UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/The General vs Jjames
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The General Vs. Jjames
Started a total of 19 Vandal Banning cases and 2 Misconduct cases, along with a similar number of arbitration cases. If he finds it offensive to be called Scinfaxi, then I find it offense to have my bandwidth wasted over frivolous cases
You just started another one, idiot. Maybe I'll start an arbi case against you for taking my bandwith. And someone else will arbi me, and so on and so forth. It's ridiculous. Cyberbob Talk 16:20, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- It's called making a point. If he can make all these cases, then I can too.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:21, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- ??? What point are you making by committing the same offence? That you're an idiot? Cyberbob Talk 16:26, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Maybe you're right, but I can see no other way to stop them.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:29, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- How does this stop them? All this does is make you a laughing-stock. Cyberbob Talk 16:30, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- By getting a ruling against him having so many arbitration cases.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:34, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Not really... I agree with him. Lets try to stop Scinfaxi! --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 16:31, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Making another Arbi case to stop an overflow of Arbi cases only exacerbates the problem. Cyberbob Talk 16:32, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Well, i'm trying to find a way to stop it. I can see no other real way.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:45, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- How about by trying to put a stop to the real cause of the cases? The claims that he is Scinfaxi? Cyberbob Talk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- How? I can't change what they call him.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:49, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- If I am not mistaken, the real underlying problem is not the name-calling but the CDF vs. jjames & scinfaxi feud that's been going on for awhile. I think that this is the core problem that needs to be resolved, and should prolly be between jjames & scinfaxi on one side and cdf 1 of 4 and zod rhombus on the other. (And just to prevent any confusion, I am referring to jjames & scinfaxi as two separate people).--Steele Glovier 17:06, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Oh great, another wikigate.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:35, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Nope, this one is {{jjamesgate}}--Gage 17:43, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- As a matter from my perspective since I joined CDF without knowing anything about its past history and what-not, just that Zod seemed allright in-game, I've seen Zod et. al. try really hard to keep the peace, and watch in-game as we all got PK'ed by The Faggots during truce time. This was particularly annoying. Anyways, then we had the OWS thing happen, which was highly antagonistic towards us. And it just continues on. As a member of CDF, I've seen Zod repeatedly try to act nice and give benefit of the doubt multiple times, but it just comes back to get us, and I know in-game, I'm sick of it. --Steele Glovier 20:46, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Nope, this one is {{jjamesgate}}--Gage 17:43, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Oh great, another wikigate.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:35, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- If I am not mistaken, the real underlying problem is not the name-calling but the CDF vs. jjames & scinfaxi feud that's been going on for awhile. I think that this is the core problem that needs to be resolved, and should prolly be between jjames & scinfaxi on one side and cdf 1 of 4 and zod rhombus on the other. (And just to prevent any confusion, I am referring to jjames & scinfaxi as two separate people).--Steele Glovier 17:06, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- How? I can't change what they call him.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:49, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- How about by trying to put a stop to the real cause of the cases? The claims that he is Scinfaxi? Cyberbob Talk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Well, i'm trying to find a way to stop it. I can see no other real way.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:45, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Making another Arbi case to stop an overflow of Arbi cases only exacerbates the problem. Cyberbob Talk 16:32, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- How does this stop them? All this does is make you a laughing-stock. Cyberbob Talk 16:30, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Maybe you're right, but I can see no other way to stop them.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:29, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- ??? What point are you making by committing the same offence? That you're an idiot? Cyberbob Talk 16:26, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Stop the cases by ruling fairly on them. They are cases of vandalism. Any mod should recognize that if they weren't to busy commiting the same vandalism. If you were serious about this, you'd bring in gage here too. He's the one who made joke vandal cases, filed a misconduct case, and created a disruptive attack template.Jjames 18:43, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- So calling Zod Rhombus "Amazod" is find, but calling you "Jamesfaxi" isn't?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:54, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- I never said calling anyone amazod was fine and i never called him that. Besides, Zod called me scinfaxi directly on my talk page.Jjames 20:05, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- So calling Zod Rhombus "Amazod" is find, but calling you "Jamesfaxi" isn't?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:54, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- Stop the cases by ruling fairly on them. They are cases of vandalism. Any mod should recognize that if they weren't to busy commiting the same vandalism. If you were serious about this, you'd bring in gage here too. He's the one who made joke vandal cases, filed a misconduct case, and created a disruptive attack template.Jjames 18:43, 25 September 2006 (BST)
In other news, I'm willing to arbitrate here. --Flareblade77 RK◘ZHU◘DORIS 05:40 26 September 2006 (BST)
- I'd accept you.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:16, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- You can't take someone to arbitration to teach them a lesson about taking people to arbitration. This is not in good faith.Jjames 08:23, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- He can Jjames. Do you accept Flareblade77? --Karlsbad 19:53, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- No he can't. It's bad faith. I refuse to take part in pointless drama. You can't force me to accept arbitration on this issue.Jjames 21:55, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- That is right; they cannot force you to accept arbitration. Nobody can force you to accept anything. They can however make you abide by the rules of the arbitration decision that will be rendered whether or not you comply.--Gage 22:09, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Bullshit. This is not a valid case for arbitration. He admits it is frivolous and just trying to teach me a lesson. The fact that he has not brought you in as well for your vandal cases and misconduct case proves what this is really about. His bias. This is a completely bad faith effort and no arbitrator has the authority to rule that I can't bring vandal reports if i feel they are valid.Jjames 22:15, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Okay, you have made an assertion; can you justify it?--Gage 22:17, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Which part do you want me to justify specificaly?Jjames 22:19, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- no arbitrator has the authority to rule that I can't bring vandal reports if i feel they are valid. - and just because there is no precedent doens't mean it cannot be done. Don't say we can't do something if it isn't written in the policy documents.--Gage 22:22, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- It violates the very spirit of the VB page and allows for people to take someone to arbitration without their consent force a ruling on them and allow them to be vandalized without recourse. It's not just that there is no precedent, it goes against every precedent. Besides this case is about intent. He intends to use arbitration to teach me a lesson. That is not the purpose of arbitration.Jjames 22:25, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Did you not intend to teach users a lesson for calling you Scinfaxi? Or teach me a lesson for "impersonation" or "removal of your comments?"--Gage 22:34, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- No, I intended to see you warned for violating the rules in the hopes that you would stop violating the rules. This is an attempt to get around the rules to teach me a lesson. It's bad faith. Why aren't you listed as well? You brought forth an VB case against Amazing. Can you honestly say you did that in good faith?Jjames 22:39, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- It was good faith in that I was trying to prove the idiocy of your position.--Gage 22:46, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- That is not what the vandal banning page is for. You are a vandal (proven), dishonest (also proven), and an agitator (open to interpretaion). If you wanted to cease drama, you would have stayed out of this and wouldn't have called me scinfaxi. As it is you have antagonized me every step of the way. The fact that the general hasn't brought you to arbitration proves that his intentions are in bad faith as did his calling me scinfaxi.Jjames 22:52, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Dude, Seriously, Get over yourself. I seriously doubt anyone really cares if infact you are or are not scinfazi or whatever his name is. "I refuse to take part in pointless drama." <-- Lies. You are doing it now. They call you something, so what? bend over and take it in the ass. If you want them to stop calling you that name, just ignore them. But they can still do it. They can put it on their user page. They basically have the right to do so. I would say I'd be willing to arbitrate (would be a interesting experiance) but I can't because I would say that this is the most pointless thing i have ever seen and dismiss the case right then and there. Seriously, Noone cares, nor do they want to read it anymore. I know im not. ill start reading this page once all this bullshit is cleared up. As in, If you want to comment on this to me, please leave it on my page. --DarkStar2374383 Talk | LDY | LOE 03:07, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- That is not what the vandal banning page is for. You are a vandal (proven), dishonest (also proven), and an agitator (open to interpretaion). If you wanted to cease drama, you would have stayed out of this and wouldn't have called me scinfaxi. As it is you have antagonized me every step of the way. The fact that the general hasn't brought you to arbitration proves that his intentions are in bad faith as did his calling me scinfaxi.Jjames 22:52, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- It was good faith in that I was trying to prove the idiocy of your position.--Gage 22:46, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- No, I intended to see you warned for violating the rules in the hopes that you would stop violating the rules. This is an attempt to get around the rules to teach me a lesson. It's bad faith. Why aren't you listed as well? You brought forth an VB case against Amazing. Can you honestly say you did that in good faith?Jjames 22:39, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Did you not intend to teach users a lesson for calling you Scinfaxi? Or teach me a lesson for "impersonation" or "removal of your comments?"--Gage 22:34, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- It violates the very spirit of the VB page and allows for people to take someone to arbitration without their consent force a ruling on them and allow them to be vandalized without recourse. It's not just that there is no precedent, it goes against every precedent. Besides this case is about intent. He intends to use arbitration to teach me a lesson. That is not the purpose of arbitration.Jjames 22:25, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- no arbitrator has the authority to rule that I can't bring vandal reports if i feel they are valid. - and just because there is no precedent doens't mean it cannot be done. Don't say we can't do something if it isn't written in the policy documents.--Gage 22:22, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Which part do you want me to justify specificaly?Jjames 22:19, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Okay, you have made an assertion; can you justify it?--Gage 22:17, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Bullshit. This is not a valid case for arbitration. He admits it is frivolous and just trying to teach me a lesson. The fact that he has not brought you in as well for your vandal cases and misconduct case proves what this is really about. His bias. This is a completely bad faith effort and no arbitrator has the authority to rule that I can't bring vandal reports if i feel they are valid.Jjames 22:15, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- That is right; they cannot force you to accept arbitration. Nobody can force you to accept anything. They can however make you abide by the rules of the arbitration decision that will be rendered whether or not you comply.--Gage 22:09, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- No he can't. It's bad faith. I refuse to take part in pointless drama. You can't force me to accept arbitration on this issue.Jjames 21:55, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- He can Jjames. Do you accept Flareblade77? --Karlsbad 19:53, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- You can't take someone to arbitration to teach them a lesson about taking people to arbitration. This is not in good faith.Jjames 08:23, 26 September 2006 (BST)
This looks stalled. May I arbitrate? I think I'm ready to cut my teeth. -- Basil 20:27, 8 October 2006 (BST)
- They're all stalled. More than likely they'll all be dismissed, since they're all utterly ridiculous anyways. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 03:02, 9 October 2006 (BST)
