Odin.Jassik said: »
Rooks is a Paladin
FFXIAH Linkshell Ni
|
FFXIAH Linkshell Ni
I initially read that as "Rooks is a paddlin".
[+]
Leave it to Seha to make it sound dirty.
Lakshmi.Rooks said: » The problem with bans is that it's reasonably easy (though not trivial) to circumvent a ban. Unless we put in some much more restrictive methods of verification (client side IP checks, proxy blacklists, checking age/level on linked characters) there is little one can do to really prevent people who want in, from getting in. This is why Scragg mostly lets it go, and I get that. I've spent a not-insignificant amount of time in the last day pondering ways to lock things down in a way that doesn't punish regular users (which is my objection to a lot of the tried and true methods). Anna Ruthven said: » All of our hopes and dreams are riding on Rooks' shoulders. Let's not go crazy there, cowboy
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » I guess it would be kind of dumb to ask whether a banhammer was doled out? It had already been done, this was the aftermath from the 3 day ban. Ugh...Yeah, I was shot the low-down on what happened. Yeah, I shouldn't have given that to Zero. Impulsive frustration on my end after KN had been antagonizing Zero, among every other damn person who participates in P&R under the sun. I did take the threat of legal action toward Scragg very seriously, at the time, so I turned it over to Aelius, Girlboy or both. I can't even remember at this point. Whatever...Guess it's out there now. /shrug Anywho...Any good news?
[+]
Also, google Nastya Zhidkova, she's a pretty Russian model with Albinism.
Friends share, I think no one should be surprised from that.
That's also why lies eventually come around.
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » I guess it would be kind of dumb to ask whether a banhammer was doled out? It had already been done, this was the aftermath from the 3 day ban. Ugh...Yeah, I was shot the low-down on what happened. Yeah, I shouldn't have given that to Zero. Impulsive frustration on my end after KN had been antagonizing Zero, among every other damn person who participates in P&R under the sun. I did take the threat of legal action toward Scragg very seriously, at the time, so I turned it over to Aelius, Girlboy or both. I can't even remember at this point. Whatever...Guess it's out there now. /shrug Meh... If someone chooses to engage in a private conversation with an individual without stating specifically that it is private, I don't see how they could expect the other party to regard it that way. That's more of a personal discretion subject than a privacy one.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » nice things D'aww, you. Quote: I figure if people are willing to jump through hoops to bypass an IP ban, they'll likely have to alter their behavior enough as to not make it very obvious. Wouldn't that alone justify giving them a second chance? I guess another possibility is to require a valid FFXI/FFXIV character or account to post, but that only limits slightly more. Well, people don't end up altering their behavior, which is how they get found out. If people can change, then sure, but bypassing a ban isn't a great second first impression. There isn't really any hard and fast rule of thumb for that kind of thing, since every case is unique (which makes sense, since it's about a person). Also, you actually do need a linked character to post now. It's pretty easy to make characters in XIV though, since there isn't even the content ID nonsense.
[+]
Lakshmi.Rooks said: » Let's not go crazy there, cowboy Not go crazy? Where do you think we are? We're living in Crazy, sucka!` Lakshmi.Rooks said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » I'm a little bit scared that rooks is part albino I'm Norwegian, and pale even by the standards of my people, but I do have pigment. Nice blue eyes! sure you are... /cool~y draws his oversized novelty revolver/whispers PARKER! do a quick google search to make sure that silver bullets work on albinos...and norwegians...
[+]
Lakshmi.Rooks said: » The problem with bans is that it's reasonably easy (though not trivial) to circumvent a ban. Unless we put in some much more restrictive methods of verification (client side IP checks, proxy blacklists, checking age/level on linked characters) there is little one can do to really prevent people who want in, from getting in. This is why Scragg mostly lets it go, and I get that. I've spent a not-insignificant amount of time in the last day pondering ways to lock things down in a way that doesn't punish regular users (which is my objection to a lot of the tried and true methods). Anna Ruthven said: » All of our hopes and dreams are riding on Rooks' shoulders. Let's not go crazy there, cowboy Semantic parsing of posts would probably rather readily flag the majority of people making puppets. It is somewhat amusing how some posters' grammar has improved dramatically after being banned, however. But it likely isn't a large enough issue to take automated responses towards for the site.
[+]
The policy regarding consent from parties involved to disclose PM's has me scratching my head a bit in general. /shrugs.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: » The policy regarding consent from parties involved to disclose PM's has me scratching my head a bit in general. /shrugs. I read it as "Your private messages have a reasonable expectation of privacy". Moderators can't even read them, only Admins (which makes sense, since they have direct database access). The rule and punishment are there as a penalty for violating that expectation, and only with both parties' consent does the expectation go away (since both have agreed to waive it).
[+]
It's only about public posting anyway.
Bahamut.Milamber said: » The policy regarding consent from parties involved to disclose PM's has me scratching my head a bit in general. /shrugs. main page says there are 600 people on right now...
of course 570 of them are some variation of "Josiahfk" >.> so....good luck permabanning him... also, did sugar britches get banned (flavin) or is he on another menonitte holiday!?
[+]
Shiva.Nikolce said: » main page says there are 600 people on right now... of course 570 of them are some variation of "Josiahfk" >.> so....good luck permabanning him... also, did sugar britches get banned (flavin) or is he on another menonitte holiday!?
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » I guess another possibility is to require a valid FFXI/FFXIV character or account to post, but that only limits slightly more. I can confirm that for sure. Um... I mean... so I've heard. Why would I ever make an anon account? Heh...
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: » It's only about public posting anyway.
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » The policy regarding consent from parties involved to disclose PM's has me scratching my head a bit in general. /shrugs. Basically this. Valefor.Sehachan said: » Friends share, I think no one should be surprised from that. That's also why lies eventually come around. People
[+]
Asura.Dameshi said: » Nothing personal, but if an admin permabans someone, then they should probably remain banned. Just my two cents (and probably a reason why I shouldn't be a mod :P) Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » I have one user account I frequent just like you dorknerd. One block or ban just hits me x 20+ Bahamut.Kara said: » PM's between people seems like a conversation to me. If you want that conversation private, you need to explicitly state that....just like in a verbal conversation.
[+]
Josiahkf said: » I don't frequent all the others, never said old accounts don't exist. They're just dead and ancient used for comedic purpose and are blatantly me in context or directly. Josiahkf said: » You shitbird lol -_-; |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.