[19:58] You have been silenced. You may chat again in 23 hours, 36 minutes, and 13 se

lucyinspacewithdiamonds · February 2013

So this will be 72 hours now.

A word to the not-so-wise: if you don't like people who telling the truth, ignore them, don't silence them for 72 hours. You'll just make them hate you even more.

I want to wait until I get a response from Cryptic before I put in another ticket for this silencing business. They've taken a long time and replied with irrelevant information in the past, so I'll wait until they get back to me about that before I waste my energy. I will say that the CSR who handled the problem I had just before I got silenced again was very professional and gave me an appropriate response. She knows who she is. ^_~

zahinder · February 2013

(This isn't meant entirely seriously)

mrf0rz1 · February 2013

You really need to stop being ridiculous, OP.

lucyinspacewithdiamonds · February 2013

ujelly?

I'm going to keep disproving your fallacy no matter how many times you cry about it. It's pathetic because this isn't even about me, it's about what's being said. Silencing me won't do anything. Go build something that works.

jonsills · February 2013

And yet, I use Chat. I've made jokes, I've discussed politics and religion, I even managed to touch on the topic of discrimination against gays last night. Heck, I've gone so far as to defend the proposition that Wolverine sucks.

And somehow, I've managed to go completely unsilenced for all this time. Are you sure you're not just expressing yourself poorly in Chat, Lucy?

mrf0rz1 · February 2013

Well I'm not the one being ridiculous and screaming for more. I'm starting to think that there's more to that than just 'being a hater', in what concerns your silences. Blame the chat ban also proc'ing on the Ignore function.

Goodbye.

lucyinspacewithdiamonds · February 2013

I never said I'm blaming you for coding the chat ban function, troll. I just said I hate you for using it while being an opinionated fool. Good riddance. You never killed me anyway.

jonsills wrote: »

And yet, I use Chat. I've made jokes, I've discussed politics and religion, I even managed to touch on the topic of discrimination against gays last night. Heck, I've gone so far as to defend the proposition that Wolverine sucks.

And somehow, I've managed to go completely unsilenced for all this time. Are you sure you're not just expressing yourself poorly in Chat, Lucy?

heh... Never said I'm not expressing myself poorly, but that doesn't mean Mr. Forz here is so sweet and innocent and loving. He deserves to be nuked with a truthb0mb, especially since he went out of his way to silence me weeks ago and he brags about not being able to kill anything. I can't honestly say I feel compelled to pull my punches with the likes of him.

I can't prove that he isn't the one still doing it. :P Also, I've never felt the need to silence you, or even ignore you, even though I disagree with most of what you say, even in zone, but this is really besides the point...

Even if I pour honey over everything, people still have the ability to silence me for 72 hours, with or without a reason, and I really shouldn't have to explain this anyway. Cryptic gave a group of children a loaded gun.

chalupaoffury · February 2013

Ever consider that people are muting you so you keep the attention on the issue?

/tin foil hat

lucyinspacewithdiamonds · February 2013

lol... Does that even make sense?

Conspiracy "theorists" make sense. I've read your post about four times and it still makes no sense to me.

rokurocaris · February 2013

lucyinspacewithdiamonds wrote: »

A word to the not-so-wise: if you don't like people who telling the truth, ignore them, don't silence them for 72 hours. You'll just make them hate you even more.

And there's the problem: The ignore button can get you silenced as well!

decorumfriends · February 2013

That is, in fact, the major part of the problem. They've conflated two functions that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Leave or alter the "spammer" part and simply remove the ban functions from ignore. And the more I hear "It's too hard to change the coding" the more I think "Well, you'd better get to work, then, because it shouldn't be and I hope you've fired whoever set it up that way."

jennymachx · February 2013

Considering that I've came across Lucy's char bio that stated something along the lines of "You guys keep chat-banning me only because I'm right", I think it's only fair to say that she's been inviting repeated chat bans and perhaps more to come in the future.

Maybe the OP needs to reevaluate exactly what it is she's doing and stop drawing such attention towards her that invites people to abuse the chat ban.

xcaligax · February 2013

The chat ban gauntlets are indeed powerful!!! So powerful that only few may be chosen by it several times!

Lucy! You may be a chosen one!

MAY THE SILENCE BE WITH YOU!

CALIGA STAMP OF "YOU HAVE MY

SYMPATHY, SORT OF, ALSO DO YOU KNOW

WHEN THEY ARE GONNA FIX THIS SYSTEM?

IT KINDA SEEMS LIKE A BIT MUCH!"!!!

:biggrin:

spyralpegacyon · February 2013

jennymachx wrote: »

Maybe the OP needs to reevaluate exactly what it is she's doing and stop drawing such attention towards her that invites people to abuse the chat ban.

You're assuming she doesn't want to draw attention to herself, and that the chat ban isn't the icing on the cake.

somebob · February 2013

jennymachx wrote: »

Considering that I've came across Lucy's char bio that stated something along the lines of "You guys keep chat-banning me only because I'm right", I think it's only fair to say that she's been inviting repeated chat bans and perhaps more to come in the future.

Maybe the OP needs to reevaluate exactly what it is she's doing and stop drawing such attention towards her that invites people to abuse the chat ban.

Or maybe, you know, Cryptic needs to fix this @%^@#$!#$^^$#%!@$!@^^&$^@#! system that allows THE PLAYERS TO HAVE THE POWER OF GMs.

Heck - can GMs even silence other people? I know they're pretty much powerless. Wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't even do that.

visionstorm01 · February 2013

@Lucy

As some posters have tried to imply... Obviously, you "had it coming", and therefore "got what you deserved". And since I've never been banned, evah, obviously YOU must be the source of the problem. Cuz it obviously couldn't be that players have access to moderation tools. So enjoy your third chat ban in two weeks (or is it four now, I lost count

), you SPAMMER! /trollface

Either that, or...

somebob wrote: »

Or maybe, you know, Cryptic needs to fix this @%^@#$!#$^^$#%!@$!@^^&$^@#! system that allows THE PLAYERS TO HAVE THE POWER OF GMs.

Heck - can GMs even silence other people? I know they're pretty much powerless. Wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't even do that.

...this^ :rolleyes:

jennymachx · February 2013

Like I said, she had a character bio which clearly was a verbal challenge towards the people who have been abusing the chat ban towards her in the past. That's not the proper way to avoid getting subsequent chat bans. So yes, in a way she "had it coming".

I'm very much against the chat ban myself and have even protested against it several times in the forums in the past, but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that if I issue an open challenge for people to do the absolute worst that they can do, I won't expect the consequences to be just what I'd expect them to be.

zahinder · February 2013

'you had it coming' suggests you agree with what happened to the person and think that it is in some way just.

That's a bit different from 'the result was predictable' or 'you baited the tigers' or something.

twg042370 · February 2013

...if you don't like people who telling the truth...

Now, I'm not accusing you of anything since I didnt see anything. But in retrospect, every time I've used this excuse for a backlash over something I said I was very much being an ******* and trying to provoke others.

Just putting that out there for consideration.

jennymachx · February 2013

zahinder wrote: »

'you had it coming' suggests you agree with what happened to the person and think that it is in some way just.

That's a bit different from 'the result was predictable' or 'you baited the tigers' or something.

If someone taunted a tiger, challenged it to bite them and got bitten in the process, does the tiger get all of the blame?

Think about that for a moment before trying to villify me.

zahinder · February 2013

Villify you? Just pointing out something doesn't add up.

And tigers aren't self-willed beings capable of making decisions and having social rules and obligations.

It's a bit more like going over to the abusive thug and saying something to him and then getting beaten up again.

I mean, 'got what's coming to you' sounds a lot like 'you were dressed provocatively' and other terms with unpleasant history.

jennymachx · February 2013

zahinder wrote: »

Villify you? Just pointing out something doesn't add up.

And tigers aren't self-willed beings capable of making decisions and having social rules and obligations.

Clearly missing the point of the analogy.

zahinder wrote: »

It's a bit more like going over to the abusive thug and saying something to him and then getting beaten up again.

Yes.

zahinder wrote: »

I mean, 'got what's coming to you' sounds a lot like 'you were dressed provocatively' and other terms with unpleasant history.

If someone got chat banned for being dressed provocatively and nothing else then, no, that's entirely unfair and that person didn't ask for it.

That's entirely different from actively issuing an open challenge and it's not what I'm saying. You're projecting.

zahinder · February 2013

jennymachx wrote: »

Clearly missing the point of the analogy.

No, you stretched an analogy to cover an argument that doesn't hold up. 'Baiting a tiger' is suggestive, but then extending it suggest that nobody would blame a tiger falls apart because we're not, surprisingly, talking about giant felines.

jennymachx wrote: »

If someone got chat banned for being dressed provocatively and nothing else then, no, that's entirely unfair and that person didn't ask for it.

That's entirely different from actively issuing an open challenge and it's not what I'm saying. You're projecting.

The first part of this, in fact, demonstrates that I was right -- you ARE saying that the chat bans were justified, and that the open challenge also justified a response.

So... just say that. Honesty isn't going to cost you points.

jennymachx · February 2013

zahinder wrote: »

No, you stretched an analogy to cover an argument that doesn't hold up. 'Baiting a tiger' is suggestive, but then extending it suggest that nobody would blame a tiger falls apart because we're not, surprisingly, talking about giant felines.

What part of an analogy don't you get? Do I need to get the dictionary definition for you?

I didn't suggest that nobody would blame the tiger at all either. I said "does the tiger get all of the blame?"

zahinder wrote: »

The first part of this, in fact, demonstrates that I was right -- you ARE saying that the chat bans were justified, and that the open challenge also justified a response.

So... just say that. Honesty isn't going to cost you points.

First of all, use proper context. If you think you're going to bait me into being "honest" and to agree that chat bans are justified in general, fat chance.

If someone went all out and issued a challenge for people to chat ban him or her, then yes, it's justified, because that someone was clearly asking for it and got what he or she wanted. See the difference?

jonsills · February 2013

Personally, I say that if you walk into a biker bar and announce loudly that they can take their best shot, well, I'll sympathize with you, and might even chip in to help cover your hospital expenses, but my sympathy can only go so far...

selphea · February 2013

TBH I don't think anything will be done about this unless like, a dev or community rep gets chatbanned one day, making them unable to do their job or something.

agentnx5 · February 2013

Yeah... Best of luck getting JennyMachX to agree with you Zahinder... lol! To be fair, each of you has a good point, and you're both arguing about something rather negligible & off-topic.

Speaking of on-topic...

Who the heck is Lucy in the game anyways?

I've never seen this "open challenge" biography/info because I wouldn't know who they were to begin with. For all I know they might already be one of those two dozen few people who are on my ignore list already from months or years ago (I try to keep a small ignore list, defeats the purpose of playing a MMO if you can't get along with others in-game).

PM me if you don't want to say it in public, I'm just curious now to see if I recognize the name or not.

flyingfinn · February 2013

selphea wrote: »

TBH I don't think anything will be done about this unless like, a dev or community rep gets chatbanned one day, making them unable to do their job or something.

But since doing that either of those 2 doesn't stop them doing their jobs, so this system is here to stay.
And only 1 of those actually can be seen ingame.

jennymachx · February 2013

agentnx5 wrote: »

Yeah... Best of luck getting JennyMachX to agree with you Zahinder... lol! To be fair, each of you has a good point, and you're both arguing about something rather negligible & off-topic.

I'm not going to agree when I'm accused of being something that I'm not, and being called dishonest when I don't admit to whatever it is I'm accused of.

jonsills wrote: »

Personally, I say that if you walk into a biker bar and announce loudly that they can take their best shot, well, I'll sympathize with you, and might even chip in to help cover your hospital expenses, but my sympathy can only go so far...

This is someone who gets it.

sypherv · February 2013

lucyinspacewithdiamonds wrote: »

So this will be 72 hours now.

A word to the not-so-wise: if you don't like people who telling the truth, ignore them, don't silence them for 72 hours. You'll just make them hate you even more.

I want to wait until I get a response from Cryptic before I put in another ticket for this silencing business. They've taken a long time and replied with irrelevant information in the past, so I'll wait until they get back to me about that before I waste my energy. I will say that the CSR who handled the problem I had just before I got silenced again was very professional and gave me an appropriate response. She knows who she is. ^_~

I can relate to this, i was reported for telling someone to f**k off because they kept harassing me in chat and calling me names and just being plain childish, yet i had a warning, and further more a discussion was going on about religion and jokes were made, so i chirped in for a bit of banter, yet again i was reported for it, i sent cryptic a ticket saying if i ever get reported again i'll leave the game, cos let's be honest you can't do nothing back to the people who silence you or report you.

And to the people who in chat bully the new players, nothing is being done about it, i see it all the time, there's no need to scare them off, most of them are like 12 or 14, need i go on?

People need to grow up and act their age, the older generation, most i know like myself, try to help out as much as i can, but fall upon deaf ears, and whenever we ask a question i get a sarcastic response, a joke, or some idiot belittling you because he believes he is superior to you, the "L33TS" players.

Too many people are hostile, there's no monitoring chats anymore, the devs don't care, and they pump out garbage content with bugged costume pieces recycled from previous issues.

Sorry to ramble on, but it had to be said.

roughbearmattach · February 2013

Most players don't use zone chat.
The end.

jonsills · February 2013

You told someone "f**k off". In Chat.

And being reported for that surprises you?

prankenstein · February 2013

jonsills wrote: »

And being reported surprises you?

Yeah, silence whiner threads don't really work out if the chatban was merited.

Flare prolly just paid him off so he could add another number to his chatban thread list.

sypherv · February 2013

jonsills wrote: »

You told someone "f**k off". In Chat.

And being reported for that surprises you?

UMM someone missed the part where i said that i was harassed and sworn at and called names and followed most of the night until i logged off, so how do you propose i defend myself? ignore button? oh yeah that works until they use another account, so your comment is invalid thanks, i like how some people take out of context what was said and attempt to make a point with it like it's the best thing since sliced bread yet it makes them look like an idiot

flamingbunnyman · February 2013

sypherv wrote: »

UMM someone missed the part where i said that i was harassed and sworn at and called names and followed most of the night until i logged off, so how do you propose i defend myself? ignore button? oh yeah that works until they use another account, so your comment is invalid thanks, i like how some people take out of context what was said and attempt to make a point with it like it's the best thing since sliced bread yet it makes them look like an idiot

If someone breaks the rules, that does not give you free reign to also break the rules. Yes, you should have used the ignore button. And if he switched accounts and started over, then ignore him again. The ignore feature doesn't have a limit, or if it does, it is much greater than one.

And if the guy keeps pissing people off, they'll keep ignoring him, and eventually, HE'LL be the one with the chat ban.

sypherv · February 2013

flamingbunnyman wrote: »

If someone breaks the rules, that does not give you free reign to also break the rules. Yes, you should have used the ignore button. And if he switched accounts and started over, then ignore him again. The ignore feature doesn't have a limit, or if it does, it is much greater than one.

And if the guy keeps pissing people off, they'll keep ignoring him, and eventually, HE'LL be the one with the chat ban.

I agree with you to a certain extent and while i appreciate the reply, i must say i feel i am the one who is the victim since all i wanted to do was play the game, i do think i MAY have overreacted by what i said, but it is not easy to tolerate such childish behavior.

Anyway i stil think some people not all, give a hard time to other players who have a superiority complex.

jonsills · February 2013

sypherv wrote: »

UMM someone missed the part where i said that i was harassed and sworn at and called names and followed most of the night until i logged off, so how do you propose i defend myself? ignore button? oh yeah that works until they use another account, so your comment is invalid thanks, i like how some people take out of context what was said and attempt to make a point with it like it's the best thing since sliced bread yet it makes them look like an idiot

Have you taken a good look at the options available under "GM Help"? There's one in there where you can report someone for ToS violations, specifically including harassing you and using vulgar language. Maybe you should have tried using that. I'm willing to wager your harasser did.

Or, of course, you could simply ignore them - not just use the Ignore button, but refuse to attend to their rantings. It's hard to get around that one.

However, his harassment of you did NOT justify your violation of the ToS in return. And no, I did not take your statement out of context. Your harasser was hoping you'd react that way, so he could report you. Congratulations on being utterly predictable.

visionstorm01 · February 2013

...And don't wear a short skirt next time!
/blaming the victim

sypherv · February 2013

jonsills wrote: »

Have you taken a good look at the options available under "GM Help"? There's one in there where you can report someone for ToS violations, specifically including harassing you and using vulgar language. Maybe you should have tried using that. I'm willing to wager your harasser did.

Or, of course, you could simply ignore them - not just use the Ignore button, but refuse to attend to their rantings. It's hard to get around that one.

However, his harassment of you did NOT justify your violation of the ToS in return. And no, I did not take your statement out of context. Your harasser was hoping you'd react that way, so he could report you. Congratulations on being utterly predictable.

So wait one person violates the ToS its ok but when i do it hmmm i see the pattern.

Ever heard of fight fire with fire?
I actually didnt react as bad as i thought i would, so just saying what i said was not as bad as what they said, saying they would **** me and my family!

Yeah stick up for them on that one idiot!

Bottom line is if you actually was decent in your first reply i might have thought maybe he is right but you so made me think i am right, and it's people like you that seem to have a problem in communicating with others, not me.

sypherv · February 2013

visionstorm01 wrote: »

...And don't wear a short skirt next time!
/blaming the victim

Moving along....

And its a red skirt! lolz

jonsills · February 2013

Do you know what happens when you fight fire with fire?

You get a bigger fire.

No, it was not okay for the other person to harass you. And the appropriate response would have been to put that person on Ignore, even with a Report Spam, and file a ticket with the GMs over harassment.

The appropriate response was not to act just like the person who started it. That just makes you both bad guys.

I wouldn't think it would be necessary to point this out to someone who likes to pretend to be a superhero...

biffsmackwell · February 2013

sypherv wrote: »

So wait one person violates the ToS its ok but when i do it hmmm i see the pattern.

Ever heard of fight fire with fire?
I actually didnt react as bad as i thought i would, so just saying what i said was not as bad as what they said, saying they would **** me and my family!

Yeah stick up for them on that one idiot!

Bottom line is if you actually was decent in your first reply i might have thought maybe he is right but you so made me think i am right, and it's people like you that seem to have a problem in communicating with others, not me.

It's not okay that the guy violated the terms of service, but him doing so does not make it alright for you to do it as well.

Fight fire with fire doesn't work in this case. The rules say not to verbally abuse someone. They don't say "Don't verbally abuse people, except in cases where you have been verbally abused first."

Both of you broke the rules, both of you will get punished for it (provided both of you reported each other). Saying "He started it" doesn't help anyone. Fact is that rules were broken on both sides, and that's the only thing that matters. Although, the amount and scale of the rule breaking will probably have an effect on how harshly either party is punished.

Jon isn't sticking up for anyone, he's just pointing out to you that you're not "innocent" in the whole thing. Next time, just put the person on ignore, report it, and you won't open yourself up to getting trolled like that.

sypherv · February 2013

biffsmackwell wrote: »

It's not okay that the guy violated the terms of service, but him doing so does not make it alright for you to do it as well.

Fight fire with fire doesn't work in this case. The rules say not to verbally abuse someone. They don't say "Don't verbally abuse people, except in cases where you have been verbally abused first."

Both of you broke the rules, both of you will get punished for it (provided both of you reported each other). Saying "He started it" doesn't help anyone. Fact is that rules were broken on both sides, and that's the only thing that matters. Although, the amount and scale of the rule breaking will probably have an effect on how harshly either party is punished.

Jon isn't sticking up for anyone, he's just pointing out to you that you're not "innocent" in the whole thing. Next time, just put the person on ignore, report it, and you won't open yourself up to getting trolled like that.

Yeah i did ignore him but as stated he just went on a different account, it happened for an hour, i dont think im all that innocent but i do think there was a higher severity in his words than mine.

I know i should not have acted the way i did but it was less insulting than the words used at me, i wouldnt say i used fire in this case, not by a long shot.

sypherv · February 2013

jonsills wrote: »

Do you know what happens when you fight fire with fire?

You get a bigger fire.

No, it was not okay for the other person to harass you. And the appropriate response would have been to put that person on Ignore, even with a Report Spam, and file a ticket with the GMs over harassment.

The appropriate response was not to act just like the person who started it. That just makes you both bad guys.

I wouldn't think it would be necessary to point this out to someone who likes to pretend to be a superhero...

Except for that last part i agree, i guess.

jennymachx · February 2013

prankenstein wrote: »

Yeah, silence whiner threads don't really work out if the chatban was merited.

Flare prolly just paid him off so he could add another number to his chatban thread list.

What was the point of this slander?

nepht · February 2013

prankenstein wrote: »

Yeah, silence whiner threads don't really work out if the chatban was merited.

Flare prolly just paid him off so he could add another number to his chatban thread list.

WOW just WOW. I have been at plenty of Flares CC's and seen the idiots that plague him appear. That comment was unjustified. Its a bad day when the forum troll goes dude thats not cool.

agentnx5 · February 2013

nepht wrote: »

prankenstein wrote:

Flare prolly just paid him off so he could add another number to his chatban thread list.

WOW just WOW. I have been at plenty of Flares CC's and seen the idiots that plague him appear. That comment was unjustified. Its a bad day when the forum troll goes dude thats not cool.

Wow indeed... Holy **** batman!

I agree with you strongly Nepht. Totally uncool, unjustified, & BS.

I also see he edited his post (why I couldn't find the original post from page 4 that Nepht quoted originally, which confused me for awhile), presumably in an attempt to "hide it" hmm? Trying to hide it makes it even worse, means you knew what you said was wrong.

You have to be seriously stupid and ill-informed to think Flare's signature link-list of topics has anything to do with Lucy. Go and read some of those topic he has in his signature, you'll see. No really, go take a look at the history and actually read it.

I think you owe Flare an apology.

I'm feeling quite pissed at this. The only things you could have done lower than that would be to post something obscene/pornographic, post something racist, spam the forum with spam topics, hack the forums, or make a legit threat of physical violence directed at a poster. You seriously suggested Lucy was paid-off by by Flare, no "just kidding lol". I don't know who Lucy is in-game but I know who Flare is and I know Flare isn't corrupt nor would he have the motive to do that.

Nice catch JennyMachX & Nepht! I would never have know had it not been for you two observant peoples

Seeing this makes me

and :mad:

ashensnow · February 2013

agentnx5 wrote: »

I also see he edited his post (why I couldn't find the original post from page 4 that Nepht quoted originally, which confused me for awhile), presumably in an attempt to "hide it" hmm? Trying to hide it makes it even worse, means you knew what you said was wrong.

It is post 33 and doesn't seem to be edited at this point.

forutnefire · February 2013

I apologize prankenstein if the list of threads in my signature impedes your ability to read the threads, or harms you in away. It is simply meant to provide the devs and...GMs(?) with information, possible solutions, and discussion as well as awareness to other players about the immoral player-based chat ban system.

I'm aware that whatever # I'm on, it's a pretty high number to count to and taking up a whole 2 lines of space is pretty greedy. However, I'm not breaking any rules in doing so.

But seriously, if you've got a problem with me, have the decency to talk to me in private about it respectfully and I guarantee I will turn said civility. Cheap shots simply make you look like a coward. I would never pay anyone to chat ban someone else for ANY reason. I hate when it's done to me and I'd never do it to anyone else. The insinuation is offensive in light of how long I've been fighting against this damn thing.

In relation to the REAL issue. 2 wrongs do not make a right. We can not use the system we're trying to get removed to prove that it should be. It's hypocritical.

biffsmackwell · February 2013

[CLEVER JOKE ABOUT WHY THIS THREAD IS CLOSING GOES HERE]

This one goes quits.

[19:58] You have been silenced. You may chat again in 23 hours, 36 minutes, and 13 se

Comments