DarkKobold, in the 'another unGrueing' thread wrote:
Ferret Warlord wrote:
What about runs that were cancelled, and for whatever reason stand little to no chance of seeing the light of day again? The Willow run deserved publication, but certain things prevented that from ever happening.
That run was canceled by the author, and now falls under the "Non-acceptance of movies by banned authors," so that won't see the light of day.
Uh, yeah, about that rule. I've been thinking about it, and I think I should bring this up/ask this before the worst-case scenario I'm about to describe actually goes and happens...
...Is it retroactive?
For example, say someone with a lot of published runs, like adelikat, goes rogue and gets himself spectacularly historically perma-banned (yes, of course I know this would never actually happen, lol). Would all of his already-accepted-and-published runs get removed?
Because if so, that also opens up a new can of worms: what happens in the case where the banned author is one of multiple authors for a run? Does his name get simply removed from those runs and they stay up, or something like that, or do those runs get removed too?
But then, if you avoid all this by saying the rule isn't retroactive after all and leave all the runs up, that's basically accepting runs from a banned author.
See the problem? :p
Can I ask why the rule exists at all? Presumably a ban usually means 'Your forum posts are sufficiently destructive that we really want you to stop making them'. I don't really see what that has to do with the quality of a submitted TAS. Certainly it seems unlikely that a banned author would *want* to submit, given that they would be unable to respond to criticism and that they may bear some ill-will towards the community, but if they accept that they can't contribute by posting in the forums, but still want to contribute by submitting great runs, why turn them away?
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
DarkKobold, in the 'another unGrueing' thread wrote:
Ferret Warlord wrote:
What about runs that were cancelled, and for whatever reason stand little to no chance of seeing the light of day again? The Willow run deserved publication, but certain things prevented that from ever happening.
That run was canceled by the author, and now falls under the "Non-acceptance of movies by banned authors," so that won't see the light of day.
Uh, yeah, about that rule. I've been thinking about it, and I think I should bring this up/ask this before the worst-case scenario I'm about to describe actually goes and happens...
...Is it retroactive?
It is not retroactive.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
What we really need to do is redirect the path of a river so that the home town of the banned author is no longer on the map.
Just a little page out of the Genghis playbook.
Can I ask why the rule exists at all? Presumably a ban usually means 'Your forum posts are sufficiently destructive that we really want you to stop making them'. I don't really see what that has to do with the quality of a submitted TAS. Certainly it seems unlikely that a banned author would *want* to submit, given that they would be unable to respond to criticism and that they may bear some ill-will towards the community, but if they accept that they can't contribute by posting in the forums, but still want to contribute by submitting great runs, why turn them away?
A submission from a banned user would inevitably result in dozens of pages of complete and utter bullshit both in the submission thread and the resulting continuation in Sites/General. If banned authors want to submit a run, they can easily do so under a smurf and avert all of the drama unless they are utterly incapable of not wanking over their past deeds.
Can I ask why the rule exists at all? Presumably a ban usually means 'Your forum posts are sufficiently destructive that we really want you to stop making them'. I don't really see what that has to do with the quality of a submitted TAS. Certainly it seems unlikely that a banned author would *want* to submit, given that they would be unable to respond to criticism and that they may bear some ill-will towards the community, but if they accept that they can't contribute by posting in the forums, but still want to contribute by submitting great runs, why turn them away?
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
If banned authors want to submit a run, they can easily do so under a smurf and avert all of the drama unless they are utterly incapable of not wanking over their past deeds.
No, they can't. If we find out it is a new account from a perma-banned user, we reject it and ban the account.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Fair enough. I assume the site would have no problem with a banned author handing a WIP (or completed run) to a non-banned member and having them finish it up and submit it as their own?
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Fair enough. I assume the site would have no problem with a banned author handing a WIP (or completed run) to a non-banned member and having them finish it up and submit it as their own?
As the 'banned' author couldn't be included on the movie, and therefore denied credit, I'd consider that pretty crappy on the part of the submitter.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
DarkKobold wrote:
Personman wrote:
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Fair enough. I assume the site would have no problem with a banned author handing a WIP (or completed run) to a non-banned member and having them finish it up and submit it as their own?
As the 'banned' author couldn't be included on the movie, and therefore denied credit, I'd consider that pretty crappy on the part of the submitter.
Well then, what else is the submitter suppose to do if the unperson contributed a fair amount to a pretty good TAS? Say Russia did it?
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Fair enough. I assume the site would have no problem with a banned author handing a WIP (or completed run) to a non-banned member and having them finish it up and submit it as their own?
As the 'banned' author couldn't be included on the movie, and therefore denied credit, I'd consider that pretty crappy on the part of the submitter.
Well then, what else is the submitter suppose to do if the unperson contributed a fair amount to a pretty good TAS? Say Russia did it?
#1: Not submit it.
or
#2: Try improve the work that the banned author did.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
DarkKobold wrote:
Flygon wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
Personman wrote:
We don't accept encodes, movies, posts, etc, from banned users. If you are perma-banned from the site, you are banned from participation in the forums, IRC, and any other activity. Any person that has become sufficiently disruptive to be banned in this fashion should not be encouraged to participate in the site, in any way shape or form.
Fair enough. I assume the site would have no problem with a banned author handing a WIP (or completed run) to a non-banned member and having them finish it up and submit it as their own?
As the 'banned' author couldn't be included on the movie, and therefore denied credit, I'd consider that pretty crappy on the part of the submitter.
Well then, what else is the submitter suppose to do if the unperson contributed a fair amount to a pretty good TAS? Say Russia did it?
#1: Not submit it.
or
#2: Try improve the work that the banned author did.
The point is is that the TAS is improved or completed. If the unperson made 75% of a final result because his work is just that damn good, it's kind of difficult to fault him for, I dunno, making a TAS that's really difficult to improve.
In my question, I tried to be clear that this was with permission/by request of the banned author, who just wanted the run on the site and didn't care about having their name near it anymore.
While it would always be hard to tell, I would never condone someone stealing a banned author's run and submitting as their own without permission.
In the case where the non-banned person was a coauthor from the beginning, and doesn't want his hard work wasted, but at the same time the banned author doesn't want it submitted without his name on... well, that's tricky.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
About perma-banning users: If someone is such a dick as to get himself banned, but years later grows up a bit and becomes a much more civil and reasonable person (yes, that can really happen), isn't there any way that he can have his ban reversed? Or is it a life sentence?
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Warp wrote:
About perma-banning users: If someone is such a dick as to get himself banned, but years later grows up a bit and becomes a much more civil and reasonable person (yes, that can really happen), isn't there any way that he can have his ban reversed? Or is it a life sentence?
Quick question: Have you ever known of this to happen on the internet?
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
mmbossman wrote:
Warp wrote:
About perma-banning users: If someone is such a dick as to get himself banned, but years later grows up a bit and becomes a much more civil and reasonable person (yes, that can really happen), isn't there any way that he can have his ban reversed? Or is it a life sentence?
Quick question: Have you ever known of this to happen on the internet?
I got myself permabanned from Sonic Retro once. I was kind of an idiot.
A few years later, badabing, badaboom, I post there regularly.
I'm a full believer of limiting permanent ban sentences to around 3-5 years, tops. By the time it ends, chances are, the person will either not care enough to come back, will have smartened up. Admittedly, people will abuse second chances sometimes, but I think that most people won't really be stalking the day until they're unbanned just to exact revenge for no particular reason.
About perma-banning users: If someone is such a dick as to get himself banned, but years later grows up a bit and becomes a much more civil and reasonable person (yes, that can really happen), isn't there any way that he can have his ban reversed? Or is it a life sentence?
Quick question: Have you ever known of this to happen on the internet?
It happens all the time, usually in the cases of youth posting and then simply growing up.
I must admit that I don't follow this forum as closely as I used to, so I'll ask out of curiosity: Is there a place where this site lists all of the banned users, and their reason for banning? When I notice that someone is banned, I can look through their post history and try to learn why, but sometimes it isn't obvious at all.
http://tasvideos.org/MostActivePosters.html has every user by rank, including banned. I don't know if you're going to find out how a person got banned other than looking through their post history or asking a mod.
BTW, that page takes a long time to load because of all the avatars, so I just stop the page from loading once the text shows up.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3579)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Chamale wrote:
I must admit that I don't follow this forum as closely as I used to, so I'll ask out of curiosity: Is there a place where this site lists all of the banned users, and their reason for banning? When I notice that someone is banned, I can look through their post history and try to learn why, but sometimes it isn't obvious at all.
There isn't such a page for a very simple reason. It is usually none of your business why someone may have been banned.
It is usually none of your business why someone may have been banned.
...Which is not a good attitude to have towards members or the audience at all, because it's nontransparent and leaves ample room for distrust and speculations of abuse. If a person whom I considered to be a normal and helpful member of the community suddenly got erased from the site, what am I to think of them? Of the admins? Does that mean I can be banned for seemingly no reason too? There's no respect for community in this attitude, because expelling members is not a personal (as in: private) affair, it's a communal affair. And the concept of silently sweeping such an act under the rug doesn't apply, simply because we do label banned users as banned publicly, as well as have public rule enforcement regarding non-acceptance of their services.
When I asked a similar question as to why there can't be a public blacklist with reasons, Grunt replied in the vein of not attracting further attention towards the banned, who are usually very fond of any kind of attention. Although I've taken that for an answer, I still think it's not a good reason. History has shown a lot of cases where admins could have preemptively acted towards certain infamous offenders but failed to do it in time due to lack of information. If all major communities had such blacklists it would have been much easier to prevent incidents. Which is especially true seeing as most notable troublemakers are vain enough to register under the same and/or similar handles on all communities they frequent.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
There's no respect for community in this attitude, because expelling members is not a personal (as in: private) affair, it's a communal affair.
Technically, no, because the site owner (e.g. adelikat), as the word implies, literally owns the website. We are being nothing more than guests on HIS server, and we have no given right to be here if he doesn't want to.
If you own a website by paying for a server you have the right to turn it into a pure dictatorship if you want to (it's your complete right to ban everyone but you); it's up to the users to decide if they accept the rules as they are or go away. If you think tasvideos' rules are stupid, crazy, or whatever, then don't post here. By posting here you are implicitly stating that you respect the rules and the guys who created them in the first place. This is what roles are for.
Some other roles might be kind enough to provide you an explanation even when it wouldn't be due (e.g. Judges saying why they approved/rejected a movie), but no explanation in general is strictly due. If an explanation happens, it's courtesy, not a principle.
At least in my opinion. I have my own forum about a German volleyball team on my own server, and I decide who can stay there and who can't. I wrote the rules. If you don't accept them then you're not welcome.
This mindset is flawed, because adelikat is interested in advancing and broadening of the community. Without us his "guests" the site would have no purpose whatsoever.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
