UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/DanceDanceRevolution/2010-03-12 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » DanceDanceRevolution » 2010-03-12 Misconduct

12 March

Voted not vandalism in a case of racism. A sysop (Misanthropy) called a user a "dirty mexican" knowing full well that the user (Woot) lives in Central America. In a previous case against Woot, who used the word "nigger", the sysop DDR voted Vandalism. In the case against Misanthropy the sysop DDR voted not vandalism. This is a clear case of misconduct because instead of holding the precedent and making all racism across the board illegal he has picked and chosen what is deemed offensive to people. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not misconduct - Oh look. He's cute when he's on a crusade. 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh look,... you're cute in DDR's pocket,.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

He is well within his right to vote not misconduct on this. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, considering if he voted misconduct he'd then be voting himself for vandalism. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you waited more than two rulings then you might have even had the case ruled vandalism. But you waited for the first two Not Vandalism votes, threatened us with A/M and when we didn't budge, just threw this here anyway. Nice patience. --

 

 

 

 

23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As it has been shown many times in the past, there is no "grace period" before making an A/M case. Nice try trying to say there is. Are you going to suggest that instead of making a case he should post on your talk page first? That's normally what the shitty Ops try to tell people to "avoid" some cases.-- #99 ^DCC 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact not a single thing you said related to what I meant in the slightest- nice work. I meant if Sonny actually gave a shit about how the case turned out (as opposed to what he actually cares about- making drama) he would have waited for the case to be closed with all active sysops voting, there was still a large chance it would be overturned. --

 

 

 

 

07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So I'm supposed to wait for this to be drawn out, forgotten about, no longer cared about, that way its ruled against me? No thanks. I'd rather do it when its fresh in everybody's mind and they have no other distracting cases to worry about. But thanks for trying. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They want you to wait so that they can come along and say "well, if it was such a big violation why did you wait X days to post it? Clearly you are just looking to harass Ops." It's a common tactic.-- #99 ^DCC 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is, you used it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what minuscule attention span you have but misconduct cases still carry attention and importance even from heavily archived material. Consider your last butthurt rant on A/M on Boxy about the Historical Groups. It was about a month or so old now, no? It passed with flying colours, no? --

 

 

 

 

20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying Michal is that since it's concerning him as directly as this does,... perhaps his vote is bias, and not in the a-typical sort of way that everyone elses would be. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I never offer justification, you guys have so much fun inventing your own and I'd hate to take it away from you all. 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be like me being judge on my own murder case... just saying... You could be punished or not punished. Hard choice huh? You have the right to vote the way you did, but I don't think it was really much of a vote. Therefore, being a given, you shouldn't be allowed to, especially if it could induce some sort of a tie..... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ, Sonny, is woot actually offended by this? --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is. There's only so much abuse a person can take. But I guess since he can be a troll at times he doesn't deserve to be treated like a human. At least that's the opinion of everyone here. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, the comments can offend someone else even if they aren't the ones they were directed at. You need people to stand up and say this is offensive because sometimes the victim is too afraid. It's everyone's responsibility to stand up to bullies.-- #99 ^DCC 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony really is just a five letter word to you, isn't it? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony really is just a five letter word to you, Iscariot, isn't it? --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - All sysops are free to have their own opinions on cases. If you feel it was biased, ask for a second opinion. -- Cheese 22:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Lupus --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's never Lupus. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Once every four years it is. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

lol raks a central amerifag? the things you learn..xoxo 04:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - although I don't entirely agree with the a/vb ruling -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:21 20 March 2010 (BST)

Case archived as Not misconduct. --

 

 

 

 

10:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)