DISMISS[Staff Infraction]Macky May 11, 2010

**Empress Meg** · May 11, 2010, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Senno

Macky has been infracted for censor bypass. He seems to have repeated the comment that got him suspended by CDeC in the first place. Comment edited by me to protect the innocent.

If anything else is needed, do not hesitate to PM.

Senno

User: Macky
Infraction: censor bypassing
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Macky

Message to User:

Your comment on Lysasimuch's profile is a censor bypass as outlined in the ToS.

CdeC have removed it for a week as I called this guy a

.

I am issuing an infraction for censor bypass as a result.

You may appeal to the tribunal or Praetorium if you disagree with this action.

Any questions please do not hesitate to PM

Senno

***PM sent to user.

**Empress Meg** · May 11, 2010, 04:55 PM

Err, so I got back the following from Macky:

Originally Posted by Macky

Devoirs The Empress

**Viking Prince** · May 11, 2010, 05:11 PM

Do we need to original bypass?

**Augustus Lucifer** · May 11, 2010, 08:14 PM

I could see folks going either way on this. On the one hand, he perpetrated the same offense twice. On the other, he did so probably in response to a query about why his Citizenship was not active and did so in a medium, visitor messages, that are not as publicly scrutinized as posts and are intended for the recipient, whom he knows well enough. Personally I think a deletion would have more than sufficed and a reminder that visitor messages are public, given the fact that an 'innocent' would have had to go out of their way to view the bypass on Lysimachus' profile and it was being used as a (poorly approached) explanatory qualifier, which we allow for that purpose in discussion.

Had the same exchange occurred via PM we'd never have heard about it, nor should we care if we did assuming the recipient was indifferent, and visitor messages are pursued in much the same way as PMs, with the physical limitation that they're publicly viewable. This seems more a matter of lapse in judgment or utilization in a semi-private correspondence for explanation purposes than the alternative, which is an act of defiance, and as such I favor a Censure since I don't see this as an escalation of the previous occurrence.

**Viking Prince** · May 12, 2010, 12:07 AM

And why do you suppose that this was issued solely on the basis of a new gent? I would have made the same call. As a matter of fact, consider that I made the call since I did have input on the matter. It is absolute madness to repeat the crime for whatever reason. He is a citizen and he knows better. To suggest that it was not meant to be seen -- that is what email and other off site contacts are for. Again Macky knows better.

As for his response to the Curator -- well I have know idea what I would have done, but the smilie probably is a good as anything. He got caught and there is nothing to add.

Since I will not be here to resolve this -- that is my opinion, but no comment on how I would vote.

**Augustus Lucifer** · May 12, 2010, 12:43 AM

That comment was a non sequitur and was spoken in haste about a matter which does not wholly relate to this case, so I have removed it and apologize accordingly for initially appending it. I've modified my previous post to better reflect my position on the matter after having given this more thought. It comes down to whether or not this is seen as an act of defiance, a willful misstep given the personal medium, a lapse in judgment, etc. I'm not inclined to believe it was defiant or an escalation of his previous visit, and shall vote accordingly, but he clearly isn't doing himself any favors by perpetrating the same offense twice.

**Justinian** · May 12, 2010, 12:55 PM

I'm wary of overly policing friendly visitor messages...

**the Black Prince** · May 12, 2010, 03:57 PM

context is everything.

Alex asks, wtf happened to your citizenship
Macky responds, CdeC have removed it for a week as I called this guy a ****

I don't see an issue here. He wasn't repeating the offence as such, he was giving an explanation to a question.

Dismiss

**Trax** · May 13, 2010, 12:18 PM

Frankly I don't find the censor bypass to be a serious crime at all.
The powers to be have installed the censor but I have personally never approved it.
Also, the incident didn't take place in the public forums.

On the other hand it is kind of stupid of him to get twice infracted for essentially the same thing.
It comes even close to defying moderators and CdeC.
So I find that he should be punished the same way as the last time.

**Leonidas The Lion** · May 13, 2010, 12:39 PM

I'm with tBP on this one, he was explaining what he had done.

Dismiss.

**Trax** · May 13, 2010, 02:40 PM

I'm with tBP on this one, he was explaining what he had done.

What kind of excuse is this really?
He could have explained it in many different ways without actually repeating the offence.
What he did only shows arrogance in his side - defying both the mods and CdeC.

**Leonidas The Lion** · May 13, 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Trax

What kind of excuse is this really?
He could have explained it in many different ways without actually repeating the offence.
What he did only shows arrogance in his side - defying both the mods and CdeC.

Granted that he could express it in a different way, however i still think that since he was answering a question he was merely stating what he had done.

The next question is about is about defiance. Do you really think he set out to defy us or did he just answer the question without considering that he was defying moderation or the CdeC? I'm more inclined to believe the latter.

Having said that, I can understand how you(or anyone else) can see him as defying moderation and CdeC, and I respect that.

**Elzabar** · May 14, 2010, 12:57 AM

He full well knew that doing it again was breaking the ToS, there is no debate about that.

AL, the ToS applies to everywhere on the site, not just the public forums. If somebody gets an insulting visitor message, the person who sent said visitor message will be punished (depending on the severity of the case). Just because the rule has been broken on a slightly less public medium does not mean the rule doesn't apply to that part of the site. I don't see why it should be dismissed on that basis.

That said, his comment wasn't meant to be malicious. It was simply a reply to a query. But he knew he was breaking the rules, and really, there is no excuse for it.

What was this last case where he was suspended that y'all are talking about?

**Empress Meg** · May 14, 2010, 08:52 AM

His suspension ends tomorrow. The links are:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=352331
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=354170

Devoirs The Empress

**Justinian** · May 14, 2010, 10:51 AM

Meg, do the CdeC polls really need to be hidden?

**Empress Meg** · May 14, 2010, 07:44 PM

I didn't hide them, there's no period at the ends of them selections. I'll double check and make sure I ticked the correct boxes. I may have missed one, sorry about that.

Should be fixed now.

Devoirs The Empress