Censorship

[Leon.]

The irrelevancy of some responses to Woka's posts are laughable, despicable, and disappointing - all at once. Some sure do show they know the spirit of debate so gosh-darned well!

[Gandalf]

Gandalf - there is no substance in your responses to refute providing justification not to respond since I'll be going around the same loop as you have been. I've already explained and disageed that the context of the topic was relevant to the definition but you seem to be oblivious to this. I've categorically argued my points in this topic, only to be perhaps intentionally ignored or given irrelevant cloudly replies.

Zaila, I don't quite understand the point/meaning of your post - could you elaborate?

I see that you prefer to dodge my reply, as it was a clear cut case. The one who is attempting to use long texts that are unreadable for most is you, do not try to put that on me.

Now please answer the following points I made:
1. Do you agree that by your definition the job od the administration is to censor?
2. Do you agree that the administration has the right to decide if a discussion is suitable for the public chat at that time?
3. Do you agree that any attempt to undermine the rights of the administration should be punished?

[Gandalf]

The irrelevancy of some responses to Woka's posts are laughable, despicable, and disappointing - all at once. Some sure do show they know the spirit of debate so gosh-darned well!

What is laughable is that you do not know the difference between Waka_Flocka and Woka.

[Shorty.]

The irrelevancy of some responses to Woka's posts are laughable, despicable, and disappointing - all at once. Some sure do show they know the spirit of debate so gosh-darned well!

Now should i laugh ? or what ?

[Frank_Hawk]

I see that you prefer to dodge my reply, as it was a clear cut case. The one who is attempting to use long texts that are unreadable for most is you, do not try to put that on me.

Now please answer the following points I made:
1. Do you agree that by your definition the job od the administration is to censor?
2. Do you agree that the administration has the right to decide if a discussion is suitable for the public chat at that time?
3. Do you agree that any attempt to undermine the rights of the administration should be punished?

Actively clouding your answers with mist is pointless if you want a concise response back.

The definition of censorship is not of primary concern but of how the broad application of it relates to this scenario whereby a topic which was not convincingly controversial was restrained from being discussed. Fundamentally, the expectation of the admin team is to censor out explicit content in /p but not to police the chat based on personal opinions except those which are widely recognised as being unacceptable i.e. nazism.  This topic does not fall under that classification.

The time is of limited relevance and the community should be able to bring up suitable topics at their own leisure. The admins have a right to prevent a subject if it falls under the terms stated in point 1 but can be questioned through reasonable means where excessive/outright unjustified decisions are applied.

It depends on the circumstances especially since your question is vague (perhaps intentionally), but in the example I’ve given to date it would not be appropriate since the Argonath vision, statement 2 dictates that Argonath ‘gives equal rights to new, experienced and admin players’ and also ‘does not give any of our players rights to act as better, higher or having more status as another’.


Like I said before in this topic, my time is scarce but out of courtesy I’ve replied to you as soon as I could. Since we’ve already seemingly established that you will not be denouncing the action that took place, promoting undue censorship and subsequently opening a wider concern – we can bring this to a close. Otherwise if you address a reply to me, you might have to wait a while until I can respond to your posts (where it is of relevance) duly.

[Gandalf]

You accuse me of putting long posts circumventing an answer, yet you write an essay on 3 simple questions.

You made adefinition in your post, I requested you twice to give a definition.  As you declined to do so I used yours to show that you are completely off the mark with your accusations and jumping to things that are completely beside the issue.

Now you come back with another couple of essays that do not answer the points I made. I wonder how you can say the definition is beside the tpi, as it is the topic name.
So please answer my questions before I will use your definition of censorship on you.

[Frank_Hawk]

You accuse me of putting long posts circumventing an answer, yet you write an essay on 3 simple questions.

You made adefinition in your post, I requested you twice to give a definition.  As you declined to do so I used yours to show that you are completely off the mark with your accusations and jumping to things that are completely beside the issue.

Now you come back with another couple of essays that do not answer the points I made. I wonder how you can say the definition is beside the tpi, as it is the topic name.
So please answer my questions before I will use your definition of censorship on you.

There is a difference between a paragraph and an essay - seemingly you have no distinction between the two.

But since you might be straining to extract the right information, I'll happily put it down in black and white for you should it help:

Actively clouding your answers with mist is pointless if you want a concise response back.

The definition of censorship is not of primary concern but of how the broad application of it relates to this scenario whereby a topic which was not convincingly controversial was restrained from being discussed. Fundamentally, the expectation of the admin team is to censor out explicit content in /p but not to police the chat based on personal opinions except those which are widely recognised as being unacceptable i.e. nazism.  This topic does not fall under that classification.

The time is of limited relevance and the community should be able to bring up suitable topics at their own leisure. The admins have a right to prevent a subject if it falls under the terms stated in point 1 but can be questioned through reasonable means where excessive/outright unjustified decisions are applied.

It depends on the circumstances especially since your question is vague (perhaps intentionally), but in the example I’ve given to date it would not be appropriate since the Argonath vision, statement 2 dictates that Argonath ‘gives equal rights to new, experienced and admin players’ and also ‘does not give any of our players rights to act as better, higher or having more status as another’.


Like I said before in this topic, my time is scarce but out of courtesy I’ve replied to you as soon as I could. Since we’ve already seemingly established that you will not be denouncing the action that took place, promoting undue censorship and subsequently opening a wider concern – we can bring this to a close. Otherwise if you address a reply to me, you might have to wait a while until I can respond to your posts (where it is of relevance) duly.

There has been no accusation of you 'putting long posts circumventing an answer' but I've expressed concern at your clouded answers who provide no real underlying message. If I'm incorrect, please provide evidence in this thread otherwise duly retract your statement. As for the topic name, this topic has digressed over the course of time. If it helps, I'll be happy to rename it to the context of the subject that triggered it.  Also, the answers I've provided are defined, structured and to the point fulfilling the need of the questions you've asked. 

[Gandalf]

Once again you try to cirumvent giving an answer.

You state a definition of censorship, and then mention the same definition is irrelevant.

As I mentioned clearly the task of the admin team is to review and administer the server, and that includes keeping an eye on public chat.
While the Argonath Vision allows a freedom of discussion, the players still enter a game server and not a chatroom. There for once the topic is in the eye of any of the administration team too far away from the game, they have the right and even obligation to act.

The topic discussed at the time is not relevant, nor is if the people raising the topic are new players or veterans or even members of the administration. What is relevant is that the administration has the right to request a discussion to be dropped, and the community does not have the possibility to override that as that would lead to anarchy.

Ther for your attempts to distract by looking at the content of the topic are completely irrelevant, indeed the topic could ahve been cats. Also your attempt to show this is proving that we do not care for veterans is incorrect as the acts of administration are not related to the person but to their view the public chat was distracting from the game play.

[Frank_Hawk]

Once again you try to cirumvent giving an answer.

You state a definition of censorship, and then mention the same definition is irrelevant.

As I mentioned clearly the task of the admin team is to review and administer the server, and that includes keeping an eye on public chat.
While the Argonath Vision allows a freedom of discussion, the players still enter a game server and not a chatroom. There for once the topic is in the eye of any of the administration team too far away from the game, they have the right and even obligation to act.

The topic discussed at the time is not relevant, nor is if the people raising the topic are new players or veterans or even members of the administration. What is relevant is that the administration has the right to request a discussion to be dropped, and the community does not have the possibility to override that as that would lead to anarchy.

Ther for your attempts to distract by looking at the content of the topic are completely irrelevant, indeed the topic could ahve been cats. Also your attempt to show this is proving that we do not care for veterans is incorrect as the acts of administration are not related to the person but to their view the public chat was distracting from the game play.

Failure to see responses in the intended/expected layout you desire does not classify as evading your points. In fact if anything your constant claim, represents a sense of insecurity at best since tried and tested methods are not working as well with me as they have with others in the past.

1) The definition of censorship is defined and remains unchanged. Asking the same question over and over and expecting a different reply is an act of insanity or failure to grasp what is being said. What is important though is how the definition is applied to the context of the situation. It has been argued repeatedly that since the subject did not contravene the unsaid guidelines of appropriate censorship meaning it should have been allowed to be discussed. You have openly disagreed claiming the admin has pure discretion over the subject and its continuity meaning that should they not like cats being talked about in /p, they have the right to stop the discussion on cats without the players being able to question why -  which is flawed.

2) I agree in nearly all cases but for those that are too far fetched even for the most tolerating veterans should be highlighted so that the practise is stopped and not repeated in the future especially towards somebody less capable of defending themselves. We have a responsiblity to uphold the vision, but those who are true patriots of the community need to defend the community from the community itself.

3) We differ in opnion since I believe the content is hugely important (read by points above). Also in terms of purposely showing the leadership/you in a bad light when caring about veterans interests in this scenario remains true in my view, especially given the demeaning false accusations throughout this topic being a testament to that. That said, our passion for the community is willing to look past it knowing the sarifices we collectively make.

[Purple_HaZe]

Man you guys need to chill. who cares wether u can say certain things or not over /p. not the end of the world.

P.s Gandalf.. I heard a rumor you made an agreement to let woka back in ? for money $?!
 

[Ragdoll]

Frank, why is it that you choose to come back after a long period of inactivity just to start up controversy once more?

[Shorty.]

P.s Gandalf.. I heard a rumor you made an agreement to let woka back in ? for money $?!
 

I heard the same , I aslo heard that Woka have a secret account , he plays argo too .. I don't know if this true or fales .

[Gandalf]

Failure to see responses in the intended/expected layout you desire does not classify as evading your points. In fact if anything your constant claim, represents a sense of insecurity at best since tried and tested methods are not working as well with me as they have with others in the past.

1) The definition of censorship is defined and remains unchanged. Asking the same question over and over and expecting a different reply is an act of insanity or failure to grasp what is being said. What is important though is how the definition is applied to the context of the situation. It has been argued repeatedly that since the subject did not contravene the unsaid guidelines of appropriate censorship meaning it should have been allowed to be discussed. You have openly disagreed claiming the admin has pure discretion over the subject and its continuity meaning that should they not like cats being talked about in /p, they have the right to stop the discussion on cats without the players being able to question why -  which is flawed.

You are correct, if the administration would for whatever reason wish a discussion of cats to be dropped it would have to be dropped. Once again, you are in a game server and not a chat server. While we do allow off-topic discussion and banter, it is the perogative of the administration to determine when a topic should be dropped.

In the case thet player feels single members of the adminitration act too limiting they have one single possible action. That is not posting a raging topic on forum, but send an email to have the case reviewed.

2) I agree in nearly all cases but for those that are too far fetched even for the most tolerating veterans should be highlighted so that the practise is stopped and not repeated in the future especially towards somebody less capable of defending themselves. We have a responsiblity to uphold the vision, but those who are true patriots of the community need to defend the community from the community itself.

As I have said time and time again, I welcome any kind of critcism or constructive suggestions. And if they happen to come from (active) veterans they will usually be considered more serious, even if I do not forget that new members of the Argonath community are not necessarily new to any form of roleplay or community behaviour.

That is something that I unfortunately see many veterans miss, all too often the date of arrival is seen as the first time someone ever opened a game and the newly arrived are treated as such.

3) We differ in opnion since I believe the content is hugely important (read by points above). Also in terms of purposely showing the leadership/you in a bad light when caring about veterans interests in this scenario remains true in my view, especially given the demeaning false accusations throughout this topic being a testament to that. That said, our passion for the community is willing to look past it knowing the sarifices we collectively make.

Please point at any false accusations in order to correct them.
As for the content of the topic, the first point makes it clear, so for the rest we can only agree to disagree on this.

[Gandalf]

Man you guys need to chill. who cares wether u can say certain things or not over /p. not the end of the world.

P.s Gandalf.. I heard a rumor you made an agreement to let woka back in ? for money $?!
 

That rumour is competely false. We do not unban players for money, nor do we sell anything.

As for Woka, I have mentioned to him that I am not in favour of withc hunting. If people manage to ban evade and play as a normal member of the community without revealing their original account or returning to bad habits of rule breaking, I do not care.
However as soon as they start revealing themselves to others, or if they get the attention of the administration by rule breaking which might reveal their account is evading a ban, the rules state there is no alternative but to ban them.

Ban evading does not take a lot of skills, I see no reason why people think it is an accomplishment.

[TheLegitHabibi]

If people manage to ban evade and play as a normal member of the community without revealing their original account or returning to bad habits of rule breaking, I do not care.

So you're basically sayin, I can ban evade without revealing my identity. And that's completely allowed now?

Why are many players then banned for "ban evading".

Exceptions included, MOST players never reveal their identity on their ban evading account simply because they don't want to get caught. But still, they get banned sooner or later, regardless of the fact if they revealed their identity or not. Mostly you guys catch him and ban him yourself because their IPs are similar.

So what you're saying is, Ban Evading is now allowed? And Managers are wrong when they ban players, who haven't revealed themselves, for ban evading?