Forum:ErryK as an OP: Difference between revisions
LightRoxas (talk | contribs) |
(Moving to realm of sleep) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|The World that Never was}} | {{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}} | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Reopening== | |||
Because it is continually brought up, I'm reviving this discussion. Should Erry be reop'd? I say yes, and to save us the trouble, DTN says no. Please discuss below. {{The Inexistentsig}} 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | Because it is continually brought up, I'm reviving this discussion. Should Erry be reop'd? I say yes, and to save us the trouble, DTN says no. Please discuss below. {{The Inexistentsig}} 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
:I second the motion. For real, and for ''all'' the reasons I and everyone else stated above. <sup>'''[[User:Troisnyxetienne|<font color="#4997D0">Tambours</font>]]'''</sup><sub>'''[[User talk:Troisnyxetienne|<font color="#191970">Néant</font>]]'''</sub> '''[[User:Troisnyxetienne/Mensa|<font color="silver">Ensemble !</font>]]''' 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | :I second the motion. For real, and for ''all'' the reasons I and everyone else stated above. <sup>'''[[User:Troisnyxetienne|<font color="#4997D0">Tambours</font>]]'''</sup><sub>'''[[User talk:Troisnyxetienne|<font color="#191970">Néant</font>]]'''</sub> '''[[User:Troisnyxetienne/Mensa|<font color="silver">Ensemble !</font>]]''' 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
::In case it wasn't clearly obvious, it's been '''''roughly''''' a month without any disagreeing replies to my Godtext. As far as I know, this has been interpreted as agreement and an inability to ''dis''agree with the information presented. The sheer fact that there are users who support ErryK getting his channel operator privileges without having even commented or replied to the Godtext shows ignorance and/or weakness of justification. My decision on the matter stands, and I don't think another Godtext is required to make that clear. --{{User:DoorToNothing/Sig}} 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | ::In case it wasn't clearly obvious, it's been '''''roughly''''' a month without any disagreeing replies to my Godtext. As far as I know, this has been interpreted as agreement and an inability to ''dis''agree with the information presented. The sheer fact that there are users who support ErryK getting his channel operator privileges without having even commented or replied to the Godtext shows ignorance and/or weakness of justification. My decision on the matter stands, and I don't think another Godtext is required to make that clear. --{{User:DoorToNothing/Sig}} 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Actually, DTN, the only reason I didn't argue with you is because, frankly, I think this whole stupid thing needs to be over. Arguing with you wasn't gonna do anything, because you were, and are, adamant that you are correct, just as Erry is sure he is correct. Arguing would only push this farther than it already has, which is a bloody ridiculous amount of time I might add. Both you ''and'' Erry, in my mind, were at fault. My solution is that we pretend nothing ever happened, and if anything happens again we hand out some warnings and have a Manufactory go. Continuing this discussion won't get us anywhere. {{User:LightRoxas/Sig}} 13:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | :::Actually, DTN, the only reason I didn't argue with you is because, frankly, I think this whole stupid thing needs to be over. Arguing with you wasn't gonna do anything, because you were, and are, adamant that you are correct, just as Erry is sure he is correct. Arguing would only push this farther than it already has, which is a bloody ridiculous amount of time I might add. Both you ''and'' Erry, in my mind, were at fault. My solution is that we pretend nothing ever happened, and if anything happens again we hand out some warnings and have a Manufactory go. Continuing this discussion won't get us anywhere. {{User:LightRoxas/Sig}} 13:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
{{Xion4ever|time=16:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)|talktext=I've refrained from posting on this forum for quite some time now due to unclear thinking. I've read this entire discussion-including the logs- many times. You know what I see? A blatant disregard of rules. That was the whole cause of this problem, wasn't it? | |||
From the first log: Erry posted a very broad, opinionated statement. (Problem #1) Then, DTN properly says it should be taken elsewhere. (Right thing to do #1) Erry ignores that and keeps going on about staff, this time on our Wiki. (Problem #2) DTN warns him another time. (Right thing to do #2) DTN goes Op and mutes the channel. This is where all breaks loose. SIDEBAR: Now, first and foremost I want to '''''stress''''' that I'm not bashing DTN or Erry on any grounds. They're both hard-working editors in their own respects. </end sidebar> Most people, specifically other Ops, would handle this situation according to their own form of enforcement. Me? I would've warned Erry another time then kicked him off the channel, only if he continued to break the rules, that is. I can understand and agree that DTN had the right to go Op. It's simple: Erry broke the rules a few times, ignored proper warnings from another user- an Op. DTN going Op was understandable. As to muting the channel, that's where personal enforcement comes in. Like I said earlier, I would've warned then kick Erry, and end the problem there. DTN, however, decided to prevent another breaking of rules by muting the channel. I don't believe DTN did this in any direct, intentional attack against Erry. Erry broke the rules, simple as that. As for the spamming of "going Op, removing Op," it was stupid. That's all I can say on that part. | |||
From the second log: Cursing is never the answer. I don't care if you're an Op, regular user, president of whatever, it is not acceptable. Do I have a thing against cursing? No. Do I believe it's a crappy use of words/expression? Oh yeah. We spent a whole forum on this on whether cursing should be allowed, and we're still not following it? Trying to justify the use of such language is not only a pitiful excuse, it's a reflection of a person. It would be like me banning users on the Wiki because no one bothered to answer a question I posted on a talkpage. I could argue that it was justified because I want feedback on something that could help the Wiki, but it isn't. When someone, I mean ANYONE, disregards the rules for anything- be it feedback for the Wiki, an opinion on what shoes to wear with this- you're in the wrong. Now, DTN's little outburst about clowns was annoying and probably shouldn't have been said, but what can you do? Everyone spouts off random nonsense some point in their IRC-"life." I know I have. To continue, Erry was in the wrong to swear and say "but I'm not that one who caused myself to swear." I don't care what stupid nonsense someone on the IRC said or did, you always have the choice. Try private pinging of people, post on multiple talkpages, create a forum. And when DTN said "Channel operators should have the basic ability of self-restraint and control. If you must have retaliated, you could have done so in a politer manner that does not go against channel policy." I will agree with that until the day I die. We, channel operators, are supposed to be the leaders and role-models of the IRC. We are human though. We get in trouble, do stupid things, and all that other stuff. Heck, wasn't Hexedmagica's OP powers removed due to him breaking the rules, with cursing being at the forefront? Just because a staff/op breaks a rule doesn't mean it's excused, or should be seen as such. | |||
To conclude this eyesore wall of text, I say the following: this whole situation was caused by breaking the rules. To specify further, breaking the rules even though people knew them! Such a disregard of rules is not only the users fault, but channel Operators faults the most. We've slacked off on our enforcement. I know I have. The only Op I've seen enforce the rules more strictly while I was online has been DTN. Note: I'm not saying DTN does everything right. He makes mistakes just like I, or anyone else does. Since the transition from #wikia-kingdomhearts I slacked off from where everyone seemed okay with the way things were. I see now that that was a major problem, and I was completely in the wrong to do so. This is my pre-warning to everyone: I don't care whether you're a regular user, a channel Op, or a staff member, you will be following the rules as they are written [http://www.khwiki.net/KHWiki:IRC#Rules here]. Our current ban policy is three warnings, and you're out. Least that's how it was the last I heard. It will be enforced. This problem will not happen again, least not when I'm online. As for re-opping ErryK: The way I see it from the posted logs, he's screwed up twice [diregarding the rules from log number one, and log number two]. If we enforce our "three strikes you're out" kick/banning method to the removal of Ops, Erry has once chance left before removal. So, go for it. Give him back the Ops, but remember, one chance left. That said, I don't know if we already have one or not, but I say we create a channel operator policy. Why? The last few problems we've had on the IRC this past year have been caused by channel operators. We can start a new forum discussion about this, or use the plan I've previously said of "Three strikes, you're out." I don't care either way as long as something is decided. This opinionated, unwritten set we have now obviously isn't working. | |||
I hope everyone learns from this, and moves on. We cannot be slowed by this nonsense. Play nice, work hard, and look at the wonderful place this should be- both Wiki and IRC. I'm sorry for this massive text. Thank you.}} |
Latest revision as of 03:06, 30 June 2014
|
Log[edit]
http://freetexthost.com/50nswa2rlz http://freetexthost.com/ohfxcokkdf
Discussion[edit]
...is there a log? I think reading what happened would help... unless a good chunk of the community was online when this happened. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 01:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'll upload a log as soon as I'm done with setting up the Mirage Arena. Erry 14:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I personally think Erry should stay as an OP. If DTN doesn't take kindly to Erry's criticism he shouldn't have involved the others at the channel by muting the whole channel, he could've just kicked Erry or maybe even gave him a warning via query. In my point of view, Erry's just stating his opinion (or maybe even criticism) and he doesn't even mention the names, he's almost innocent. The17master 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay... what the hell. Erry, in no way, was being unprofessional. And I mean, DTN, really, calling him an unprofessional op for repeatedly trying to unmute the channel? That makes him an inappropriate op? What about your giant kick war with Kryten, where you ended up banning him from the social channel, just for fun? How is that professional? Or the multiple times when users have asked you questions on both the notioceboard and social channels, and only recieved "Beep" or "Boop" as responses? Not helping those who came to seek your aid is definitly not responsable. And like they said above, you shouldn't have muted the channel. That obviously didn't solve anything. Meerly because he stated his own opinion about a completely different site (which, by the way, refuses to affiliate with us, even though they know that we are the more encyclopedic of the two), he shouldn't be kicked for it. I mean, you didn't even supply ample reason why the subject wasn't preferable. Who was it going to hurt? The only FFWiki staff that occasionaly come around our channel are Hexedy and Azul, both of which are primarily inactive. I vote +o for ErryK. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I certainly don't chat enough in IRC to know what is going on with all the -o/+o and the quiet time (why is there such thing anyway) but I don't think Erry's vague criticism is enough to take away his OP rights. Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak his mind when he wants to, as long he does it in appropriate words? And who is zetaBasilisk by the way? --ShardofTruth 17:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Coming from the same place as Shard here, since I'm never really on the IRC, but going by the log Erry wasn't being unprofessional at all. He made a vague critique of another site. ...So? He wasn't cursing and he wasn't naming names. LapisLazuliScarab20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
|
The only thing that is "more to this" as in evidence is the past times I've been rude. But that was not done on purpose. Erry 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
|
|
- Who was Aradooria? KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- But when Kryten, Neumannz, Crono or you swear, oh no, they're not at fault, nobody is, it's all sunshine and rainbows.... truer words have never been spoken (even though Neumannz really doesn't curse that much). This entire argument is the pot calling the kettle black, guys. No matter how much you believe or act, you are no better than anybody else, no matter who you are. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- ...Guys this is getting ridiculous. Seriously. Would it kill someone to simply resolve this case? While Erry did swear, he did it just so he can get some attention and be done with this. Now, at the last roundtable this problem wasn't solved because DTN can't state his opinions yet, but I suggest we get it done at the next meeting. The17master 07:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- But when Kryten, Neumannz, Crono or you swear, oh no, they're not at fault, nobody is, it's all sunshine and rainbows.... truer words have never been spoken (even though Neumannz really doesn't curse that much). This entire argument is the pot calling the kettle black, guys. No matter how much you believe or act, you are no better than anybody else, no matter who you are. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
No one called you a hypocrite, Kryten. It was meerly being said that DTN wouldn't yell at you for cursing, while he would go to the extreme to de'op Erry. You weren't there, and you weren't being called a hypocrite; you were being used as an example to prove the hypocracy of someone else. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 12:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reopening[edit]
Because it is continually brought up, I'm reviving this discussion. Should Erry be reop'd? I say yes, and to save us the trouble, DTN says no. Please discuss below. KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- I second the motion. For real, and for all the reasons I and everyone else stated above. TamboursNéant Ensemble ! 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Re-op him. Just end it now before any other ridiculous arguments happen. LightRoxas 01:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't clearly obvious, it's been roughly a month without any disagreeing replies to my Godtext. As far as I know, this has been interpreted as agreement and an inability to disagree with the information presented. The sheer fact that there are users who support ErryK getting his channel operator privileges without having even commented or replied to the Godtext shows ignorance and/or weakness of justification. My decision on the matter stands, and I don't think another Godtext is required to make that clear. --DTN 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, DTN, the only reason I didn't argue with you is because, frankly, I think this whole stupid thing needs to be over. Arguing with you wasn't gonna do anything, because you were, and are, adamant that you are correct, just as Erry is sure he is correct. Arguing would only push this farther than it already has, which is a bloody ridiculous amount of time I might add. Both you and Erry, in my mind, were at fault. My solution is that we pretend nothing ever happened, and if anything happens again we hand out some warnings and have a Manufactory go. Continuing this discussion won't get us anywhere. LightRoxas 13:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't clearly obvious, it's been roughly a month without any disagreeing replies to my Godtext. As far as I know, this has been interpreted as agreement and an inability to disagree with the information presented. The sheer fact that there are users who support ErryK getting his channel operator privileges without having even commented or replied to the Godtext shows ignorance and/or weakness of justification. My decision on the matter stands, and I don't think another Godtext is required to make that clear. --DTN 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
|