 03:45 PM
I thought that private history rule was strictly for the forums? If a staff member is asking you for private history to settle a claim in game, why would you be bringing forum rules into play?

Darlene159
01-10-2006, 04:08 PM
I thought that private history rule was strictly for the forums? If a staff member is asking you for private history to settle a claim in game, why would you be bringing forum rules into play?I assumed since he said "post", that he was referring to the forums. I could be wrong though

Draenin
01-10-2006, 04:28 PM
It is not constructive criticism to say that a website sucks and then give no detail as to how it should be improved.

Sam
01-10-2006, 04:38 PM
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the quoted sentences this thread started with reminds me on this thread: http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57620

Draenin
01-10-2006, 05:20 PM
Oh, so this is some kind of revenge thread, then. Hahahaha.

Not exactly a smart move.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 06:08 PM
Oh, so this is some kind of revenge thread, then.
Actually, no. This is like a year after that thread, so that doesn't make sense. I just wanted to see who agreed with me that it is a flame, or at the very least not good attitude for staff, considering I:

Did not ask for constructive criticism
Did not ask for criticism
"That is crap" isn't criticism at all
I didn't ask for opinions either
Sam later said he did that especially for me
Crap is the equivalent of ****
It was quite harsh for something not provoked, especially from a staff member
On the other hand, Andrew is staff and he can call people idiots as much as he wants


The main concern was the log-posting issue, which has occured (although the thread has been deleted). I PMed the person (on GK) if he/she was banned on the forums. She said no, why? I replied that posting logs there is illegal, after which she replied that a staffmember told her to post the log to see how it would work out.

Of course I can't really prove it as the logs could easily be forged (although that would be stupid, forging logs for such a thin thread of succes, saying someone spawned items would be easier).

No, the other person gave you permission.
Uh, no?

Draenin
01-10-2006, 06:26 PM
Actually, no. This is like a year after that thread, so that doesn't make sense. I just wanted to see who agreed with me that it is a flame, or at the very least not good attitude for staff, considering I:

1. Did not ask for constructive criticism
2. Did not ask for criticism
3. "That is crap" isn't criticism at all
4. I didn't ask for opinions either
5. Sam later said he did that especially for me
6. Crap is the equivalent of ****
7. It was quite harsh for something not provoked, especially from a staff member
8. On the other hand, Andrew is staff and he can call people idiots as much as he wants


The main concern was the log-posting issue, which has occured (although the thread has been deleted). I PMed the person (on GK) if he/she was banned on the forums. She said no, why? I replied that posting logs there is illegal, after which she replied that a staffmember told her to post the log to see how it would work out.

Of course I can't really prove it as the logs could easily be forged (although that would be stupid, forging logs for such a thin thread of succes, saying someone spawned items would be easier).What's that I hear in the distance? Why, it's the whaaaaaaa-bulance! ;)

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 06:42 PM
Did not ask for constructive criticism
Did not ask for criticism

If you don't want criticism, don't post on a public forum. Simple concept.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 06:45 PM
If you don't want criticism, don't post on a public forum.
So, then what would you have advised me to do if I wanted to get that information?

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 06:51 PM
So, then what would you have advised me to do if I wanted to get that information?
Get what information?

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 06:53 PM
Get what information?
The information I requested in the thread.

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 07:13 PM
The information I requested in the thread.
You could have asked without posting your actual website.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 07:45 PM
You could have asked without posting your actual website.
So you're saying I shouldn't have said what it was for? Just leave out a bit of essential information?

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 07:57 PM
So you're saying I shouldn't have said what it was for? Just leave out a bit of essential information?
Oh you could have said what it was for. But if you didn't want critique on your website, then you should have just done exactly that: say what it's for, but don't show what it's for.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 07:58 PM
Oh you could have said what it was for. But if you didn't want critique on your website, then you should have just done exactly that: say what it's for, but don't show what it's for.
So eventually you think it's logical that my website gets criticised in a thread where I only asked for information?

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 08:00 PM
So eventually you think it's logical that my website gets criticised in a thread where I only asked for information?
Welcome to the world of public forums, where everyone is entitled to their own opinion unless Moonie says otherwise.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 08:02 PM
Welcome to the world of public forums, where everyone is entitled to their own opinion unless Moonie says otherwise.
It is logical that when I ask for A I get B, then?

CidNight1142
01-10-2006, 08:07 PM
What's that I hear in the distance? Why, it's the whaaaaaaa-bulance! ;)
Roflcopter

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 08:15 PM
It is logical that when I ask for A I get B, then?
Judging by the website in question, yes it is.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 08:29 PM
Judging by the website in question, yes it is.
You know, it could be useful if you argumentated some thing, such as why judging by the website in question all laws of physics are rendered nihil.

ApothiX
01-10-2006, 08:32 PM
You know, it could be useful if you argumentated some thing, such as why judging by the website in question all laws of physics are rendered nihil.
Erm, I'm going to have to agree with whoever said it was crap. The layout is lacking, the color scheme makes me want to have a seizure and the content is far from.. entertaining?

Also, I'm not sure what the laws of physics has to do with your crappy website ;)

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 08:49 PM
Also, I'm not sure what the laws of physics has to do with your crappy website ;)
I ment the laws of logic. And, I did not ask for an argumentation of your opinion of my website, but why judging on my website it suddenly is possible that I get A when I ask for B.

PrinceDark
01-10-2006, 09:16 PM
What would the punishment for staff be if they encouraged someone to post private history?

None. Why fire someone for encouraging someone else to do something. That other person should use their own common sense to decide whether or not to post the history.


Would you think that is a flame post?

Yes. It is not good negative criticism at all. It is negative yes, but they don't say how the website is poorly designed, what it is lacking, or anything at all about what is wrong with the website itself.

GoZelda
01-10-2006, 09:22 PM
None. Why fire someone for encouraging someone else to do something. That other person should use their own common sense to decide whether or not to post the history.
So, a staffmember that encourages someone to hack should get away with it too?

And, let's just say that the encouragement was like this:
"Just post that, to see how it works out"

Would that still be correct?

Darklux
01-10-2006, 10:25 PM
Can you wash your damn laundry wherelese?

I dont think this is the right place.
This thread is only ending in cussing.

- Niki

PrinceDark
01-11-2006, 08:06 AM
Wait do we have 2 anderws arguing here?


So, a staffmember that encourages someone to hack should get away with it too?

lol. ok. With my very same logic, yes, even with that situation I still believe the staff member is not responsible for it. I will agree with you that it isn't right, but I wouldn't hold him responsible for the actions of another. This is sort of all like the "Hey my son wanted GTA, and now he's running around stealing cars. I'm gonna sue the game creators for my son being in the hospital cause someone shot him."
Sorry for being so much like them evil lawyers, but thats just the way I perceive this to be similar to.

Crono
01-11-2006, 08:32 AM
If the private history was posted with permission, nothing should happen. If it was done without permission, -ANYONE- (not only staff) should get an equal warning or something as it is against the rules and is invading people's privacy.

I don't think it's anywhere near a flame. If unixmad got on and went "DUD UR WEBSIT SUKS" he can say it as much as he wishes because it's not a flame nor against the rules.

Can you wash your damn laundry wherelese?

no sry we r hoboz we kant afrod 2

I dont think this is the right place.

We do.

This thread is only ending in cussing.

ololol so? Atleast something productive might come out of it, even if it is "cussing" (boohoooooooooooo ;O; )

Lance
01-13-2006, 11:15 AM
Wait do we have 2 anderws arguing here?


lol. ok. With my very same logic, yes, even with that situation I still believe the staff member is not responsible for it. I will agree with you that it isn't right, but I wouldn't hold him responsible for the actions of another. This is sort of all like the "Hey my son wanted GTA, and now he's running around stealing cars. I'm gonna sue the game creators for my son being in the hospital cause someone shot him."
Sorry for being so much like them evil lawyers, but thats just the way I perceive this to be similar to.

Your analogy fails because the games don't tell you to go out and do that in the same scope (game vs real life) where the hypothetical staff members are telling you to commit the crimes in the same scope (game vs game).

Lance
01-13-2006, 11:28 AM
What would the punishment for staff be if they encouraged someone to post private history?

It most certainly depends on the context. Is the staff asking politely? Demanding? Threatening? Suggesting? What kind of staff member is it? Do they have a history of asking people to break rules? There are a ton of questions that would need to be answered before a response to your question could be given.

Would you think that is a flame post?

It is a bit on the negative side and approaching the limit of tolerated behavior, but it is still within the line.

Darklux
01-13-2006, 11:39 AM
Finally someone stops this chaos in this post x-x

GoZelda
01-13-2006, 06:30 PM
It most certainly depends on the context. Is the staff asking politely? Demanding? Threatening? Suggesting? What kind of staff member is it? Do they have a history of asking people to break rules? There are a ton of questions that would need to be answered before a response to your question could be given.
But, all in all, it is a bad thing right?

It is a bit on the negative side and approaching the limit of tolerated behavior, but it is still within the line.
And what if staff posted it?

Lance
01-14-2006, 01:24 AM
But, all in all, it is a bad thing right?

Do they know they're encouraging something that's wrong?

And what if staff posted it?

If it's within the line, it's within the line, isn't it?

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 11:38 AM
Do they know they're encouraging something that's wrong?
Aren't they supposed to know as staff?

If it's within the line, it's within the line, isn't it?
So, if say, malicious hacking would give the normal player a 3-day ban, the same would happen to staff and they will not get fired?

Lance
01-14-2006, 11:51 AM
Aren't they supposed to know as staff?

Depends on their position, now doesn't it? You can't win with blanket arguments, buddy.

So, if say, malicious hacking would give the normal player a 3-day ban, the same would happen to staff and they will not get fired?

Please elaborate: what do you mean by 'the same would happen to staff'? Also, what does this have to do with what I said?

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 12:28 PM
You can't win with blanket arguments, buddy.
What's there to win, partner?

Please elaborate: what do you mean by 'the same would happen to staff'? Also, what does this have to do with what I said?
'The same would happen to staff' -> They would get a 3-day ban too.
It is related to what you said as in this scenario staff do something out of the line. So if staff does something out of line, then receive a punishment, would they keep their position?

Although I don't really see how it depends on the position, if the staff member was something in, say, a PR-branch and used the forum regulary, he should know this, right? Because, just as players are supposed to know the rules, so is staff supposed to know, right?

Lance
01-14-2006, 12:34 PM
What's there to win, partner?

The blanket answer you seek. It's not happening.

'The same would happen to staff' -> They would get a 3-day ban too.
It is related to what you said as in this scenario staff do something out of the line. So if staff does something out of line, then receive a punishment, would they keep their position?

Depends on their position, the thing they did out of line, and the feelings of their superiors.

Although I don't really see how it depends on the position, if the staff member was something in, say, a PR-branch and used the forum regulary, he should know this, right? Because, just as players are supposed to know the rules, so is staff supposed to know, right?

It still depends. You can't honestly expect, for example, a UN events team member who doesn't visit the forums to know and understand the rules of said forum.

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 12:51 PM
The blanket answer you seek. It's not happening.
What's a blanket answer?

Depends on their position, the thing they did out of line, and the feelings of their superiors.
So, according to the scenario I gave you earlier...?


It still depends. You can't honestly expect, for example, a UN events team member who doesn't visit the forums to know and understand the rules of said forum.
No, which is why I said that said person visits the forums on a regular basis.

Lance
01-14-2006, 12:55 PM
What's a blanket answer?

Look it up. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blanket)

I'm probably not talking about comfortable woven material.

So, according to the scenario I gave you earlier...?

The PR thing? I would expect regular users of the forums to know the rules, sure. I'd be frequently disappointed, but I'd expect that much.

No, which is why I said that said person visits the forums on a regular basis.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me it doesn't depend on something and offer as proof all but those examples supporting the dependence.

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 01:10 PM
Look it up. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blanket)
I looked up Blanket Answer but it didn't show me anything ;_;

The PR thing? I would expect regular users of the forums to know the rules, sure. I'd be frequently disappointed, but I'd expect that much.
No, the other scenario.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me it doesn't depend on something and offer as proof all but those examples supporting the dependence.
Can't have what both ways? Sorry for not understanding but because of such a long time of exposure to terrible English my English has gone backwards ;_;
That or you just over complicate it.

Lance
01-14-2006, 01:41 PM
No, the other scenario.

The malicious hacking one? That one would depend mostly on the manager. I, for example, would exhibit no tolerance toward my staff and probably would remove them. Other managers might exhibit some more tolerance. I can't speak for them.

Can't have what both ways? Sorry for not understanding but because of such a long time of exposure to terrible English my English has gone backwards ;_;
That or you just over complicate it.

Me: It [the expectation that someone should know something] depends on the staff position.
You: It doesn't depend on the staff position.
Me: *provides example where it would, indeed depend on the staff position*
You: No, it doesn't depend. That's why my specific example/question didn't depend on the staff position.
:whatever:

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 03:42 PM
Me: It [the expectation that someone should know something] depends on the staff position.
You: It doesn't depend on the staff position.
Me: *provides example where it would, indeed depend on the staff position*
You: No, it doesn't depend. That's why my specific example/question didn't depend on the staff position.
:whatever:
So, if someone who knows the forum rules breaks them, it depends on his staff position whether it's bad or not, despite the fact that he should damn well know he broke the rules?

Darlene159
01-14-2006, 04:19 PM
So, if someone who knows the forum rules breaks them, it depends on his staff position whether it's bad or not, despite the fact that he should damn well know he broke the rules?Err, rules are rules...everyone should be treated equally when it comes to rules.

Posting history is against the forum rules regarless of whether the person was given permission or not (with good reason as you can see by the "I had permission" "No you didnt" scenerio).
The poster is the one that breaks the rules if he/she decides to post something against the rules.

I do, however, think that if a staff member is threatening a person (as in threatening ban, jail, etc...) in order to get the person to post something which breaks the rules, should be punished...but there should be significant proof to do so.

I do not think a staff member should be fired if he/she simply asked someone to post something on the forums which broke the rules. The person should just say "No" and move on, but it would make me question the honesty, and integraty (sp) of said staff member if he did, indeed, know what he asked broke the rules.

About the website comment:
It was a harsh comment that should have been worded better to be constructive, and I would say it is on the line of breaking the rules.

I also feel like this thread was made out of anger in order to discredit a staff member. You should know that this is not the way to handle problems, and does not work.

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 04:38 PM
I also feel like this thread was made out of anger in order to discredit a staff member.
I haven't discredited anyone though, now have I? The only ones that got discredited were the staff-members who felt sore because of this thread. I was interested to know if it was illegal so I could discredit a staff member later on, and it definetely wasn't done out of anger because I'm sure most people would know what the thread would look like if it was so.

Darlene159
01-14-2006, 04:49 PM
I haven't discredited anyone though, now have I? The only ones that got discredited were the staff-members who felt sore because of this thread. I was interested to know if it was illegal so I could discredit a staff member later on, and it definetely wasn't done out of anger because I'm sure most people would know what the thread would look like if it was so.Don't misunderstand me, I said I believe the thread was made in an attempt to discredit a staff member. You could have asked the questions that you asked via forum PM otherwise ;)

ApothiX
01-14-2006, 06:17 PM
Moonie is right, it's pretty obvious you're trying to get a member of Staff in trouble (You're also using an event that happened around a year ago to do it.)

GoZelda
01-14-2006, 06:46 PM
Moonie is right, it's pretty obvious you're trying to get a member of Staff in trouble (You're also using an event that happened around a year ago to do it.)
You shouldn't be so assumptous about someone else's intentions because the chance that you're right is about 1 to a thousand. You're part of the 999 failers, congratulations.

ApothiX
01-16-2006, 03:52 PM
You shouldn't be so assumptous about someone else's intentions because the chance that you're right is about 1 to a thousand. You're part of the 999 failers, congratulations.
I'm sorry if I made an assumption based on the fact that every post you had in this thread was attempting to bring forward the fact that a staff member made fun of your crappy website and that same staff member asked you to post history.

Darlene159
01-16-2006, 04:21 PM
Bleh...
In the future, if you have a question about rules, ask the appropriate staff member that might know the answer (IE: staff on PW, forum mods, etc....)
Don't make a thread like this out of spite.
Staff can answer questions on staff related questions easier than the players can....

closed