The new spray rule is not going to work out.

Siberiac · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:17 pm

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Xanderian wrote:

Honestly, I'd just tell people not to be a smartass if they claim that something is disturbing when it's really not, and start punishing them. It's fucked up, but honestly I'd say it's also fucked up for them to try taking apart every little rule. I've started getting more strict in how I deal with those type of people.

At the same time, however, I'd say Mootinie's suggestion on how to word the rule works pretty well.

Siberiac, he actually gave some good responses from what I can tell and they did go against your argument. I won't say I agree with the points he's made, but they are there and they do counter yours. What I think he's trying to say is that he wants it to be more specific so all admins enforce the same way so as not to confuse players. I don't really agree with that, but I do see the point he's trying to make

In other words, it's not that the original rule doesn't include all that, it's that it's way too broad and includes too much. (Or too little, in the cases of some admins not finding anything disturbing at all)

Why wouldn't you want the admins to enforce rules equally in the same way? There would be less confusion and more fairness. Less confusion and more fairness = better gameplay.

It isn't that we don't want them to, that's why we have all told you to make a report about it.

Let me see if i can break it down for you in a different way

When you make rules so specific that they try to cover everything, if anything doesn't fall under that rule it's considered okay to do. The reason the rule was changed to be more vague was to give MORE power to the people that enforce them. Things that were covered under all aforementioned rules are all considered disturbing by our communities standards. The rules were voted on last week by the people who actually have to enforce them, and were changed to these wordings so we can do what we need to do.

By having something so specific you open yourself to loopholes, when leaving more interpretation to the administrators, you don't have to be specific. If one tells you it's disturbing, then you change it. If you disagree, come to the forums and ask. If you think something that is disturbing is sliding by, but nobody else in the community thinks it is disturbing, then your visions don't align with ours. If there is an admin who thinks something isn't disturbing that everyone else thinks is, come to the forums. This allows us to shape our community and our admins to live by the same standards, but not to be oppressed by super specific rules, and people on the internet who think they're lawyers.

PrimeLGTV · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:31 pm

Ok. Since you want me to counter every spot of your "massive statements," here we go...

Siberiac wrote:

It isn't that we don't want them to, that's why we have all told you to make a report about it.
All means 100%. Not 100% of posters in this thread explicitly agreed that I should make a report every time this situation occurs. (I even discussed the problems of making a report.)

Let me see if i can break it down for you in a different way
No, I'll break it down for you. I'll write in red.

When you make rules so specific that they try to cover everything, if anything doesn't fall under that rule it's considered okay to do. For the one millionth time, there is a no smartass rule. The reason the rule was changed to be more vague was to give MORE power to the people that enforce them. That's illogical. Making something general, does not magically make the admins have more power. It makes things confusing. Things that were covered under all aforementioned rules are all considered disturbing by our communities standards. The rules were voted on last week by the people who actually have to enforce them, and were changed to these wordings so we can do what we need to do. Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

By having something so specific you open yourself to loopholes (wut...), when leaving more interpretation to the administrators, you don't have to be specific. If one tells you it's disturbing, then you change it. If you disagree, come to the forums and ask. If you think something that is disturbing is sliding by, but nobody else in the community thinks it is disturbing, then your visions don't align with ours. If there is an admin who thinks something isn't disturbing that everyone else thinks is, come to the forums. This allows us to shape our community and our admins to live by the same standards, but not to be oppressed by super specific rules, and people on the internet who think they're lawyers. My brother is a lawyer; it's not shocking that I'm willing to decode a problem for the benefit of the EgN community and general player population. Everything you just said in this paragraph is repetitive, irrelevant, and incorrect.

SemiAutoNoob · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:34 pm

Siberiac said it as plain as it gets.

I get what your saying but you've said it and now your just repeating yourself.

My logic is on point.
Example: I do not have a problem with any spray until someone else has a problem with the spray.

PrimeLGTV · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:39 pm

SemiAutoNoob wrote:

Siberiac said it as plain as it gets.

I get what your saying but you've said it and now your just repeating yourself. (No... no I'm not.)

My logic is on point. (okay?) (Not sure if you know what logic is.)
Example: I do not have a problem with any spray until someone else has a problem with the spray.

Was Semi at this "admin meeting?"

I think he's lost.

Siberiac · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:42 pm

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Ok. Since you want me to counter every spot of your "massive statements," here we go...

Siberiac wrote:

It isn't that we don't want them to, that's why we have all told you to make a report about it.
All means 100%. Not 100% of posters in this thread explicitly agreed that I should make a report every time this situation occurs. (I even discussed the problems of making a report.)

Let me see if i can break it down for you in a different way
No, I'll break it down for you. I'll write in red.

When you make rules so specific that they try to cover everything, if anything doesn't fall under that rule it's considered okay to do. For the one millionth time, there is a no smartass rule. The reason the rule was changed to be more vague was to give MORE power to the people that enforce them. That's illogical. Making something general, does not magically make the admins have more power. It makes things confusing. Things that were covered under all aforementioned rules are all considered disturbing by our communities standards. The rules were voted on last week by the people who actually have to enforce them, and were changed to these wordings so we can do what we need to do. Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

By having something so specific you open yourself to loopholes (wut...), when leaving more interpretation to the administrators, you don't have to be specific. If one tells you it's disturbing, then you change it. If you disagree, come to the forums and ask. If you think something that is disturbing is sliding by, but nobody else in the community thinks it is disturbing, then your visions don't align with ours. If there is an admin who thinks something isn't disturbing that everyone else thinks is, come to the forums. This allows us to shape our community and our admins to live by the same standards, but not to be oppressed by super specific rules, and people on the internet who think they're lawyers. My brother is a lawyer; it's not shocking that I'm willing to decode a problem for the benefit of the EgN community and general player population. Everything you just said in this paragraph is repetitive, irrelevant, and incorrect.

It is repetitive, but it is not irrelevant and incorrect. Your arguments against it have no ground to stand on. If you believe the no smartass rule would cover all the things the other rule doesn't cover, then why do you believe it doesn't cover them now? Since you didn't seem to understand the loophole portion, it's referring to the exact same thing earlier in the statement. If it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, people believe it's okay, and it's not.

As for your statement

Quote:

Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

The reason that they are qualified, is because they are the people who ultimately hold the community together. Without the donation of these people to keep everything alive there would be no EgN, and there would be no JailBreak for you to complain about. That is what qualifies them, and it's completely true.

P.S. I would like to mention that i have no attachment to this rule, as it is going to be enforced in the exact same way. If the higher ups wish to put it to a community wide vote, so be it, but i'm a firm believer that this is easier to cover for our sakes.

PrimeLGTV · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:51 pm

Siberiac wrote:

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Ok. Since you want me to counter every spot of your "massive statements," here we go...

Siberiac wrote:

It isn't that we don't want them to, that's why we have all told you to make a report about it.
All means 100%. Not 100% of posters in this thread explicitly agreed that I should make a report every time this situation occurs. (I even discussed the problems of making a report.)

Let me see if i can break it down for you in a different way
No, I'll break it down for you. I'll write in red.

When you make rules so specific that they try to cover everything, if anything doesn't fall under that rule it's considered okay to do. For the one millionth time, there is a no smartass rule. The reason the rule was changed to be more vague was to give MORE power to the people that enforce them. That's illogical. Making something general, does not magically make the admins have more power. It makes things confusing. Things that were covered under all aforementioned rules are all considered disturbing by our communities standards. The rules were voted on last week by the people who actually have to enforce them, and were changed to these wordings so we can do what we need to do. Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

By having something so specific you open yourself to loopholes (wut...), when leaving more interpretation to the administrators, you don't have to be specific. If one tells you it's disturbing, then you change it. If you disagree, come to the forums and ask. If you think something that is disturbing is sliding by, but nobody else in the community thinks it is disturbing, then your visions don't align with ours. If there is an admin who thinks something isn't disturbing that everyone else thinks is, come to the forums. This allows us to shape our community and our admins to live by the same standards, but not to be oppressed by super specific rules, and people on the internet who think they're lawyers. My brother is a lawyer; it's not shocking that I'm willing to decode a problem for the benefit of the EgN community and general player population. Everything you just said in this paragraph is repetitive, irrelevant, and incorrect.

It is repetitive, but it is not irrelevant and incorrect. Your arguments against it have no ground to stand on. If you believe the no smartass rule would cover all the things the other rule doesn't cover, then why do you believe it doesn't cover them now? Since you didn't seem to understand the loophole portion, it's referring to the exact same thing earlier in the statement. If it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, people believe it's okay, and it's not.

As for your statement

Quote:

Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

The reason that they are qualified, is because they are the people who ultimately hold the community together. Without the donation of these people to keep everything alive there would be no EgN, and there would be no JailBreak for you to complain about. That is what qualifies them, and it's completely true.

P.S. I would like to mention that i have no attachment to this rule, as it is going to be enforced in the exact same way. If the higher ups wish to put it to a community wide vote, so be it, but i'm a firm believer that this is easier to cover for our sakes.

Money should NOT qualify people to take part in exclusive voting processes for the community.

Siberiac · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:54 pm

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Siberiac wrote:

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Ok. Since you want me to counter every spot of your "massive statements," here we go...

Siberiac wrote:

It isn't that we don't want them to, that's why we have all told you to make a report about it.
All means 100%. Not 100% of posters in this thread explicitly agreed that I should make a report every time this situation occurs. (I even discussed the problems of making a report.)

Let me see if i can break it down for you in a different way
No, I'll break it down for you. I'll write in red.

When you make rules so specific that they try to cover everything, if anything doesn't fall under that rule it's considered okay to do. For the one millionth time, there is a no smartass rule. The reason the rule was changed to be more vague was to give MORE power to the people that enforce them. That's illogical. Making something general, does not magically make the admins have more power. It makes things confusing. Things that were covered under all aforementioned rules are all considered disturbing by our communities standards. The rules were voted on last week by the people who actually have to enforce them, and were changed to these wordings so we can do what we need to do. Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

By having something so specific you open yourself to loopholes (wut...), when leaving more interpretation to the administrators, you don't have to be specific. If one tells you it's disturbing, then you change it. If you disagree, come to the forums and ask. If you think something that is disturbing is sliding by, but nobody else in the community thinks it is disturbing, then your visions don't align with ours. If there is an admin who thinks something isn't disturbing that everyone else thinks is, come to the forums. This allows us to shape our community and our admins to live by the same standards, but not to be oppressed by super specific rules, and people on the internet who think they're lawyers. My brother is a lawyer; it's not shocking that I'm willing to decode a problem for the benefit of the EgN community and general player population. Everything you just said in this paragraph is repetitive, irrelevant, and incorrect.

It is repetitive, but it is not irrelevant and incorrect. Your arguments against it have no ground to stand on. If you believe the no smartass rule would cover all the things the other rule doesn't cover, then why do you believe it doesn't cover them now? Since you didn't seem to understand the loophole portion, it's referring to the exact same thing earlier in the statement. If it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, people believe it's okay, and it's not.

As for your statement

Quote:

Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

The reason that they are qualified, is because they are the people who ultimately hold the community together. Without the donation of these people to keep everything alive there would be no EgN, and there would be no JailBreak for you to complain about. That is what qualifies them, and it's completely true.

P.S. I would like to mention that i have no attachment to this rule, as it is going to be enforced in the exact same way. If the higher ups wish to put it to a community wide vote, so be it, but i'm a firm believer that this is easier to cover for our sakes.

Money should NOT qualify people to take part in exclusive voting processes for the community.

It completely should. You do not have to enforce the rules, the people who have donated and been deemed responsible do. That is why the rules are set by us, agreed on by us, and altered by us.

As i stated previously, the community wouldn't even exist for you to play on without the help of all these people who donate monthly, just so they can enforce rules, and get bitched at. If that doesn't qualify them I don't know what does.

As Kharn has stated before, while we like to keep this community to as close of a democracy as possible, we aren't required to at all. It is a "business" of sorts, and thus the "shareholders", if you will, are the ones that hold the power.

SemiAutoNoob · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:59 pm

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Siberiac wrote:

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Ok. Since you want me to counter every spot of your "massive statements," here we go...

Siberiac wrote:

It isn't that we don't want them to, that's why we have all told you to make a report about it.
All means 100%. Not 100% of posters in this thread explicitly agreed that I should make a report every time this situation occurs. (I even discussed the problems of making a report.)

Let me see if i can break it down for you in a different way
No, I'll break it down for you. I'll write in red.

When you make rules so specific that they try to cover everything, if anything doesn't fall under that rule it's considered okay to do. For the one millionth time, there is a no smartass rule. The reason the rule was changed to be more vague was to give MORE power to the people that enforce them. That's illogical. Making something general, does not magically make the admins have more power. It makes things confusing. Things that were covered under all aforementioned rules are all considered disturbing by our communities standards. The rules were voted on last week by the people who actually have to enforce them, and were changed to these wordings so we can do what we need to do. Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

By having something so specific you open yourself to loopholes (wut...), when leaving more interpretation to the administrators, you don't have to be specific. If one tells you it's disturbing, then you change it. If you disagree, come to the forums and ask. If you think something that is disturbing is sliding by, but nobody else in the community thinks it is disturbing, then your visions don't align with ours. If there is an admin who thinks something isn't disturbing that everyone else thinks is, come to the forums. This allows us to shape our community and our admins to live by the same standards, but not to be oppressed by super specific rules, and people on the internet who think they're lawyers. My brother is a lawyer; it's not shocking that I'm willing to decode a problem for the benefit of the EgN community and general player population. Everything you just said in this paragraph is repetitive, irrelevant, and incorrect.

It is repetitive, but it is not irrelevant and incorrect. Your arguments against it have no ground to stand on. If you believe the no smartass rule would cover all the things the other rule doesn't cover, then why do you believe it doesn't cover them now? Since you didn't seem to understand the loophole portion, it's referring to the exact same thing earlier in the statement. If it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, people believe it's okay, and it's not.

As for your statement

Quote:

Just because you people voted on something, doesn't mean it can't be reverted. And I'm not gonna lie, there are many admins (representations of EgN) that should not qualify to vote in such decisions.

The reason that they are qualified, is because they are the people who ultimately hold the community together. Without the donation of these people to keep everything alive there would be no EgN, and there would be no JailBreak for you to complain about. That is what qualifies them, and it's completely true.

P.S. I would like to mention that i have no attachment to this rule, as it is going to be enforced in the exact same way. If the higher ups wish to put it to a community wide vote, so be it, but i'm a firm believer that this is easier to cover for our sakes.

Money should NOT qualify people to take part in exclusive voting processes for the community.

I thought this topic was about a specific rule now you want to go and change our process too! You just don't seem happy with EgN at all. I implore you to open your mind a little bit and let us filter in our egn goodness.
#JailBreakTheSemiWay

PrimeLGTV · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:00 pm

PrimeLGTV wrote:

Money should NOT qualify people to take part in exclusive voting processes for the community.

Siberiac wrote:

It completely should. You do not have to enforce the rules, the people who have donated and been deemed responsible do. That is why the rules are set by us, agreed on by us, and altered by us.

As i stated previously, the community wouldn't even exist for you to play on without the help of all these people who donate monthly, just so they can enforce rules, and get bitched at. If that doesn't qualify them I don't know what does.

As Kharn has stated before, while we like to keep this community to as close of a democracy as possible, we aren't required to at all. It is a "business" of sorts, and thus the "shareholders", if you will, are the ones that hold the power.

Well Siberiac, what would qualify someone to participate in such votes is responsibility, personal limits, leadership, maturity, etc. You wouldn't want an immature asshole making decisions because of the money he has, would you?

Mootinie · **Posted:** Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:10 pm

If all admins agree that a big hairy dick is considered "disturbing" and shouldn't be somebody's spray then I can't quite see why that can't be clearly named and labelled in the rule set. It avoids confusion, it removes the need for drama, it sets a boundary for all the Jail Break players to adhere to. You draw a line under it. It's there, plain to see in written text that big hairy dicks are not to be sprayed. "Oh but I don't think it's disturbing and only one person has a problem with it" - quiet, it's there in the rules that your spray is not allowed.

Admins are already vilified enough and I'm concerned that this new ruling might widen the divide further between Jail Break players and admins. If that divide still exists, I may stand corrected in this sentence.

Adding specifics to the rule later on might have been your intention all along. If so, tell me to shut up and attend the next admin meeting.

On a side note: You can even brag about how your community voted democratically on the ruling and such a thing being considered "disturbing" was a majority vote. I know EgN doesn't care for such posturing but displaying these kind of membership perks to new members can be alluring.

Register

Login

The new spray rule is not going to work out.

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online