Message from Diarouga

[fightinfrenchman]

I dont even know thatd even be blackmail.

Either way it's still a threat if you don't get what you want... seems very childish to me.

[pecelot]

To me, if both parties agree that they've both messed up, then the best thing to do is to let bygones be bygones and go towards reconciliation.

It's kind of like saying that losing 5 vills to a first raid and getting only 4 huss in your 2nd batch are mistakes at the same level. The thing is, they are not — so are not the alleged faults of both parties.

Practicality should probably trump "absolute justice" here (wink wink for those who get the reference). You can absolutely enforce the sentence or you can try to work things out.

I'm for the former as the considered individual shows almost no signs of improving his behaviour, and after his second chance failure it's more than likely he would do similar stuff next time.

I'll say it again, I really don't think a public shame/trial thread is a good idea, but now that it's here, it's here.

Why do you think it's the case? A person that was the most interested in making it public was, byt the looks of things, diarouga himself.

I find it extremely unlikely that diarouga would do something bad again if

clemency

were given to him.

Nomen omen...

You can even flowchart this. If you unban diarouga and he does villainous things again, you can ban him without a second thought and even the most tender-hearted, care-bear members of the community will be behind the ban

WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN

If you don't believe me, I'd like to invite you to watch this. If you stop following the rules then those rules just disappear.

Can you elaborate? I watched it entirely, though I seem to fail to get the point

In real life, laws are written by one group and the trials/enforcement of said laws is handled by another, separate group.

It'd be virtually impossible to find an active and entirely separate group in such a small community, though still, law-makers consist of different people than tournament staff.

As bad as diarouga is (though to me, personally, he has always been fine), he's not really in a position to contest moderator decisions.

I would go as far to say that he has been privileged over other banned users as he has got a lot of opportunities to talk with the staff on equal terms.

I won't even judge any staff member who did say that (after all, I am voicing that I would like rouga to participate in tournament), but I will judge actions.

For now on, all of those have only been rumours, no one really took any actions because of that threat.

You have the tools in hand to come to a reconciliation whereas the other party does not.

The only tool we possess is the banning tool, the rest is on banned members to improve their behaviour.

After all, it seems that diarouga's crimes are bad, but perhaps not bad enough to warrant a ban for the next event.

For the next event — not necessarily

As for diarouga's toxicity, well, again. I don't know him very well, but I have interacted with him before. My personal experience with him is just fine. He beat the crap out of me then gave me tips. Nothing bad happened. If diarouga did crap in the past, then let that remain the past. The past becomes irrelevant if diarouga magically becomes a good guy. Which I think he's able to. It's an easy bet to make, just because ESOC loses nothing from it. That's all I'm arguing.

I'd be more than happy to see him in a tournament as a viewer. He has contributed to the community recently, when we occasionally play on ESO he gives me the tips. Still, rules are rules

If you randomly forgive and diarouga comes clean, you solve a problem. If you randomly forgive and diarouga remains a baddy, then you just ban him again. You say "give up" authority, but you've missed the point I was making before: your authority is absolute anyway.

Isn't it like saying: just let that criminal go, if he robs another person we'll catch him anyway? How would you rate police authority then?

If media team members are threatening to leave because a person may become unbanned and they disagree with it, they should just leave. There are plenty of people in the community who are willing and able to run the tournaments without going on some crazy power trip.

Quantity over quality?

[Gendarme]

Dat effort post

[gibson]

Welp, I resend my earlier statement. Diarouga should probably never be allowed into an esoc event again, he is not only delusional, but seemingly incapable of deductive reasoning. In the words of the great Kunkel 1+1=4. While I still think he wasn't treated very fairly, the way he was treated makes a whole lot more sense to me now that I've seen what kind of person he really is, and is almost justifiable.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[momuuu]

My discussion with Jerom has all I have to say on the matter. I'm not going to discuss this issue further, I've said my bit.

Only thing to add is that I hope in the future people can avoid escalating conflicts before they get to this point. If you're in an online quarrel and you think that you're justified in hitting back because you got hit first, you need to rethink things a bit. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind, ya know.

Interestingly enough, just about any forum you'd go to disagrees with you.

[gibson]

My discussion with Jerom has all I have to say on the matter. I'm not going to discuss this issue further, I've said my bit.

Only thing to add is that I hope in the future people can avoid escalating conflicts before they get to this point. If you're in an online quarrel and you think that you're justified in hitting back because you got hit first, you need to rethink things a bit. An eye for an eye and the world goes blind, ya know.

This is exactly what I tried to explain to diarouga. I'd give you exact quotes but hes deleted the twitch broadcast. I told him that regardless of how he's been treated, that doesn't justify his plan to ruin the tournament. However, in his mind he is a completely innocent victim who has done nothing wrong. "I'm sabotaging the tournament because they sabotaged my fun" "They only banned me because they're jealous of how good I am" "So they're allowed to be complete dick holes but I'm not" No matter how I tried to explain to him that attempting to sabotage the tournament would accomplish nothing positive, he refused to do anything but justify his actions by playing the victim.

[momuuu]

It really seems like he believes that stuff. Thats remarkable really.

[gibson]

It really seems like he believes that stuff. Thats remarkable really.

yes I'm not really sure how Tbh. I guess he's just incapable of anything near objective rational thinking.

[n0el]

Did anyone honestly think this wasn't going to happen?

[gibson]

To be completely fair to him though it's not as if he was treated fairly. How would you feel if members of the business team told you that you could play in the tourney but than you werent allowed. It lowers the integrity of the moderation as a whole. At my job, if an employee tells a customer that they can get X discount or y deal, we honor that even of its not an actual discount or deal that we offer. We stand by our word as a whole(as long as it's something within reason and that we're capable of doing) and than deal with it internally after. For example, the other day we had to give a customer a laptop at half price because one of my CO workers is a fucking moron. We honored the deal that he told the customer she would get, and than he got written up afterwards. I'm Dissapointed that the esoc moderation doesn't keep their word and I fear it's because very few people on the moderation team are capable of objective reasoning when it comes to diarouga, which ironically is the same thing he isn't doing.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

Did anyone honestly think this wasn't going to happen?

What do you mean?

[pecelot]

To be completely fair to him though it's not as if he was treated fairly. How would you feel if members of the business team told you that you could play in the tourney but than you werent allowed. It lowers the integrity of the moderation as a whole. At my job, if an employee tells a customer that they can get X discount or y deal, we honor that even of its not an actual discount or deal that we offer. We stand by our word as a whole(as long as it's something within reason and that we're capable of doing) and than deal with it internally after. For example, the other day we had to give a customer a laptop at half price because one of my CO workers is a fucking moron. We honored the deal that he told the customer she would get, and than he got written up afterwards. I'm Dissapointed that the esoc moderation doesn't keep their word and I fear it's because very few people on the moderation team are capable of objective reasoning when it comes to diarouga, which ironically is the same thing he isn't doing.

It was definitely a mistake on our part, but still, we were trying to give him a hand, it's not like we're absolutely obliged to service him. It's our tournament, community's tournament, not his exclusively. With what we has done and said I honestly doubt he still belongs to it.

Did anyone honestly think this wasn't going to happen?

I'd partially assume a person who shared his glorious message here

[n0el]

Did anyone honestly think this wasn't going to happen?

I'd partially assume a person who shared his glorious message here

Not at all. I was sure this was going to happen. I was hoping to avoid it.

[pecelot]

Fair enough — sorry then!

[momuuu]

Did anyone honestly think this wasn't going to happen?

I'd partially assume a person who shared his glorious message here

Not at all. I was sure this was going to happen. I was hoping to avoid it.

In other words, you were being blackmailed?

[edeholland]

To be completely fair to him though it's not as if he was treated fairly. How would you feel if members of the business team told you that you could play in the tourney but than you werent allowed. It lowers the integrity of the moderation as a whole. At my job, if an employee tells a customer that they can get X discount or y deal, we honor that even of its not an actual discount or deal that we offer. We stand by our word as a whole(as long as it's something within reason and that we're capable of doing) and than deal with it internally after. For example, the other day we had to give a customer a laptop at half price because one of my CO workers is a fucking moron. We honored the deal that he told the customer she would get, and than he got written up afterwards. I'm Dissapointed that the esoc moderation doesn't keep their word and I fear it's because very few people on the moderation team are capable of objective reasoning when it comes to diarouga, which ironically is the same thing he isn't doing.

What does the moderation have to do with this exactly?

[n0el]

Not at all. I was sure this was going to happen. I was hoping to avoid it.

In other words, you were being blackmailed?

No? It seems you guys still don't understand.

[deleted_user0]

well, youre trying hard to be cryptical. just say what you mean, plain and simple :/

i already asked it before, but you ignored me.

[momuuu]

What he means is that if someone threathens to do something bevause he wont get his way you should just give in so he wont do it.

[n0el]

Sorry @deleted_user I missed that. My point is and has been that ESOC as a team and a community has an incentive for diarouga or anyone else that has means to contribute to be a positive influence. So giving them a reduction in sentence for contributing is of course something that should be done. what would you expect if you allowed someone to contribute with the expectation of a give in the other direction and then yanked it back and said fuck off.

[lemmings121]

I'm open to the (probably weak) argument this word possesses a different magnitude of severity in European countries as it does in the USA.

Totally unrelated to the topic, i'll make a side discussion about linguistics.
I'm not european, but i'll jump in here. Americans are nuts about words. "the N word", "the F word". Its like even mentioning those words that emerged from the depts of hell would kill someone.

[deleted_user0]

This whole ordeal is a perfect example that you should be careful with your words. They may not release the depths of hell, but they do often reveal your true intentions, which may not always appear pretty to others. You can choose not to care, or you can compromise. Ultimately, the choice is your own. There is talk of promises made to Diarouga, and it's not fair if they aren't honoured, I agree. But there is no talk of how those promises were ill-advised to begin with perhaps. You should think of the consequences before you promise something, which clearly wasn't done as thoroughly as required. When the deed is done, you are again left with choices. As Gibson tried to show, his company has made their choice of how to act in such a situation, they prefer totake a personal loss to avoid an angry customer. ESOC had they same sort of choice, either placate Diarouga and keep their word at the risk of losing team members, or the opposite. Diarouga too has a choice on how to respond now, and I'm sure if he responds correctly, there will be no reason against having him participate in another tournament.

[pecelot]

My discussion with Jerom has all I have to say on the matter. I'm not going to discuss this issue further, I've said my bit.

I've said my bit, too, though people kind of seem to ignore my points and allegations...

So giving them a reduction in sentence for contributing is of course something that should be done.

I feel like that was done on the staff's part, diarouga himself made the situation worse by claiming he would smurf the tournament and his most recent outburst...