Andy Kaufman Vote - Vallant

[Elrade]

I voted yes, even though I used to be in his position. Guess I just find him annoying.

 

[Danre]

[quote author=Meta Lucario link=topic=10889.msg137197#msg137197 date=1226977423]
I voted yes, even though I used to be in his position. Guess I just find him annoying.
[/quote]

I hope one day you get an Andy Kaufman vote, Meta. I'll be there to have my say.

 

[Elrade]

[quote author=Danre link=topic=10889.msg137200#msg137200 date=1226977630]
I hope one day you get an Andy Kaufman vote, Meta. I'll be there to have my say.
[/quote]
Well, Danre, I've shaped up quite a bit in my time. I hate to say it, but I just can't see Vallant doing the same thing.

 

[Danre]

Say what you will, I've spoken my piece and it seems to have had an overwhelming effect on WtW. The score went from even when I wrote my thoughts, and now look.

Even Vallant took what I said to heart, and look at his posts: While he's still not a paragon of good grammar, he's at least as tolerable a member as you at the moment.

It took him a few days of hard knocks and he's as acceptable as you are. Why, in a few more days he could pass you up!

So this trial is essentially over, the results are as good as in. The new question, in my eyes, is whether or not Meta should be allowed to stay?

Vallant, while slipping up here and there, is generally good-natured. Meta, on the other hand, simply voted to ban another on the grounds of "Eh, I don't like him."

Being a kind bother is better than being a dickish annoyance.

 

[Vande]

Meta will not be having a Kaufman anytime soon sorry to disappoint you there.

Topic is staying open to the end of the month but it is going in your favour Vallant in which i have no regrets over the topic. At least you finally listened to someone and it has made your realise how it pisses everyone off when you do stupid stuff. (congrats Danre)

 

[Elrade]

[quote author=Vande link=topic=10889.msg137238#msg137238 date=1226986316]
Meta will not be having a Kaufman anytime soon sorry to disappoint you there.

Topic is staying open to the end of the month but it is going in your favour Vallant in which i have no regrets over the topic. At least you finally listened to someone and it has made your realise how it pisses everyone off when you do stupid stuff. (congrats Danre)
[/quote]
Thanks Vande. I guess I have shaped up. Maybe Vallant can change... I'm just a jerk at times, so, yeah.

 

[Vallant]

I care not wether you believe I can shape up or not, its your opinion and your entitled to it. Anyhow, hows Rika doing Meta?

 

[SeiferA]

[quote author=Vande link=topic=10889.msg136718#msg136718 date=1226783234]
Vallant has broken rules over and over again. I personally have give him chance after chance to shape up but still he's
carried on with a blatant disregard. The following is a list of what he has done:

- Off topic (Riddle Topic is just one example of this AFTER being told the OT is to stop)
[/quote]

[quote author=Vallant link=topic=10889.msg137556#msg137556 date=1227179222]
Anyhow, hows Rika doing Meta?
[/quote]

>>

 

[Vande]

I leave it to an admin to decide what they wish to do about that as i am tied by the vote.

*sighs* To think people backed you Vallant, to give you a chance. That is like slapping them across the face.

 

[SeiferA]

well, the majority are saying they want him to stay a bit longer. I'm just pointing that out as an example of his previous statement saying he "isn't an idiot" when he just did one of rule breakings in the very topic he's trying to defend himself in.

If it were up to me, and if I didn't really give two shits on what you guys, the pandas or anyone else thought, he'd be banned right now. But I'm going to stay fair and balanced and just let this go on. That's the reason why this topic was created after all. Just take what Vallant did in mind.

 

[Vallant]

Can I find a way to justify that, no. Am I a fool for being so stupid, yes. Will I regret it, Most definatly. I should of just kept my mouth shut instead of trying to get back at Meta, I can say I'm sorry again, but I believe that it wouldn't make a single bit of difference - I'm certain you'll be calling for my head now.

Also I'm sorry Vande if I've dissapointed you by doing this, I did this out of anger rather than thinking it through and being tactful about it.

 

[Vande]

You see Vallant i do not go back on my word, which is why i said - i'll leave it to the admins to decide.

This is what people meant by "think before you post."

 

[Danre]

Fufufu.

I think that some mods and admins judge some things that Vallant does solely on the basis that he is Vallant. Yes, he ended his post slightly off topic. If you'd like, I'll find off topic endings to posts from one dozen respected members before the end of the day. The majority of his post was on topic, and Seifer decided to post the last little bit by itself as evidence of wrongdoing.

Is a small off-topic that's not even THAT off-topic (I imagine he was making a jab at Meta, which would be in keeping with the previous posts by Meta and myself) such a huge rule? That's like yelling at someone for reviving a dead thread with a thought-out and meaningful post on the subject.

Point being, I see that as BARELY breaking a rule, if it even is. It looks bad when Seifer the Awesome Prosecutor throws his evidence out there, but... come on. Vallant's broken rules before, but this was just admins picking on him again.

 

[lost in thought]

You'll forgive me if I am not surprised by the turnout thus far, what with most people making decisions based on friendship or personal benefit, rather than impartially examining his conduct and actually deciding whether or not he's acting unsuitably. Of course, if you can't get that kind of critical thinking in a presidential election, I s'pose its absurd to think of it for something as trivial as this.

After Mugen, though, I knew right when the topic went up this would be a colossal waste of time.


Anyway, for a lack of anything better in mind, I'll just say that if Vallant actually cared about improving his conduct and not risk being banned, he would have straightened up earlier when I had no other choice but to take notice as he got out of hand, and started calling him on his bullshit. All I got from him was excuses and empty apologies, before he would skip along his merry way and continue to act the very way I'd just yelled at him for acting.

Before this topic was put up, I was already dangerously close to just banning him outright and I told him so. Obviously even that didn't sink in.

As far as I am concerned anything to be found in this will just be more excuses and empty promises, which is pretty much par for the course. I honestly can't bring myself to expect to be proven wrong.

 

[BlackWarGreymonX]

There is a lot less transparency of action here than there is of the presidential elections though.

My point being: How are we supposed to make a completely impartial decision when we don't have all the data we need, If you ask me at random about a member i can hardly be expected to know every one of that members infractions, therefore I would make my decision based on a) My personal experience in dealing with them & b) The rules of which I know they have broken.

Example here:

As far as I know directly the only rules Vallant has broken are SPAM and OFF-TOPIC.
I base this on experience posting around the board, as far as I know this topic could be reflective of just those infractions or alternatively its very existence could be mainly determined by information visible only to mods+.

Therefore due to a lack of data my judgement cannot be fully impartial. I would be interested to see a list of who voted for and against and their relative positions within the site.
I am willing to bet that the majority of mods etc voted for his banning whilst the majority of his supporters are non-mods.

On top of his you need to take into account the age and activity of the voting members:

My case in point being the newbie who voted to ban Vallant with a post count of 3. Unless this member is some kind of serial lurker they will not have the information necessary information to make any kind of judgement.

I'm not trying to say that new members aren't entitled to their opinion I merely believe that everything should be taken in perspective.

To sum up my argument this entire thread is moderately pointless as the majority cannot have the impartiality to vote accordingly.

Although by the same token it serves a purpose in allowing the community to decide rather than a dictator-esque decision, which I respect.

For a balanced conclusion this poll should really have been taken by staff.


@Vallant: That was a bit of an idiotic thing to post wasn't it, wrong time, wrong place (for you anyway...) :

 

[Danre]

[quote author=lost in thought link=topic=10889.msg137620#msg137620 date=1227224373]
You'll forgive me if I am not surprised by the turnout thus far, what with most people making decisions based on friendship or personal benefit, rather than impartially examining his conduct and actually deciding whether or not he's acting unsuitably. Of course, if you can't get that kind of critical thinking in a presidential election, I s'pose its absurd to think of it for something as trivial as this.

After Mugen, though, I knew right when the topic went up this would be a colossal waste of time.


Anyway, for a lack of anything better in mind, I'll just say that if Vallant actually cared about improving his conduct and not risk being banned, he would have straightened up earlier when I had no other choice but to take notice as he got out of hand, and started calling him on his bullshit. All I got from him was excuses and empty apologies, before he would skip along his merry way and continue to act the very way I'd just yelled at him for acting.

Before this topic was put up, I was already dangerously close to just banning him outright and I told him so. Obviously even that didn't sink in.

As far as I am concerned anything to be found in this will just be more excuses and empty promises, which is pretty much par for the course. I honestly can't bring myself to expect to be proven wrong.
[/quote]

I don't really view these as real justice, no. It's more of... a popularity contest, for some people. If Vallant had done something truly outrageous, I think you higher-ups would have just agreed to ban him. The fact that he's having this mock trial indicates that his infractions, while ridiculously numerous, have been fairly minor.

Of course, a ton of minor infractions makes for a bigger pain in the ass in the long run than a member who simply comes in, makes ten posts and gets into a huge argument with an admin and gets banned. And yes, if Vallant screws up again, I already mentioned I won't be surprised. However, I do feel that if he gets banned in a vote like this, people might feel bad. If we give him this final opportunity to turn it around and he screws up again... not one person on the site can complain, really.

So I say give him one last chance. His spelling's already gotten better, to the point that it's almost at regular human being standards, and he's stayed mostly on topic since this began, and so forth. Of course, I agree that I won't be surprised even a bit if he starts going back into being a complete idiot, but when it happens, you guys can crush him like the Fist of God and no one will be able to feel bad for him at that point.

Also, about the validity of these Kaufmans, which I agree are not indicators of what's fair or not, they almost seem like they should go in random stupidities. I can almost see a new trend of members posting these for each other, seeing who is the most popular on the site!

 

[lost in thought]

@BlackWarGreymonX:
I don't agree with the transparency statement, because you can easily look at his posting history and find out all you need to know about him to make a critical decision in this case. As a member that is aware of the rules, it shouldn't necessarily be difficult to spot where someone completely ignores the rules.

But, if you don't feel this is enough information to provide an impartial judgment, then you're in the same way free to withhold judgment. I would rather see people saying "no comment", than "he's my friend" or "he's a big part of my rpg." Clearly in cases like these, a decision isn't made on any merit of value, but of favor and personal benefit.

Basically when you equate favor and benefit into the matter, all you've accomplished is that impartiality is doomed, and no 'fair' considerations can be made, good or bad. This leads back to my last point about it being a waste of time.

"I am willing to bet that the majority of mods etc voted for his banning whilst the majority of his supporters are non-mods."
I have no idea, while I was dangerously close to banning him, I couldn't care less how this ends- it just bothers me that people are so forgiving of prolonged actions, because of favor and benefit. It totally ruins any intent that was used in the making of the thread. Basically, once this ends, the results are already tainted by bias so the data is useless.

"My case in point being the newbie who voted to ban Vallant with a post count of 3. Unless this member is some kind of serial lurker they will not have the information necessary information to make any kind of judgement."
Although I don't necessarily disagree, as I pointed out earlier, there is enough information available through Vallant's posting history to use to form your opinion of him.

"For a balanced conclusion this poll should really have been taken by staff."
I can't say I agree, mostly because I think Vande's the only one who really cares whether or not he's banned, thanks to him pissing her off more than once. As for me, I am so bemused by banning people that at this point its just a routine that I don't even think about. That probably sounds mean, but... well, doing the job for a number of years has a way of numbing a person I find. So clearly I don't have any emotional stake in the matter, but I do know members still do, so it works as a threat.

Usually.

Of course, I can't say if Digistar and goc have any more care in the matter, but I doubt it.


@Danre:
"I don't really view these as real justice, no. It's more of... a popularity contest, for some people. If Vallant had done something truly outrageous, I think you higher-ups would have just agreed to ban him. The fact that he's having this mock trial indicates that his infractions, while ridiculously numerous, have been fairly minor."
I don't disagree, this is pretty much a sham. Like I pointed out, I was already close to banning him, but putting this topic up wasn't my idea- I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt one last time, and then when he antagonized another member, like he has been doing recently, I was just going to ban him, no fuss, no muss. Get on with my day.

But that doesn't necessarily invalidate his infractions, it just means that Vande managed to get approval for this before I got his next infraction. So I just sat back and watched this play out.


Of course, since she went to the trouble I'll (however briefly) abide by the results until he fucks up again, and I have no doubt in my mind that he will, but this is really just delaying the inevitable. I should hope this doesn't become a trend, it gets in the way of my routine.

 

[BlackWarGreymonX]

I agree with you on some of those points, but to be honest, most people who voted aren't going to think about this in any detail. They will look at the poll tick a box based on a preconception of Vallant and move on.

Then again there are those who vote to keep Vallant just because they know he annoys Vande.

However the mods do have the final decision after all (which is how it should be).

 

[lost in thought]

@BlackWarGreymonX:
"to be honest, most people who voted aren't going to think about this in any detail. They will look at the poll tick a box based on a preconception of Vallant and move on."
And thats the rub right there, which trivializes an opportunity to actually give the members here the chance to vote on the outcome of a case, in a way akin to what a real jury might do. I think this also illustrates the problem, in that unlike the real court system, there is no stated liability for our community jury, should they commit perjury in judging a matter.

I am thinking the only way to make one of these work is to stipulate that should anyone vote out of benefit or favor, or vote without much thought and not supply a well thought defense of their position, I will ban them. Otherwise they would be free to not vote at all. It would probably kill off over half of the recognized involvement from past/current votes, but I think that would be a fair trade for attempting to make people define good reasons for why someone shouldn't be banned in the vote.

That, or forgo this entire process altogether and go about business as usual. 'Cause, clearly this isn't going to get us anywhere without making some kind of punishment for voting poorly.

 

[BlackWarGreymonX]

Would not the easiest way of ensuring that be to simply discount the votes of those who did then stipulate a reason?