Fiesta Fan Forums - View Single Post

bolsz1 · 04-25-2008, 11:47 AM

SerodinSilver: That's such a well thought out and masterfully articulated argument, I can't believe you don't have the entire community agreeing with your every word.

Aerythia: Yes, Falco was an "example". No, he was not any kind of scapegoat. He was banned because he allegedly broke a big rule in a very public way, and Outspark was, presumably, forced to act. Obviously Outspark can't "ban half the server" because they'd have no client base. What they can do is exactly what they have done - make a public example of someone so as to discourage others.

Walnut: While you do have a point that a permaban may have been harsh, that's not your decision to make. We all agreed to the EULA, and that says Outspark, not the community, decides all punishment for rules violations.

+Tequila+: Even if those are the screenshots that were turned in, Outspark does log all chat that happens on their servers. I know this for a fact, as I had a very long discussion with Dakkon trying to get back an item belonging to a guild member of mine that was scammed away from her by a fake enhancer. Because of these chat logs, and player trade logs, Dakkon took the item away from the scammer and gave it to me, then permabanned the scammer's account.
My point is, the evidence that was delivered to and, presumably, gathered by Outspark may never be presented to the community. Outspark is in no way obligated to do so. This issue is between Falcomist and Outspark. I think the only way we will see such evidence is if Falcomist chooses to disclose it.

Ivramire: Thanks for the encouragement. I've always enjoyed playing devil's advocate in heated situations. That said, I don't think you understood my comparison. I wasn't comparing killing people in real life to killing people in a computer game. There, as you pointed out, is no comparison. I was comparing rule breaking and how it escalates out of control and needs to be ended with swift justice before there is unreparable damage.
If Outspark only concerned about their bottom line, the outcome of this incident would have been much different. Uchi and Falco were both cash shop users, and as such would have been given a slap on the wrist. The decision to ban them actually HURT the profit margin.

Again, I am in no way, shape, or form saying that Falcomist's ban was justified. I'm saying that we don't know the circumstances of what happened. We've heard only a very limited portion of one side of the issue. The screenshots in this thread have Falco saying some insulting, but not overly racist things. Perhaps Uchi's stigma of blatant racism enveloped Falco as well, or perhaps Falco said things equally as racist that weren't captured in a picture. In either event, we don't know.

Just for the record, I voted yes to the ban, but not because I believe he should have been banned. I did it to express my divergent viewpoint.

04-25-2008, 11:47 AM	#29
bolsz1 Slime Posts: 3	SerodinSilver: That's such a well thought out and masterfully articulated argument, I can't believe you don't have the entire community agreeing with your every word. Aerythia: Yes, Falco was an "example". No, he was not any kind of scapegoat. He was banned because he allegedly broke a big rule in a very public way, and Outspark was, presumably, forced to act. Obviously Outspark can't "ban half the server" because they'd have no client base. What they can do is exactly what they have done - make a public example of someone so as to discourage others. Walnut: While you do have a point that a permaban may have been harsh, that's not your decision to make. We all agreed to the EULA, and that says Outspark, not the community, decides all punishment for rules violations. +Tequila+: Even if those are the screenshots that were turned in, Outspark does log all chat that happens on their servers. I know this for a fact, as I had a very long discussion with Dakkon trying to get back an item belonging to a guild member of mine that was scammed away from her by a fake enhancer. Because of these chat logs, and player trade logs, Dakkon took the item away from the scammer and gave it to me, then permabanned the scammer's account. My point is, the evidence that was delivered to and, presumably, gathered by Outspark may never be presented to the community. Outspark is in no way obligated to do so. This issue is between Falcomist and Outspark. I think the only way we will see such evidence is if Falcomist chooses to disclose it. Ivramire: Thanks for the encouragement. I've always enjoyed playing devil's advocate in heated situations. That said, I don't think you understood my comparison. I wasn't comparing killing people in real life to killing people in a computer game. There, as you pointed out, is no comparison. I was comparing rule breaking and how it escalates out of control and needs to be ended with swift justice before there is unreparable damage. If Outspark only concerned about their bottom line, the outcome of this incident would have been much different. Uchi and Falco were both cash shop users, and as such would have been given a slap on the wrist. The decision to ban them actually HURT the profit margin. Again, I am in no way, shape, or form saying that Falcomist's ban was justified. I'm saying that we don't know the circumstances of what happened. We've heard only a very limited portion of one side of the issue. The screenshots in this thread have Falco saying some insulting, but not overly racist things. Perhaps Uchi's stigma of blatant racism enveloped Falco as well, or perhaps Falco said things equally as racist that weren't captured in a picture. In either event, we don't know. Just for the record, I voted yes to the ban, but not because I believe he should have been banned. I did it to express my divergent viewpoint.