Scratch

:0 this thread has 2128 views!

Blade-Edge wrote:

Rhy just sent this to me
http://pastebin.com/Ls3YzdpE
Apparently it's a link to the conversations he had
Some parts are censored
This should shed some light on what he's said and hasn't said

Andres, by the looks of this, you already have had a discussion with him

Now that I've seen that, I think he should be unbanned.

pika100chu wrote:

Blade-Edge wrote:

Rhy just sent this to me
http://pastebin.com/Ls3YzdpE
Apparently it's a link to the conversations he had
Some parts are censored
This should shed some light on what he's said and hasn't said

Andres, by the looks of this, you already have had a discussion with him

Now that I've seen that, I think he should be unbanned.

Ya.. same.

TheSaint wrote:

Blade-Edge wrote:

bananaman114 wrote:

  If thats real..    My views are changed, but if its not, They stay exactly the same.

It's real

Seemed straightforward to me. Rhy asked to be an exception to the rule, and he was denied. Whats controversial about that?

No, I don't think that was RHY's point.

From what he said elsewhere, I think he's trying to show by that note the fact that he did not decline the request to be more respectful and was rejected just because of his refusal to stop making comics.

bananaman114 wrote:

rodentqween9 wrote:

I have a feeling this is gonna start a flamewar........or whatever it is called...

Well, ya, it does seem like it, as there are pretty much two "sides". One that thinks RHY3756547 should be unbanned, and another who wants him banned, like, forever, and his projects removed. I really hope theres no flames to ignite the war though, as it could be REALLY BAD, and result in a LOT of bans.

yeah, agreed 

TheSaint wrote:

antimonyarsenide wrote:

TheSaint wrote:

Seemed straightforward to me. Rhy asked to be an exception to the rule, and he was denied. Whats controversial about that?

No, I don't think that was RHY's point.

From what he said elsewhere, I think he's trying to show by that note the fact that he did not decline the request to be more respectful and was rejected just because of his refusal to stop making comics.

His comics were being disrespectful to other users on scratch. IMO, by continueing to produce the comics about scratchers, he was saying that he declines the request to be more respectful. They gave him a choice, comics or scratch account, and he chose the comics.

I see what you mean... but, to me, it seemed more or less like he was targeting FORUM USERS. Thus, keep him blocked from the forums.

Keep him banned, I say. If I were them I would not be able to trust his word anymore. That 'offsite material' kind of ruined his chances, and in most conversations with the scratch team he seemed as if he were trying to avoid promising to behave.

I just realized there is no point in arguing about this because the ST won't change their minds no matter what.

I'm glad RHY posted the conversation because we would not have done so. We always want to make sure that the Scratch Team will not sure the content of our messages with them to other people.

1. As you can see he does not accept to stop violating the TOU.

He says  "I can't make any promises on confrontation with people angry at me because of the (offsite material)" .
Also, when asked "Will you agree to stop?" there was no explicit response to it and instead RHY just request to  "at least visible to users not logged into the website", which we agreed to do.

2.  RHY also acknowledges creating at least one more  account and using mechanisms to circumvent a block. Both things are not allowed by the TOU, they are considered dishonest and an attempt at "game the community".

3. You can also read that this was not the first exchange we had. The first message clearly refers to an exchange from July. This makes it clear that the violations to the TOU were not a one time thing, they have been ongoing for a long time. And we had sent warnings since then.

4. Some of the swear words were censored. While swear words are part of every day language, using them while requesting to be unblocked from a site is somewhat ironic and certainly does not help the case.

5. From the messages, you can tell this person clearly and explicitly acknowledges to enjoy making fun of other members of the community "they were simply fun to make." This is clearly not the kind of attitude we want to see.

6. To top all that, RHY fully acknowledges participation in off site activities intended to harass members of the community and unwillingness to stop.  In general, we make decisions to block accounts mainly on the basis of their interactions on our website, however, once an account has been blocked AND there is full acknowledgement of harassment offsite AND unwillingess to stop, in addition to #1,#2,#3,#4,$5 then makes it very hard for us to accept that person back into our community.

andresmh wrote:

I'm glad RHY posted the conversation because we would not have done so. We always want to make sure that the Scratch Team will not sure the content of our messages with them to other people.

1. As you can see he does not accept to stop violating the TOU.

He says  "I can't make any promises on confrontation with people angry at me because of the (offsite material)" .
Also, when asked "Will you agree to stop?" there was no explicit response to it and instead RHY just request to  "at least visible to users not logged into the website", which we agreed to do.

2.  RHY also acknowledges creating at least one more  account and using mechanisms to circumvent a block. Both things are not allowed by the TOU, they are considered dishonest and an attempt at "game the community".

3. You can also read that this was not the first exchange we had. The first message clearly refers to an exchange from July. This makes it clear that the violations to the TOU were not a one time thing, they have been ongoing for a long time. And we had sent warnings since then.

4. Some of the swear words were censored. While swear words are part of every day language, using them while requesting to be unblocked from a site is somewhat ironic and certainly does not help the case.

5. From the messages, you can tell this person clearly and explicitly acknowledges to enjoy making fun of other members of the community "they were simply fun to make." This is clearly not the kind of attitude we want to see.

6. To top all that, RHY fully acknowledges participation in off site activities intended to harass members of the community and unwillingness to stop.  In general, we make decisions to block accounts mainly on the basis of their interactions on our website, however, once an account has been blocked AND there is full acknowledgement of harassment offsite AND unwillingess to stop, in addition to #1,#2,#3,#4,$5 then makes it very hard for us to accept that person back into our community.

I see. You make it very clear now, andres. RHY really couldn't handle being on Scratch, and NOT being rude. I kinda chuckled about what you said about using swear words in an E-mail trying to get someone to un-ban you. I guess swearing is possibly something RHY wouldn't be able to avoid. So, RHYs ban is, well, necessary.

andresmh wrote:

He says  "I can't make any promises on confrontation with people angry at me because of the (offsite material)" .

dude hes talking about the people angry at him not the other way around

Also, when asked "Will you agree to stop?" there was no explicit response to it and instead RHY just request to  "at least visible to users not logged into the website", which we agreed to do.

ok his response was that the group wouldnt stop
mainly because hes not a very active member in making the material and didnt have complete control over the other members

4. Some of the swear words were censored. While swear words are part of every day language, using them while requesting to be unblocked from a site is somewhat ironic and certainly does not help the case.

dude its only one and hes using it because he cant think of anything else

6. To top all that, RHY fully acknowledges participation in off site activities intended to harass members of the community and unwillingness to stop.  In general, we make decisions to block accounts mainly on the basis of their interactions on our website, however, once an account has been blocked AND there is full acknowledgement of harassment offsite AND unwillingess to stop, in addition to #1,#2,#3,#4,$5 then makes it very hard for us to accept that person back into our community.

dude you keep emphasising that offsite actions dont count and then saying that they do but only when you admit to it

like choose a side man if i say im rhy on another site and then admit that i said that here would you ban me for that

andresmh wrote:

if (account X blocked == TRUE
AND account X acknowledges off site harassment == TRUE
AND account X refuses to stop off site harassment = TRUE) {
    set account x block = TRUE
}

I would say that offsite activities are  taken into consideration after we have found violations to our TOU  in our site or when we receive requests to unblock an account.

We need GlitchSprite XD