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?

Can you wash your damn laundry wherelese?

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

- Niki

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.

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.

no sry we r hoboz we kant afrod 2

We do.

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

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).

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.

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

Finally someone stops this chaos in this post x-x

But, all in all, it is a bad thing right?

And what if staff posted it?

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

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

Aren't they supposed to know as staff?

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?

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

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

What's there to win, partner?

'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?

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

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

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.

What's a blanket answer?

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


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

Look it up.

I'm probably not talking about comfortable woven material.

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.

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.

I looked up Blanket Answer but it didn't show me anything ;_;

No, the other scenario.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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