h4rdc0r3 4 |1ph3

[Maddolis]

Your response was even stronger than your last one- I reckon perhaps I don't see the "worst of it" personally (as when I'm on, we are more preoccupied talking to each other than others), but I will pick out a couple of minor points.

As I tried to emphasise, and already did more clearly in the private HC4L forum, it's not specifically the flaming, more the actions around the flaming. CF was a general ass who got banned from the normal SA-MP forums, from GTANet IRC for major racism and also bothered LVP Staff and players with both racism as discrimination, the flaming was pretty much ignored.

In my opinion the "actions around the flaming" are still related to flaming, whether it be acting smartass or displaying disrespect in some way- either way, its just our disagreeing on the meaning of the word rather than the action.
It also doesn't really matter whether its called "flaming" or something else, I just use the term to generalise anything disrespectful that has been typed on a computer, whether it be directed at anyone or not. No real point in continuing the discussion of what they were banned for (or what its called), as we both have a pretty good idea of it now.

Franky, it does make a difference. Not all administrators are equally experienced and some might even be considered slightly ignorant on some subjects. They certainly are not to blame for this: it's a young community and people have to grow in their roles. The offence here is that shoebox blatantly abused this ignorance, he made the Staffmember believe he'd get the money and made sure to remind him of the money multiple times, causing the Staffmember to get strongly enthusiastic over what he would do with the money.

I still feel that the crewmember should know that perm-bans are one of the more serious aspects of LVP, and require the management to have their say in the ban. Perhaps on recruiting admins, a reasonable cut-off level of maturity should be employed (which I'm sure was the case months ago- but it seems a couple of people in the last half a year or so have been given their positions by simply mini-modding and spending a lot of the time roleplaying, instead of being reasonably smart enough, say, enough to call a bluff as major as shoebox's).

Yes and no. It indeed happened after shoebox got informed of his lifetime ban, he opened up a second IRC client and joined with the nickname "Terrorstepelsonbeer" and started talking to himself. A log can be found by clicking here, do you truly believe friends do that to eachother? You get arrested for shoplifting and say [W]IDmad was in with you, even though he wasn't anywhere close to Australia at the time.

[W]IDmad deserves to go to jail for the disturbing links he posts on irc

On a more serious note, and one of my more major arguments in this post, after reading this, I feel that you were perhaps a bit overzealous on the action of perm-banning people.
Say that it actually was Terror who wrote that, I don't believe the things he said would warrant a perm-ban as much as they would simply putting up with it- or max, +kb'ing from the channel. Terror was uninvolved in the most recent incident (for which shoe and nerd were perm-banned), and say he was called in for moral support and did say the things shown there, looking back on the situation from a more neutral perspective (such as now), you mustn't find those few lines nearly harsh enough to warrant a ban, let a lone a perm-ban.

Perhaps in the same way you were fast to jump on the "permban" button, you have also been slightly harsh on the penalties dealt out unto shoe and terror.

I think it'd be wise to attack the source of this problem (disrespect towards LVP crewmembers)- which I believe stems from how often HC4L and the rest of us see many flamers (such as some sK/RT/BB on occasion, certainly not all, but most) carry on flaming harshly and consistently without punishment, but when the HC4L/us do get punished (whether it be in the presence of sK etc or not), they feel that it is the crewmembers playing favourites, although in some situations it can be simply that no crewmembers were watching on the irc or ingame during the massive sK/whoever flame. I've felt this way often myself, that crewmembers can be biased against me (which, looking back on it, I'd find to be true 60% of the time, or therebouts), and that when I'm on with HC4L with few enemy flamers there's very little (if not no) disrespect towards the administrators.
Perhaps with more equal and constant restrictions on the 'no-flaming' rule on LVP (which is hard, but possible), there'd be less disrespect towards crewmembers.

I still feel that the bans are slightly too harsh, and suggest a sooner unban date (such as in 5 weeks) for two main reasons:
a)I feel you have been overzealous in your punishing various HC4L members recently.
Sure, some punishment is deserved, but for example, the banning in the "tepel incident" was over the top, which was agreed from both sides of the argument- and I do feel that (after reading this and finding you IMO too quick to jump on the "permban" conclusion, beit Terror or not) you have been a little harsher than necessary on them (which, consequently, drives them to act even more rebellious, as I would think from 1st hand experience).
b)It is the end of the year, and many of the LVP players are approaching holidays (I know I hit them almost 4 weeks ago). 8 weeks will feel a lot longer on holidays than it would during school/uni classes.
Besides, Christmas will be over in 5 weeks, and not only will the players feel refreshed but in a good mood, and after 5 weeks without prolonged contact with LVP crewmembers, they will feel less of an urge to rebel.

Please consider 5 weeks as an option

Your Local G~