Save the shard! Vote for the Zero Tolerance Bill!

[OldManAlewar]

all i can really say is wow, lots of "children" in the forums who really dont read, or when they do, they only see what they wanna see.

Seriously Llexa, get off the high-horse.

Your own posts have ranged from willfully ignorant to downright insulting, you've sidestepped valid arguments, outright ignored others and now accuse others of your own behavior.

now on to technicality:
Forgiveness is the act of not letting someone's actions have negative consequences anymore.
Both you and black death are slightly off in the use of the word. one could jail someone for 3 days, but forgive and free them after one.

Black death's reference to WWJD is actually quire adept: your arguments, whether you intend this or not, have a strongly religious-right "think of the children" aftertaste.
Referencing WWJD in this contact is not 'ridiculous', it is perhaps in poor taste, but not ridiculous.

your discussion with violette:
you champion 'zero-tolerance' as a 'system' where there are consequences for every action, but not every consequence need be a ban or jail.
This, in my eyes, leaves a "warning" as a possible consequence. (and as i hear from reliable sources, rayne's warnings are something to be feared)

this in effect is the current situation.

and i could go on...


also, get your definition of 'freedom' right. Freedom is not the lapel-pin the president wears, freedom according to the dictionary: ( i would like to point your attention to #2 and #3)

freeâ‹…dom
 
 /ˈfridəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [free-duhm]
–noun
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.

Now, as an american you should know, llexa, that in a constitutional definition freedoms means to be exempt from GOVERNMENT (in this case: staff) regulation.

real life doesn't even offer that kind of corruption on that high of a level.

the constitution begs to differ ...

so if you want to get technical about words, make sure you know what they mean.



now let me (again!) be perfectly clear: this is not personal, i have nothing against you as a person or as a player, but this thread was by far not your finest hour, and not because of childish people, but because of what you said, and most importantly how.

lets face it, at one point your post could basically be summed up as:

Hurr durr, if you're not with us then you're with the terrorists, hurr

and as for how 'great' zero tolerance is lets check some real world examples:
* death penalty on homosexuality in Iran (not working, people are still born gay)
* Three strikes law oon drugs in america (not working, humans still love to get high)
* Thai ban on being critical of the king (the place is about to break out a can of Civil war)

your riposte would be the wonderfull example of, why yes: Lets all go live in a PRISON-style world.
a prison, in case you didn't notice, is EXACTLY *not* having 'freedom'

Not to mention the fact this will turn admins into jailors and leave them no time for events.



So really, seriously, for the love of Buddy Christ :
stop polishing the brass on the titanic

[OldManAlewar]

@bubba ho tep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").

[Bubba Ho Tep]

@bubba ho tep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").

Guess I'm off the hook then, since I didn't call her a fascist seriuosly, but only said she's as much it as we are exploiters.
Shame she did understood it as being called a fascist.
I do confess mockery after that, though. But no Goodwin law about it, huh?

(...) the poll was not meant to be a more-then-one-choice it was meant to be a petition. the 2nd option is very vague for that reason. i don't want a poll for those who "aren't interested" its a PETITION for those who are FOR it. so the 2nd answer is vague enough that people will just not use it and be on their way if they don't want to vote FOR it. you dont walk around with a petition with a spot for people who dont want to be involved in your cause. people who say no, you walk right past and on to the next. its a PRO ZERO TOLERANCE PETITION. there is really no other way for me to explain for a 101st time.
(...) the ENTIRE point of this thread was offering up zero tolerance as means to make life better for the decent players and the staff. (...)

Bottom line being: If you're against it, then a) walk away - no opposition allowed; b) you're a deliquent.
It's easy to make an idea seem great if you can strangle any voice against it.

[Violette]

[quote="Llexa"]all i can really say is wow, lots of childness in this thread; people who really dont read, or when they do, they only see what they wanna see. zero tolerance is a great structure, and again, majority here is not interested in actually reading, but instead pick out one sentence and drag it out for days, or one concept that you've decided in your head means something that it doesnt.
im not quoting people this time b/c there is way too much to quote.

viollette:
how is it exactly that having consequences for actions is..."BS"...? never ONCE did i say that the ONLY punishment for EVERY wrong doing was to be banned. but again, a great example of not actually reading my posts for what they actually have in them, but seeing what you wanna see from them. and, if i have said it once ive said it 100 times, the poll was not meant to be a more-then-one-choice it was meant to be a petition. the 2nd option is very vague for that reason. i don't want a poll for those who "aren't interested" its a PETITION for those who are FOR it. so the 2nd answer is vague enough that people will just not use it and be on their way if they don't want to vote FOR it. you dont walk around with a petition with a spot for people who dont want to be involved in your cause. people who say no, you walk right past and on to the next. its a PRO ZERO TOLERANCE PETITION. there is really no other way for me to explain for a 101st time.

Ok, lets start at the beginning V i o l e t t e, its really really ignorant and insulting if you can't even copy my name down properly. I at no point said having consequences for actions was bs, I said zero tolerance is bs, it has been more or less a failure as a concept since inception. But clearly you didn't actually read my post as you accuse me of not having read yours or you would have noticed I was actually offering a suggestion as opposed to simply flaming you for your poor delivery and cute (?) misspellings, poor grammar and sentence structure.

You haven't said anything a hundred times, unless your counting talking to yourself, sweetie, which isn't a viable option in an internet debate but I'm prepared to let that slide since if you can't read you certainly can't count. The second option is not 'vague' the second option is stupid, and most poles I've read do have a slot for 'don't care but my opinion is' just in case, gods above forbid, someone else actually has a good idea. but I've already posted my idea so I'm going to go sign in and play now.

[+Colibri]

Sorry all, but i lost you at page 2.

I'm not going to lock this thread, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I think it has come to the point of arguing about the argument.

I don't know how zero tolerance is defined, but I believe there will never be such a thing as permanent ban after saying a bad word or being caught AFK mining for the first time.
I however must say that I have a fuse that in my opinion is way too long, when a decision comes to my desk i usually think "well maybe he/she didn't know, let's give him/her another chance" or "ok this is the 3rd time, i'm going to give one last warning and let's hope he/she gets it". So from now i intend to be a bit more practical and not as theoretical when it comes to making decisions, including with determination of penalties.

[fingers]

I think we should just agree to disagree. Now lets all hold hands and have fun toghetter;-)

[Sorgon]

I think we should just agree to disagree. Now lets all hold hands and have fun toghetter;-)

Well said bro well said.

[+Neptune]

Sorry all, but i lost you at page 2.

yeah, I Stopped reading about then as well...

I just keep looking at it for the funny pics... LOL

[Bubba Ho Tep]

I just keep looking at it for the funny pics... LOL

LOL

[Llexa]

wow, lol. all i can really do is laugh at all of the mis-quotes from my posts. gotta love it

So let's start with Violette.
well, im sorry you believe that Violette. and I'm sorry I provoked you into taking the time to respond to me with vulgarity and lack of integrity.

Bubba:
Im sorry that you dont like petitions. they are used all the time to offer options for change.
my petition is simply for one thing:to bring consistency and efficiency to the system.
Staff Action + Bad = Consistent penalty
Staff Action + Good = Consistent lack of penalty
Unfortunately people will still find reason to be against it and if their thought process will lead them to think its wrong but thats their choice.

saving the best for last
Old Man

im not on a high-horse and i was making a very accurate statement. im not posting many kinds of pictures and jokes. its a straight forward statement. im sorry that you and others felt it appropriate to bring such things to the discussion.

i dont recall side stepping any valid argument. i dont think ive seen a valid one so far that 1. i haven't adressed or 2. that has even been given (thinks back). please show me exactly where i side stepped a "valid" argument b/c my intetion wouldnt be to walk past it. i've actually been waiting for one.

forgiveness has nothing to do with consequence that ensues. you decide against having having your friend pay you back for fraudulently emptying your bank account . That's your choice. But they're still accountable under rules and laws. you can forgive someone for running over your leg but they will still deal with the consequences of the DUI where the law is concerned.
absolute forgiveness is different. thats where the valid consequence for the broken rule is "pardoned" by the rule enforcers or makers themselves.

"your arguments...have a strongly religious-right "think of the children" aftertaste."
never heard that term before.

I personally don't believe in warnings when it comes to pre-meditated actions. the warning is the list of rules and in common sense encompassing those rules. if the rules say, no hitting, no kicking, and no punching, its common sense that no stomping on someone will also be against the rules.

you disregard the warning when you premeditate an action.

freedom does not equal entitlement. also there are different measures of freedom. the options you chose to draw attention to are not those used in a world with laws and rules. according to your option #3 for freedom, the world is not 'free' to begin with.
"the power to determine action without restraint." let's break it down."The ability - to do or act - and settle on - an action - without reserve or being checked." This isnt how the world interprets freedom on a large scale, otherwise it would actually be chaos.

the Constitution gives specific freedoms to defined areas, not free-for-all-chaos-freedom. it provides for Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Petition among others. and these things have limits as well. examples being, you aren't entitled to have Freedom of Religion if your religion involves killing people. You are not entitled to Freedom of Speech if that speech harasses or abuses people. you are not entitled to Freedom of the Press if you print harassing or abusive or false information (unless you are the New York Times ). the point is, the Constitution just like any other law document has limitations.

in order to be truly free you have to have a compass, otherwise you're just lost. - anonymous

Zero tolerance examples you gave: 1. thats zero tolerance based on their specific scale of what is tolerated and what isnt. when you live in that country you know what their rules/laws are. everything is scaled differently. im not saying i think it's right to kill homosexuals. also, being born gay is an opinion.
2. 3 strikes is obviously too many and too lax. also, a lot more can be done to prevent drugs entering and exiting the country, but thats a whole other topic. (not all humans love to get high)
3. again, it's scaled. that is their law related specifically to their culture and their hierarchy.

We shouldnt live in a prison world: I agree, we should live in a world of consistent rules, where we can trust the system we're in and know our boundaries. harmony comes from boundaries.

turning admins into jailers: we should ask them how much time is wasted on semantics when trying to deal with players. lots of "but but...." and probably "well, i think its unfair that..." and "why is it that..." cut out the gray area and they will have more time and energy for events. why do i believe this? because it's common sense. the less time you are spending on negotiating rules the more time you have to focus on positive things and enjoy the game.

In closing, im not going to post anymore. i stand behind my ideas fully and unwavering b/c i believe in the common sense behind them. Ive seen the benefits when applied and only wished to offer my support if it was ever implemented here.
I hope that this thread doesnt continue to become less then what it was meant to be in the first place and that the intent will be seen for what it truly was.

peace out and good luck in life!
love,
Llexa

[Harabakc]

The Bill of Rights exists to prevent the government from being able to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't provide us with those rights, it prevents the government from stomping on them.

You've completely ignored Bubba's main point throughout all of this. Whether you just don't understand it, or don't want to acknowledge it I can't say, I prefer to believe the later. But in the end it the why doesn't matter.

While I'm at it. Why are staff debating rules in the first place? There either are rules or there aren't, if you're trying to enforce a rule that doesn't exist because a problem came up what do you expect to happen? Why is this even an issue in the first place? Is there some issue with enforcing the rules that currently exist?

[Kile Morgan]

Sorry all, but i lost you at page 2.

I'm not going to lock this thread, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I think it has come to the point of arguing about the argument.

I don't know how zero tolerance is defined, but I believe there will never be such a thing as permanent ban after saying a bad word or being caught AFK mining for the first time.
I however must say that I have a fuse that in my opinion is way too long, when a decision comes to my desk i usually think "well maybe he/she didn't know, let's give him/her another chance" or "ok this is the 3rd time, i'm going to give one last warning and let's hope he/she gets it". So from now i intend to be a bit more practical and not as theoretical when it comes to making decisions, including with determination of penalties.

I have a rule I try to always follow based on it saving my but a couple of times. When your little voice tells you something, listen. I am now breaking it. It told me a while back not to respond in here after giving the clear legal and commonly excepted definition of what zero tolerance is. Then it told me to not read in here any more sometime yesterday. I find myself doing both. I just know I will regret it but......

I feel I must respond to this post, simply to share my point of view. There are times it is not only acceptable but right to give someone more then one warning that they are in the wrong. Such as a time when you can see someone did not intend to break a rule but did not fully understand it, or broke a different rule. It is also correct to skip a lesser punishment for breaking a rule when for example someone clearly understood the rule but proceed to break the rule because they did not care and was unafraid of the lesser punishment normally incurred for a first offense. These are case by case decisions and should be treated as such. Also there is nothing wrong with examining how you handled a situation. It is healthy so long as it does not lead to inaction or extreme changes. I don't think I need to say that to you but it is something I believe in and so I put it out to be considered.

As for Zero tolerance, I have legal/law enforcement background. When I see that term I think to the excepted and legal definition and assume (usually correctly) that it is the same with those I discuss it with. It allows only one punishment for any list of crimes with no consideration or case by case decisions. I have not wavered from that definition or my belief that it is not how to enforce the law. I at no time have suggested there should be no rules or punishments. In point of fact my view on that is there needs to always be clear rules with example and a clear list of possible punishments that apply to any person in either the game or this forum. No favors or special treatment for any person, no consideration of position or relation, and no allowing emotions to cloud your reaction. Now when you can find someone other then perhaps +Neptune that seems to fit that mold then I'll get in line to nominate him/her for sainthood.

I have in this thread gone from thinking it was first a poll on the idea of implementing a zero tolerance policy, to thinking it was really about stricter rules and not understanding what the definition of zero tolerance is. This has in turn (to me) turned into a yo yo, an argument just for the sake of the argument. Fun perhaps for some, but to me a forum is a place for discussion and debate. If someone wishes to debate the pros or cons of the stated subject and not make up a definition or discuss ways that rules can be clarified or punishments be balanced then I would be interested. I however cannot have a discussion I think is nothing more then reading a statement, making a response, and then being told I did not read it or was twisting the statement while my response is either ignored or misrepresented in my opinion. To me this is not a valid response, and I also do not consider or intend my comments as an attack on anyone. Also in closing I hope what I say is clear to all and not droning on or long winded, I know I tend to do that from time to time.

[Chroma]

You guys talk to much.

[Bubba Ho Tep]

Bubba:
Im sorry that you dont like petitions. they are used all the time to offer options for change.
my petition is simply for one thing:to bring consistency and efficiency to the system.
Staff Action + Bad = Consistent penalty
Staff Action + Good = Consistent lack of penalty
Unfortunately people will still find reason to be against it and if their thought process will lead them to think its wrong but thats their choice.

No problem with traditional petitions; but they don't give the impression that you are, by all means, guilty of something just by not agreeing with them.
And the fact is that in a small comunity as Excelsior is - even smaller if we stick to those who read and write in the forums - we can afford to take the time and listen to everybody's point of view. And this was a topic that was meant exactly not to do so. We were offered the option to agree or, at least preferebly, walk away, and let it alone.
But then it happened: a lot of people, with reasonable points of view (not saying that yours isn't, but just that everybody who expressed themselves against used reason to do so) disagreed. And decided to let others know about that.

So hey, petitions are great, in larger communities, with an auxiliary support system that allows to check for the general point of view about the theme - i.e.: voting the bill in a later moment with an adequate "yes" and "no" duality.
But if we decide to listen to only one point, then I'm sure we can get almost anything through, by going into the right communities ask for support. Make a bill about giving people the right to have sex with their own under aged children, and visit the pedophile's wing in a prison (an absurd example to ilustrate what should be an obvious point; do not focus on it specifically, just think of absurd petitions and their possible supporters). Let's say you achieve full support from the ones present. Does that mean that you had a great idea, and it should be put in practice right then?
If you shut anyone who speaks against it, there you are, easy 3-steps-full-support to your bill. But is that enough to make it valid?

So that's my problem with this petition right here. When are those who oppose it be given the adequate moment to manifest it?

turning admins into jailers: we should ask them how much time is wasted on semantics when trying to deal with players. lots of "but but...." and probably "well, i think its unfair that..." and "why is it that..." cut out the gray area and they will have more time and energy for events. why do i believe this? because it's common sense. the less time you are spending on negotiating rules the more time you have to focus on positive things and enjoy the game.

And here's the specific problem with this bill: let's abolish the right to self-defense, to be heard about the facts that happened and to a due process before being punished. Let's just tell him why he's gone to jail or was banned from chat for some time or even from the server for good and apply the measure. He did it, he deserves it and that's all there is in our black and white world.
Then, we might even decide to not tell him. Why not? He did it, he knows it, just give him his penalty and be done with it.

It isn't just about "semantics". It's about freedom, and the necessary measures to keep it. Like Haraback said, the Bill of Rights gives no rights, but just secures them. And that's what being heard, speak in self-defense and a due process do too.
They keep freedoms - of belief, of speech, and many others. They stop arbitrary decisions, avoiding witch-hunts. They stop people like McCarthy from prosecuting anyone who they dislike based on dark and unclear motivations.

And I'm not saying that the staff will take the chance to persecute any of us. But this zero tolerance, as stated above, does not let any means for people to consider the decisions taken since there's no proper information. Even if works rightly, it gives no means for anyone to know whether that is or isn't the case. It raises insecurity in ways that can not be avoided.

So, no, your idea, as stated above, does not sound good for me. It creates an insecure enviroment for all, staff included. One player "bites the dust" and all of his friends are going to call it a persecution. And who's to say it was not? The staff didn't take the time to deal it in a way that their actions could be understood and rigtly supported. And soon, some feel others have privileges; some feel like the staff is out to get them; some feel like they can play the punishing-thrilled staff into actually punishing others, even if without due reason; and no one gains from it in the big picture. Worst than that, what was meant to save some work, will end up in long discussions about what truly happened on this and that situation.

So why not be clear to begin with?

[Grimrod]

Normally I am not one who jumps into heated or even warm debates unless it's a worthy issue which this is. I am still very new to uoe only a month old, but i am not new to family orientation with a family of two.

Do I worrie about what my children see, of course. But I think about all the other things that they can be exsposed to like drugs, gangs, guns, booze that make my toes curl. UOE is an addictive and some time maddening game in which my nine year old daughter and I completly enjoy. She knows the rules that "I" have set down and the rules in the Codex. If she is around a character that she is not comfortable around she leaves.

Why does she leave is that although I live in a country with a corrupt governemt we still hold tight to our human right such as free speech and the prosute of freedome and happiness. She may give a quick opinion of what is said and thats that. What punishment fits the crime of beleife what would the charge be. Not aiming that anyone but I will say it, to punish a person for a spoken opinion is communist.

UOE and the admins should not be responsable for dealing out punishment to NON threatening, NON harrassing statement. Or on the other hand in the spirit of role playing if you can't get over what a person said the take it the PVP dungion and duke it out (just kidding).

What i am saying we have so few real freedoms in this world and losing more by the day. We have the right to say what we feel, think, dream, but while we must do so with responsability. Understanding there are way to say or in our case type in ways that will get your point across or kill the one you talk to.

Just my quick opinion on WWJD from a beleiving point of veiw. Not that I think WWJD was a marketing ploy to sell plastics wrist bands for $5 bucks a pop in the mid 90's but ask your self this. WWJD if he were in your postion.