Back to Topic Index

Regarding Joe

By Chimpy on 03/08/2009
So yeah, didn't want to post this on the hall of shame topic, thought it would be to much drama. No drama here plz neko2.gif.

So Anyways, I went to get Joe's side of the story, and it varied a bit from what the post said, or wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. This isn't meant to defend Joe, but I'm just throwing this out there.

QUOTE
(14:41:14) <Chimpy> reporting the same topic 21 times in 7 minutes yesterday.
(14:41:15) <Chimpy> WTF FGT
(14:41:29) <Quikdrawjoe> 21 seperate replies
(14:41:38) <Quikdrawjoe> the whole back and forth between Darth and Nath
---
(14:47:39) <Quikdrawjoe> I was reporting bad posts instead of flaming biggrin.gif



QUOTE
(14:44:44) <Chimpy> But seriously you should have heeded the warnings...
(14:44:53) <Chimpy> What were you thinking? >.<
(14:45:02) <Quikdrawjoe> what warnings? o-o
(14:45:35) <Chimpy> He was verbally warned firmly by Lordy last night for that, but did it again this morning.
(14:45:49) <Chimpy> ^ pertaining to the report thing
(14:45:54) <Quikdrawjoe> Must have talked to him in a dream then
(14:46:17) <Chimpy> Did he even talk to you at all via IRC or anything?
(14:46:19) <Quikdrawjoe> Because I didn't talk to Lordy yesterday or today
(14:46:22) <Quikdrawjoe> nope
(14:46:29) <Quikdrawjoe> well he did kb from lobby does that count?
(14:46:34) <Chimpy> idk maybe
(14:46:44) <Quikdrawjoe> george did the kb not lordy


QUOTE
(15:08:30) <Chimpy> So the flaming of staff I guess wasn't even recent
(15:08:41) <Quikdrawjoe> this year maybe biggrin.gif
(15:09:00) <Chimpy> "He showed disgusting behaviour to ex-members in #wg_lobby as well, as well as flaming guests around the same time."
(15:09:03) <Chimpy> what about that?
(15:09:11) <Quikdrawjoe> thde mickey thing
(15:09:25) <Quikdrawjoe> and Yingyang
(15:09:30) <Quikdrawjoe> who is banned not a guest
(15:10:37) <Chimpy> Why flame Mickey? :<
(15:10:54) <Quikdrawjoe> he was doing Troll Jr
(15:11:18) <Chimpy> wat
(15:11:27) <Quikdrawjoe> when Stoke did the Boxxy intro
(15:11:34) <Quikdrawjoe> then Mickey did something similar
(15:11:44) <Chimpy> Oh.
(15:11:49) <Quikdrawjoe> so instead of deleting either or something smart
(15:11:55) <Quikdrawjoe> they were like whoo post count



Joe wanted me to pass this on:
QUOTE
(14:57:10) <Quikdrawjoe> July 15, 2007 - August 3, 2009. Guardian for life. I kept my promise when Lordy asked who was with WG I was WG till you banned me.


Anyways seems a little strange, can we get any clarrification or anything?

Discuss.



By Bassism on 03/08/2009
I think at heart Joe was a good member, he just didn't really know the best way to go about things. He reminded me very much of Rick Hamm, who was another good friend of mine.

Joe always knew what was right for this clan, but had a hard time voicing it maturely. In my opinion I didn't see anything that warranted his warning level being maintained at that high a level for as long as it did.

By Chimpy on 03/08/2009
QUOTE (Bassism @ August 03, 2009 02:22 pm)
I think at heart Joe was a good member, he just didn't really know the best way to go about things. He reminded me very much of Rick Hamm, who was another good friend of mine.

Joe always knew what was right for this clan, but had a hard time voicing it maturely. In my opinion I didn't see anything that warranted his warning level being maintained at that high a level for as long as it did.

I agree. He seemed like he always had very strong opinions and just wasn't very good at disagreeing with people in a nice manner tface.gif.

By George on 03/08/2009
Sure i'll clarify.
For the Hall of Shame topic I just digged out his warn log and went back quite a long way, flaming staff (whizzy) was like... last year sometime when she was a raid leader. It was just to post a full picture of what he has done to WG in the past and now in the present.

He's definately lying (no idea why huh.gif) about Lordy not talking to him.
Lordy talked with him last night and warned him.
He then told me that if Joe was to do it again, I was to ban him without needing his permission, so I did.

It's all HIS fault and I want you to remember that. He was in full knowledge of what he was doing, yet he persisted.
Suspensions did nothing to him as when he came back from a suspension he was deliberately bad again...

Hope i've cleared some of that up Chimp wub.gif

~George

By Chimpy on 03/08/2009
QUOTE (Gorgemaster @ August 03, 2009 02:26 pm)
Sure i'll clarify.
For the Hall of Shame topic I just digged out his warn log and went back quite a long way, flaming staff (whizzy) was like... last year sometime when she was a raid leader. It was just to post a full picture of what he has done to WG in the past and now in the present.

He's definately lying (no idea why confused.gif) about Lordy not talking to him.
Lordy talked with him last night and warned him.
He then told me that if Joe was to do it again, I was to ban him without needing his permission, so I did.

It's all HIS fault and I want you to remember that. He was in full knowledge of what he was doing, yet he persisted.
Suspensions did nothing to him as when he came back from a suspension he was deliberately bad again...

Hope i've cleared some of that up Chimp wub.gif

~George

Joe still swears that Lordy never scolded him. He says that he talked with Lordy recently but that he didn't scold him.

QUOTE
(15:38:48) <Chimpy> Maybe you were like on TS and went afk and lordy did like a half hour rant when you weren't there hash.png
(15:38:54) <Chimpy> Seeing as it says verbally
(15:39:05) <Quikdrawjoe> tbh
(15:39:15) <Quikdrawjoe> I think I've only seen Lordy on IRC recently
(15:39:39) <Quikdrawjoe> and we talked about how I was the only anonymous member tongue.gif
(15:40:16) <Chimpy> And he didn't scold you in this convo at all?
(15:40:23) <Quikdrawjoe> nope
(15:40:26) <Quikdrawjoe> he was just like
(15:40:30) <Quikdrawjoe> you know admin can see it anyway
(15:40:33) <Quikdrawjoe> and I was like yeah
(15:40:46) <Quikdrawjoe> and he asked why I did it
(15:40:55) <Quikdrawjoe> then he said something about muscles of the ogre on the banner
(15:41:04) <Chimpy> L
(15:41:05) <Quikdrawjoe> and I was like you want to be an ogre also?
(15:41:11) <Quikdrawjoe> and then he said nothing after that
(15:41:17) <Quikdrawjoe> and Wiz came in as I asked
(15:41:21) <Quikdrawjoe> and was like no u or something


I think it's possible there was a mix up in communication on Lordy's part. MAybe not, idk.

By chip54321 on 03/08/2009
I think it would be worth looking into, it would suck to lose such a loyal, long- time member like joe to a simple misunderstanding

By Onathe on 03/08/2009
I don't know what to say, maybe he did deserve to be banned, but i bet alot of members of WG disagree, i know i do, hes a loyal member of WG and does have alot of valid reasons for what he was doing, 21 times i think hes right in what he done tbh, me and darth maybe shouldn't have done what we did, and him reporting our posts imo is correct

Sorry ill post something better tomorrow im a bit pissed off atm.

By Nick on 03/08/2009
I think that this decision is biased.

That is all.

I really don't want to see Joe banned.

By rachellove9 on 03/08/2009
I cannot believe that Joe is banned. George you cleared up nothing for me. I'm more confused after reading that. This is the first I've seen anything and I'm extremely disappointed in how Joe has been handled. I haven't agreed with many of the warnings that were so carelessly slapped on him.

I'm going to read the goodbye . . . I doubt I will feel any differently. George weren't you also the one to finally ban Rick Hamm too?

By Onathe on 03/08/2009
I don't want to see a rift in the clan, but im annoyed at whats happen. Was there really no other way this could have been resolved?

By Chimpy on 03/08/2009
Remember no drama/flaming plz! :<

By Back to Own on 03/08/2009
QUOTE (chip54321 @ August 03, 2009 03:28 pm)
I think it would be worth looking into, it would suck to lose such a loyal, long- time member like joe to a simple misunderstanding

Not gonna lie, Joe did have a ton of warnings before hand. I think hes had one of the highest accumulations of warnings ever. Though a demotion would get through to his head.

However, Joe has probably been one of the most dedicated members I've seen in my history of WG. You've though from all the crap he points out that eventually he would have became tired and left. He has been here through thick and thin, and I'm not gonna lie when I say that

I've been ragged on alot for being biased, especially during trial raid leader apps. Allowing Joe to stay, seeing hes gained over +300% warn so far since he joined would be being biased, but with a different reaction.

But eh we're human, we're biased people hash.png

I will talk to the other council and see if we can find another solution.


By David on 03/08/2009
Yeah, I really think that this decision could have gone another way...

Being able to see the warn logs and see why each warning was given, I personally think that a few were not so much as "This is bad to WG" but "Hey you did this to ME?"

Regardless, I don't think this punishment fits the crime...in any way. I can see how spam reporting is annoying...but when it goes to an inbox and you don't really have to read every single e-mail I can't see how it's that huge of a problem?

I agree with Owen on the Rick Hamm comparison. They're both very much alike. Both have WGs interests at heart and both were kicked out. Sad really.

Joe was, and I'll always think of him as one of the best Guardians ever. He never really thought about himself. Never asked for anything, never sought recognition, but did a shit ton of stuff to benefit WG.

I REALLY hope something can be worked out.

By Nick on 03/08/2009
I believe a warn or two were personal problems that someone had with Joe. That is what I mean by saying the decision being biased.

By Bambaleo on 03/08/2009
i would kinda like lordy to post the convo between him and joe.

By Chimpy on 03/08/2009
QUOTE (Bambaleo @ August 03, 2009 06:04 pm)
i would kinda like lordy to post the convo between him and joe.

+1

By rachellove9 on 03/08/2009
QUOTE (Chimp Guy0 @ August 03, 2009 06:07 pm)
QUOTE (Bambaleo @ August 03, 2009 06:04 pm)
i would kinda like lordy to post the convo between him and joe.

+1

Good idea.

By David on 03/08/2009
QUOTE (Bambaleo @ August 04, 2009 12:04 am)
i would kinda like lordy to post the convo between him and joe.

Spoke with Joe in-game shortly before I left for work. I asked him about this conversation and he said it didn't happen.

I told him I'd do the same.

Gene, if you can, just to put us all at ease, please post the logs.

By JC on 03/08/2009
Just a technical problem with that, I don't know that Lordy keeps log files?

By Chimpy on 04/08/2009
QUOTE (Theevildead2 @ August 03, 2009 06:57 pm)
Just a technical problem with that, I don't know that Lordy keeps log files?

Hopefully he does ohmy.gif

By God Reports on 04/08/2009
Joe was a good member but he had his problems :/

By Randy on 04/08/2009
The thing that you guys dont understand is that Joe isnt an asshole just because he wants to. He does that stuff when he feels that someone is jeopordizing the welfare of the clan. Sure he isnt the nicest but face it, if you ban him youre making it seem like no one can speak up comfortably anymore. I have Joes back because he means good and has always been there for wg.
Banning him is a bad call try looking at it from a members point of view.

sorry if that made no sense im on my phone

By Chimpy on 04/08/2009
QUOTE (Kingrandy0 @ August 03, 2009 11:15 pm)
The thing that you guys dont understand is that Joe isnt an asshole just because he wants to. He does that stuff when he feels that someone is jeopordizing the welfare of the clan. Sure he isnt the nicest but face it, if you ban him youre making it seem like no one can speak up comfortably anymore. I have Joes back because he means good and has always been there for wg.
Banning him is a bad call try looking at it from a members point of view.

sorry if that made no sense im on my phone

I agree 100%.

By 30 Str 0wnz on 04/08/2009
Above it all I think it would do more damage to WG to keep Joe banned even if he is guilty than it would be for him to stay.

By David on 04/08/2009
Randy has basically summed up my views completely.

Banning Joe is basically setting the precedent that speaking up isn't tolerable. Yes, disagreements are allowed - we can't do anything about that, but really taking a stance and being steadfast and vocal won't be allowed.

I think we can all agree that he doesn't always use the calmest method of getting his thoughts and opinions across. But put yourself in his shoes. You're a regular member who cares dearly for his clan, and you see stuff fucking it up, what are you going to do?

Another example. There is a structure (bridge, tower) you've invested a lot of time in - not a something you did alone, but was a collaborative effort. Someone starts to work on it, but with each "addition" you see the structure start to wobble. What is your honest reaction? Are you really going to calmly walk towards said person and say "Hi, do you realize that your changes are actually causing the structure to become unstable," or are you going to cuss that person the fuck out - "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!?"

Yes, he's vocal. Yes he's rude. But you can't honestly say he's wrong. Call it bad judgement, but like it or not, he's usually right. I'd agree if he were calling bullshit, but it's usually pointing out people that can harm this clan.

He's a huge asset to this clan.

By ThisIsUnique on 04/08/2009
I just don't agree with joe being perm banned, maybe you could make him go trough wg apply process again. There are many other ways to punish him and make him prove he can change. I also would like to see the logs if its possible

By Bassism on 04/08/2009
How long do warn levels stay on for? Because in my opinion having warn levels from 2008 count against him now is a bad thing, I always thought warn levels were a method of dealing with repeated trouble makers in a certain time period. If every mistake anyone makes that warrants a warn level is gonna stay with them for the rest of their time in the clan, then we're no longer a clan, we're just a group of people waiting to see who the last to get banned is.

By Chimpy on 04/08/2009
QUOTE (Bassism @ August 04, 2009 03:15 am)
How long do warn levels stay on for? Because in my opinion having warn levels from 2008 count against him now is a bad thing, I always thought warn levels were a method of dealing with repeated trouble makers in a certain time period. If every mistake anyone makes that warrants a warn level is gonna stay with them for the rest of their time in the clan, then we're no longer a clan, we're just a group of people waiting to see who the last to get banned is.

ya dis

By George on 04/08/2009
They didn't count against him.
Well I suppose you coiuld say that they did actually in a way.....
Joe did get some warn levels taken off... but very occassionally in his WG career, because he kept getting more, so they all mounted up...
Let me give you an example.

Member x gets 20% warn on December 20th 2008
Member x gets 40% warn on January 5th 2009
Member x gets 60% warn on February 27th 2009

Why would the staff take off the first warn when he keeps getting other warns.
Warns are taken off for good behaviour and clearly in the example above, Member x has not been at all well behaved.

By Randy on 04/08/2009
Yes but look through his warn history the only reason he flamed people is because he didnt agee with their opinions. There are some stupid and immiture people who have been banned in the past for flaming but because it was unnecessary but Joe has values. Tell me hes not the first one to every war annd always givibg the council his opinion, thats how the clan improves
tbc

By George on 04/08/2009
Moved to Level Three Trash Can.



Back to Topic Index

Developed by Mojo.