quick question
 

since when does one ban evasion result in IP bans when the initial ban was for not agreeing with staff and talking about it in a calm and proper manner in the first place?

Re: quick question
 

I honestly don't think the original post he got banned for was worth getting banned over, and FM is pretty cool, but I still understand why he got it.

Re: quick question
 

he was ip banned for bullshit reasons and this whole this is bullshit

Re: quick question
 

He really got IP banned? Wow, gg FFR staff, you're a complete joke......

Re: quick question
 

Boo hoo

Re: quick question
 

What happened?

Re: quick question
 

Lmfao I didn't even notice you said he got IP'd. Rip Foil. :<

Re: quick question
 

I was gonna ask the same question until he ban evaded and I was all like ://///

pretty sure ban evasion means game over, period. that's how most websites handle their biz.

Re: quick question
 

haha

Re: quick question
 

he just said he didnt agree with ap or with anyone else in that thread and then posted on his alt and got ip banned

Re: quick question
 

"In closing, **** you AP, you're a clueless retard."

I thought this is what he got originally banned for, and if it is I don't think it's talking in a calm and proper manner (probably taken out of context though as I don't have the original post)

Re: quick question
 

Yes, that is most likely the reason why. I'd like to add, however, that the nature of the response is just as critical to justifying a ban. For instance, I can certainly see in this example how others might view this as an abuse of power - i.e. "if you insult me you're banned". Looking at his previous posts, it appears that his point wasn't well-acknowledged or well-received, that people just "didn't get it". Ultimately, foilman made his point in frustration one last time but clearly ap had the last say. What I don't understand is this:

02:42:06pm 03/24/12 - aperson blacklisted foilman8806. All scores have been deleted.

This should only apply if foilman cheated with scores in the FFR game, but I don't recall foilman ever doing this. If his scores were wiped due to a disagreement in a completely different topic of conversation (i.e. irrelevant), then that's wrong. If he evaded by posting in a different account, the consequences shouldn't extend to gameplay itself.

Re: quick question
 

I assume the nature of ap's actions are a result from this: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...54&postcount=1

however, foilman isn't even on the list but was still given full punishment which is by all means debatable.

Re: quick question
 

lmfao looks like someone can't handle criticism.

Re: quick question
 

Wait, WHAT?!?!

Re: quick question
 

I'm thinking AP is starting to crack down on the whole antagonistic vibe we have going on around here. The Positivity sticky in TGB, the disclaimer in Suspicious Scores...yeah.

Bitch and moan as we may (and I would if I thought it would make a difference), it was still his call to make. Let's respect him at least that much.

Re: quick question
 

well ffr is already hopeless as it is lets just go with the flow of this situation and see how far we get (not very far)

Re: quick question
 

And my argument is that using scare tactics such as scorewipes to make infractions and punishments more threatening is only going to make the situation all the more antagonistic.

After talking to some people, the reason for this is apparently as an easier solution to "get rid of dicks". Basically, using scorewipes as additional weight to the bargaining chip. The rationale I hear is that "people don't listen regardless of bans, so we have to do something harsher". I interpret this as a short-term solution that can definitely end up in an equally unattractive way. I find this no different than the police force resorting to jails to "fix people" as opposed to education - a gradual process that needs to be ingrained into the community as a whole. Now can you see what I mean when I'm referring to long vs short-term solutions?

edit: the only reason why I'm drilling into this situation is because I want staff to also acknowledge that it's part of their job to have an entrusting relationship amongst the community. Staff needs to encourage the cultivation of good habits - not cultivate fear.

Re: quick question
 

I'm not saying what he did was right, merely that I understand why he did what he did. The writing was on the wall and he made good on his threats. (ffrpartyy just exploded when the news broke, btw).

I see it as like the odd case of police brutality, which was brought up during the Occupy Wall Street movement. As much as authority figures are trusted to not blow their stack during this sort of situation, they're still people. As famous as the deep-seated rage in all rhythm game players may be, let's use this as an example of what happens when we don't keep that rage confined to cameljacks and bullshit transitions. :)

Re: quick question
 

Spaceman ;-;