An EoFF Constitution

[Citizen Bleys]

You can't accuse someone of "blatantly disregarding staff policy" and then turn around and do it yourself.

I dunno if things have changed since I left, but things written in a dusty old tome 10,000 years ago never had precedence over human judgment when I was on staff. Clearly, the rules were written without anticipating that a long-serving staff member who has always been a pillar of the community running afoul of a difference of opinion about what is acceptable. Like Ashi said in the other thread, it was Masamune Shirow artwork, not a bloody centerfold from Hustler. Hustler centerfolds were what the no-porn rule was meant to prevent. It was certainly never written with the intention of causing a big mothersmurfing witch hunt directed against one of the few people that has made EoFF shine since the first day he registered.

[edczxcvbnm]

It wouldn't be so bad Bleys if every staff member had not consistantly said there are no exceptions even for mods and admins. They clearly meant that rule to apply for all if they say that.

To me this isn't about Kawaii as I stated in the other thread. This is about the staff to me.

[Raistlin]

I dunno if things have changed since I left, but things written in a dusty old tome 10,000 years ago never had precedence over human judgment when I was on staff.

Exactly, so BoB can't use that as an excuse to defame D. I wasn't saying that ignoring staff policy is always bad.

Clearly, the rules were written without anticipating that a long-serving staff member who has always been a pillar of the community running afoul of a difference of opinion about what is acceptable.

*sighs* I believe they were:

"I would ban my best friend if he did something wrong." - Daniel

"Carelessness is a choice as much as deliberately doing something wrong. We're all responsible for our own actions." - Unne

"Post porn, get banned. Proto, I think you know well enough that if you posted a picture like that, you would be banned. So would I. So would anyone." - RSL

"So, what if a Cid's Knight, or Administrator posted a similar picture that Peter posted, would the staff demote them and ban them for that?" - Proto, to Leeza

"Yes." - Leeza's reply, to Proto

"The only person exempt from the rules would be Sean." - RSL

"If I was in his position then I would probably say "oh crap, that was dumb of me" and go to one of the other 3 million message boards on the internet to get my net fix." -RSL

"Post porn, get banned. Seems pretty simple to me." - Yams

"In my eyes everyone here has the same chance to get banned. There are no "good members"." - Yams

"Once a decision is made, we stick with it. That's consistency." - Unne

"However, if policy changes and people are allowed a "second chance" for accidental posting of pornography/inappropriate imagery, then we're sending a message that it's quite all right to post it, provided it's only done once. Anyone with a chip on his or her shoulder could "inadvertently" post something objectionable and expect to get away with it. If PeTerL90 is unbanned, then anyone else banned for pronography could simply say, "I never posted that on purpose, you've got to unban me or else that proves you're biased and hypocritical because PeTerL90 got unbanned."
This would simply be unacceptable." - Big D

Some of those mentioned above actually meant what they said.

[-N-]

[q=Miguel de Unamuno]If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing.[/q]

[Loony BoB]

Raist, man, get some new material, I'm sure you've posted that a few times already and I'm pretty sure everyone's seen it.

[edczxcvbnm]

Raist, man, get some new material, I'm sure you've posted that a few times already and I'm pretty sure everyone's seen it.

I didn't see it. All I know is that the staff's word holds no merit any more. How do I know if they are lying or not?

[Raistlin]

If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing.

Valid point, but that doesn't mean that it's right to contradict 5-year-old staff policy because the staff doesn't want to do the hard choice.

Raist, man, get some new material, I'm sure you've posted that a few times already and I'm pretty sure everyone's seen it.

That involves me actually putting forth the effort to look. Those show that Staff contradicted themself. What good would further evidence do if apparently it doesn't matter?

[-N-]

[qq=Miguel de Unamano]If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing.[/qq]Valid point, but that doesn't mean that it's right to contradict 5-year-old staff policy because the staff doesn't want to do the hard choice.

Doesn't mean it's wrong.

But of course, this isn't the place for well-constructed arguments, now is it.

[Citizen Bleys]

Ed: It's not a contradiction at all. 'Kishi didn't post porn. I've seen the image, and it's not bloody porn.

I didn't see it.

How the hell did you miss it? I've seen it at least 32 times. Nothing like repitition as a substitute for logic. It's almost as fun as bullsnikky, rhetoric, and deception as a substitute for logic. Isn't today's EoFF grand?

[edczxcvbnm]

I didn't know where it was posted and no one is posting it...DUH

I actually came in late to this whole thing. I found out about the situation after the thread was originally closed...but since when would that stop me from giving everyone grief ?

[Raistlin]

Bleys: you're the only one to say that most people wouldn't be banned for posting that image. Staff as a whole agrees that anyone else would be banned, and all the members I've shown it to agree it was banworthy, as per Staff precedent as to what's banworthy and what's not.

ed: hold on, I'll PM it to you.

[Del Murder]

I'll always give staff exceptions to the rules. They (we) deserve it. Feel free to quote me and add it to that unofficial sig of yours, Raist.

[Citizen Bleys]

Bleys: you're the only one to say that most people wouldn't be banned for posting that image.

As long as we're repeating ourselves--no, I'm not. Check the other thread. As a matter of fact, the consensus of the current staff--whose job it is to make final decisions in disputes such as this one--is that Kishi shouldn't be banned. And as for disregarding staff policy, D didn't seek consensus, he just went ahead and opened the issue up, generating all of this drama. Not the intent, I'm sure, but it is the end result.

It's obvious that the opposing sides aren't going to come to a consensus on the Kishi issue, so I guess it's the staff's job to step in and make a final decision--which has been done. Unless Cid comes along and decides that following rules in a dusty old tome written without foresight of this particular situation--your "unofficial sig" qualifies--is worth more than Kishi is, he's not getting banned and that's it. End of story.