The Kiwike Code of Conduct

[Crashlander04]

As long as there have been rules, there have been rule-dodgers, those people who will try to find exceptions in the rules and exploit them. Moderators should have the power to stop them

Then the rules should specifically address exceptions. Simple.

There's no way that the rules can encompass all of what should and should not happen on the server. The community needs to step up and take some responsibility for their actions. Even if you do violate something that you didn't know about, someone'll let you know and boom. Now you know. You most likely won't be punished until the second or third time you do something that you know is wrong.

If that thing is blatantly wrong, yes, that makes sense. The problem arises when the action is subjective and controversial. (eg; raiding too much with RP reason, breaking blocks with the intention of fixing them, etc..).

Crash, we get that you're pissed that Ian's banned, you can start making arguments that don't focus on that point now

I gave two examples for the purpose of helping give a picture of what a subjective offence could be. There is nothing wrong with that.
Unless you have a point relevant to this discussion, whether as a legitimate argument or constructive critic of my own argument, please, don't be a cunt.

[Leech]

Then the rules should specifically address exceptions. Simple.

There's no way that the rules can encompass all of what should and should not happen on the server. The community needs to step up and take some responsibility for their actions. Even if you do violate something that you didn't know about, someone'll let you know and boom. Now you know. You most likely won't be punished until the second or third time you do something that you know is wrong.

If that thing is blatantly wrong, yes, that makes sense. The problem arises when the action is subjective and controversial. (eg; raiding too much with RP reason, breaking blocks with the intention of fixing them, etc..).

Crash, we get that you're pissed that Ian's banned, you can start making arguments that don't focus on that point now

I gave two examples for the purpose of helping give a picture of what a subjective offence could be. There is nothing wrong with that.
Unless you have a point relevant to this discussion, whether as a legitimate argument or constructive critic of my own argument, please, don't be a cunt.

Let me restate it then. My argument is that you attempt to validate every single argument by bringing up Solitude and Ian. Your argument for why a major portion of a plan is bad is based on a single example, the validity of which is extremely debatable. Furthermore, months after this event has occurred, you still consistently use this as your main point for almost every topic. Whether it's pushing the demotion of someone involved are preventing legitimate change, I can always expect the same argument from you. Every time you do this, your argument appears invalid to me and many others. So, if you ever want us to take you seriously, shut the fuck up about Solitude. They're gone , get over it

tl;dr Kiwike ≠ Ian

[Crashlander04]

I'll see ya around then.

[sethd13]

Leechy, we all know you only hate solitude because we raped promethia so hard, crash stop disregarding comments made by people you don't like. <3333333

ANY WAYS:I think moderators should not be able to ban people for things not in the rules. ADMINS can ban on any case if they see fit.

[iDieForEXP]

I think the staff should remain as one unit in this case. The more specific you get, the more fingers get pointed around.

[Android]

I agree with iDie. Even if I, for example, see something absolutely objectively and it's ban worthy, there will always be someone to accuse me of being biased. Whether they just dislike me in general or were friends with the one who was banned, it always causes unnecessary anger between two parties.

Basically, even having just admins being able to ban for things that aren't specified in the rules, no matter what it is, won't allow for efficient explainations. I'd much prefer to have the staff act as a unit, as iDie described.

[Cell]

There's no way that the rules can encompass all of what should and should not happen on the server. The community needs to step up and take some responsibility for their actions. Even if you do violate something that you didn't know about, someone'll let you know and boom. Now you know. You most likely won't be punished until the second or third time you do something that you know is wrong.

If that thing is blatantly wrong, yes, that makes sense. The problem arises when the action is subjective and controversial. (eg; raiding too much with RP reason, breaking blocks with the intention of fixing them, etc..).

Crash, we get that you're pissed that Ian's banned, you can start making arguments that don't focus on that point now

I gave two examples for the purpose of helping give a picture of what a subjective offence could be. There is nothing wrong with that.
Unless you have a point relevant to this discussion, whether as a legitimate argument or constructive critic of my own argument, please, don't be a cunt.

Let me restate it then. My argument is that you attempt to validate every single argument by bringing up Solitude and Ian. Your argument for why a major portion of a plan is bad is based on a single example, the validity of which is extremely debatable. Furthermore, months after this event has occurred, you still consistently use this as your main point for almost every topic. Whether it's pushing the demotion of someone involved are preventing legitimate change, I can always expect the same argument from you. Every time you do this, your argument appears invalid to me and many others. So, if you ever want us to take you seriously, shut the fuck up about Solitude. They're gone , get over it

tl;dr Kiwike ≠ Ian

Hi!

My name is Cell!

I'm pro Solitude ban!

So my information isn't tainted! Right?

So, lets get this straight. Don't be an asshole, Leech. Your a nice guy and all, but he is using legitimate information to back up his claims. He is one of the few that wanted them to not be banned. So, that voids all of his reasoning? I think not. You can't just bullshit your way through the rules, stating "Exception" as a rule, and then banning people for something that was not even related to at all in the official rules list. That is not how the server should operate. There should be a little leeway, but nothing extreme, and Crash is making a good point on the topic. So, quit your bitching, and let him speak.

@iDie
Could you elaborate? How do more fingers get pointed around for something that is specifically in the rules? Ie. If you have a three step system, warn-temp-ban (Just as an example.). And a rule states that that breaking blocks and not replacing them within 24 hours, and a player does this three times, resulting in a permanent ban. It clearly stated in the rules they could not do so, and therefore, they are banned. Where as if there is nothing in the rules on the topic, and they get banned, there is more likely going to be a fight about it.

[Crashlander04]

cue a mean smythie comment

---

is it que?

---

queue? that sounds right

[Smythie]

I'd rather not involve myself in a heated argument, thank you.

[Android]

If that thing is blatantly wrong, yes, that makes sense. The problem arises when the action is subjective and controversial. (eg; raiding too much with RP reason, breaking blocks with the intention of fixing them, etc..).

Crash, we get that you're pissed that Ian's banned, you can start making arguments that don't focus on that point now

I gave two examples for the purpose of helping give a picture of what a subjective offence could be. There is nothing wrong with that.
Unless you have a point relevant to this discussion, whether as a legitimate argument or constructive critic of my own argument, please, don't be a cunt.

Let me restate it then. My argument is that you attempt to validate every single argument by bringing up Solitude and Ian. Your argument for why a major portion of a plan is bad is based on a single example, the validity of which is extremely debatable. Furthermore, months after this event has occurred, you still consistently use this as your main point for almost every topic. Whether it's pushing the demotion of someone involved are preventing legitimate change, I can always expect the same argument from you. Every time you do this, your argument appears invalid to me and many others. So, if you ever want us to take you seriously, shut the fuck up about Solitude. They're gone , get over it

tl;dr Kiwike ≠ Ian

I'm pro Solitude ban!

So my information isn't tainted! Right?

So, lets get this straight. Don't be an asshole, Leech. Your a nice guy and all, but he is using legitimate information to back up his claims. He is one of the few that wanted them to not be banned. So, that voids all of his reasoning? I think not. You can't just bullshit your way through the rules, stating "Exception" as a rule, and then banning people for something that was not even related to at all in the official rules list. That is not how the server should operate. There should be a little leeway, but nothing extreme, and Crash is making a good point on the topic. So, quit your bitching, and let him speak.

Unless you call noting someone's supposed anger publicly extremely offensive, it should be clear that Leech didn't start the hostility in this argument, Crash did, and every time he does as such, the rate of legitimacy in his arguments falls 99%. As you can also see, Leech retaliated as any sane person would do, only to have people directly blame him for being the jerk that Crash reflected himself. If you want to see further proof, look not one line below.

cue a mean smythie comment

---

is it que?

---

queue? that sounds right

You were right the first time, with cue. Also, this is completely unnecessary to bring up. Just as you call me condescending, I'd suggest you stop with ridiculous posts.



Look, I'm not trying to call names here, just noting some key misconceptions taking place, and trying to keep the directionless arguing at a minimum.