[Ryan]

I don’t dispute that. What I take issue with as a leader is that actions were already taken for these offenses (including the most recent one) and we’re now trying to tack on additional punishments after the fact. The four week ban was justified, a permanent ban would’ve been justified,

Double jeopardy doesn’t exist here. I think a different way to look at this is that a large portion of the community thinks that the decision was too lenient and are speaking up. If the conclusion by the admin team, upon review and reflection, is that they were too lenient and the ban should be extended, why shouldn’t they?

[cameron]

I don’t dispute that. What I take issue with as a leader is that actions were already taken for these offenses (including the most recent one) and we’re now trying to tack on additional punishments after the fact. The four week ban was justified, a permanent ban would’ve been justified,

Double jeopardy doesn’t exist here. I think a different way to look at this is that a large portion of the community thinks that the decision was too lenient and are speaking up. If the conclusion by the admin team, upon review and reflection, is that they were too lenient and the ban should be extended, why shouldn’t they?

Because it’s not a democracy either. There’s a reason courts take a jury of peers to decide guilt but leave sentencing to the judges. People (as a collective) are biased and stupid. When society let the masses decide punishments, “witches” get burned, people get lynched for accusations because of their skin color.  You’re describing mob rule. History shows that doesn’t work but I’m sure the mobs on dinklebergs are more level headed than that ?

[BillyBob]

I don’t dispute that. What I take issue with as a leader is that actions were already taken for these offenses (including the most recent one) and we’re now trying to tack on additional punishments after the fact. The four week ban was justified, a permanent ban would’ve been justified,

Double jeopardy doesn’t exist here. I think a different way to look at this is that a large portion of the community thinks that the decision was too lenient and are speaking up. If the conclusion by the admin team, upon review and reflection, is that they were too lenient and the ban should be extended, why shouldn’t they?

Because it’s not a democracy either. There’s a reason courts take a jury of peers to decide guilt but leave sentencing to the judges. People (as a collective) are biased and stupid. When society let the masses decide punishments, “witches” get burned, people get lynched for accusations because of their skin color.  You’re describing mob rule. History shows that doesn’t work but I’m sure the mobs on dinklebergs are more level headed than that ?

well they didn’t have screenshots during the Salem witch trials, but we do have proof of Hong calling Hoy a baby, so… what’s your point?

i also enjoy the irony of complaining about a mass group of people making “wrongful” accusations when Hong was directly involved in doing this. Unfortunately your arguments against 1984 go for all sides, even your friends.

[Jawa]

Jawa

+1 to you for the sensible reply. I get it. I ran a community at least equal to the size of dinks for a long time. We didn’t have multiple game modes like here, but we had multiple TTT servers that held healthy player counts. These actions probably would’ve gotten Hong banned on there (sorry Hong). I don’t dispute that. What I take issue with as a leader is that actions were already taken for these offenses (including the most recent one) and we’re now trying to tack on additional punishments after the fact. The four week ban was justified, a permanent ban would’ve been justified, but that wasn’t the decision that was made and dragging out three-year-old screenshots by people feeding into the drama train, does not warrant revising what was already done in my opinion. If it continues, absolutely drop the hammer but this isn’t it.

You are somewhat correct, a 4 week ban was justified back then, but since then more information has come out about what Hong has been doing to others. The punishment fitted the bill when it was for what little we knew back then, but now (like this thread shows) we know more about what Hong has done, and therefore the punishment should be altered too. 

Unless you are suggesting, that because Hong is mid-punishment we should either pause or ignore his other issues too? And if so how does that help anyone?

[August]

I don’t dispute that. What I take issue with as a leader is that actions were already taken for these offenses (including the most recent one) and we’re now trying to tack on additional punishments after the fact. The four week ban was justified, a permanent ban would’ve been justified,

Double jeopardy doesn’t exist here. I think a different way to look at this is that a large portion of the community thinks that the decision was too lenient and are speaking up. If the conclusion by the admin team, upon review and reflection, is that they were too lenient and the ban should be extended, why shouldn’t they?

Because it’s not a democracy either. There’s a reason courts take a jury of peers to decide guilt but leave sentencing to the judges. People (as a collective) are biased and stupid. When society let the masses decide punishments, “witches” get burned, people get lynched for accusations because of their skin color.  You’re describing mob rule. History shows that doesn’t work but I’m sure the mobs on dinklebergs are more level headed than that ?

I see what you're saying, but I feel your view is a little flawed. The example you described as a "court of law" is EXACTLY how this place works. Admins, or the "judges" in your example, are well within their right to not take what we say into account and make decisions solely on the evidence provided. I cannot remember any instance in the last 4-5 years where the issue of "mob mentality" has affected a decision. usually when you see cases like that, there is clear behavior issues and overwhelming evidence against the person they are "mobbing" against.

We, as staff, have always based our decisions on the evidence provided. You have multiple former admins on this thread alone who agree that an increase of punishment is very much justified if the current admins deem it so. The evidence against Hong shows years of history that have continued up to now, so if the Admins wish to change his punishment to a permanent ban, they are within their right to do that if they deem that the evidence supports it. This community still ahs some good admins, so I trust they will made the decision that they feel is best as they reevaluate the evidence that has been brought forward.

[RussEfarmer]

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face, but the guidelines for racism outside of prophunt are too lax. Permanent bans should be given quicker for racism, and the time for a warning for racism to expire should be at least 6 months or longer from the most recent offense.

This is what I was going to put on the original thread before it got locked. There's no denying that Hong needs to go try and say that crap in real life and see what the hell happens, but digging up 2+ year old evidence for a ban request in those specific circumstances was not only petty, but more importantly did not address the underlying problem... why wasn't he permabanned anyway? TTT historically has a garbage track record with enforcing slurs & racist behavior, we should be calling on the moderators & admins to explain why this was even tolerated in the first place.

[HONG]

snip

You are somewhat correct, a 4 week ban was justified back then, but since then more information has come out about what Hong has been doing to others. The punishment fitted the bill when it was for what little we knew back then, but now (like this thread shows) we know more about what Hong has done, and therefore the punishment should be altered too. 

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face, but the guidelines for racism outside of prophunt are too lax. Permanent bans should be given quicker for racism, and the time for a warning for racism to expire should be at least 6 months or longer from the most recent offense.

This is what I was going to put on the original thread before it got locked. There's no denying that Hong needs to go try and say that crap in real life and see what the hell happens, but digging up 2+ year old evidence for a ban request in those specific circumstances was not only petty, but more importantly did not address the underlying problem... why wasn't he permabanned anyway? TTT historically has a garbage track record with enforcing slurs & racist behavior, we should be calling on the moderators & admins to explain why this was even tolerated in the first place.

Just to clarify, the stuff with Lemon resulted in a verbal warning from an admin and a logging of the incident, it's not at all new information for staff; whether or not that was taken into consideration with the last warn currently being discussed that got me banned for a month, I have no clue, especially since the warn specifically came with approval from an admin (not the same as the one who gave the verbal warn). Whether or not I get banned matters far less to me than reaching out and giving apologies that people deserve, regardless of if I'm forgiven or not.

[LemonTiara]

I feel like this whole thread further solidifies that in this place, it doesn't matter what you did, but who you are. 

Two people can do the same thing, but only the one who isn't well liked will have everyone coming after them about what happend. Calling them names, asking for bans, etc.

A well liked person doesn't get the same treatment.