h4rdc0r3 4 |1ph3

[Peter]

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.
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.

It's simply the way they share their disrespect towards our authority, compare it to a birthday party: it's your birthday and you bought a pie. A friend of yours brings two of his friends, who you do not personally know, and these two friends start eating the whole pie. You want other people to get a piece as well, so you tell them to stop eating the pie after which they slap you in the face and continue eating the pie. What would you do, condone it or telling them to leave?

The same applies here, we provide a free service and they refuse to follow our rules, after which we tell them to stop. Until that part it's fine: other clans and clanless people get there as well, however, Nerd and shoebox then slap us in the face and continue. We asked them to leave, in fact, forced them to leave by banning or kicking them. Not just one time, no, 76 times.

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).

I agree, but then again, smart and mature people are considerably rare in this community. It's more difficult to find fighters as moderators, seeing they usually are driven by emotions whereas role-players want to develop strategies and invent new ways of playing, it's a fundamental difference. Someone who isolates himself, plays nicely and reports everything that's out of order seems an easier candidate than someone who constantly spams adminchat with that single person who teleports away from his fight. Nevertheless, it should be noteworthy that even [NB]DrVibrator gets temp-mod status frequently and FateTrip is a moderator. estroe was the leader of BB and now is a Management member, while various other members of the crew are also involved with clans.

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.

You have to realise there have been frequent discussions about clan-banning HC4L as a whole. Nerd and shoebox continued to piss off crew members time upon time, and after 26 bans it's safe to say most of the crew would be quite pleased to see them leaving. They simply refuse to learn; I'll go more into detail after your next quote.

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.

Frankly, I too am biased against you. You're in my opinion the best argumentative person around on Las Venturas Playground, however, on other occasions you're a total ass and I'd love to ban you. I'm however more relaxed in ignoring the latter due to your ability to have proper discussions, plus the fact that I have to read huge messages if I ban you.

Back on-topic however, I'm willing to cut the ban back to new year on one strong condition: I want properly written letters from both Nerd as shoebox in which they apologize towards the LVP Staff and express that they have understood and accepted the reason of their ban. They also have to understand that future incidents around them will result in ban times of two weeks times the incident count (e.g. 2 weeks for the first incident, 4 for the second, 6 for the third etc.). Any grounded rumours about them not meaning it seriously will make this deal void.

Your turn,
Peter