wrongful bans

[MikeTheNose]

Ban removed. This was not allowed.

[The Apache]

good.

[schitt]

w00t..

 

thanks to all who gave me banfree, and to MikeTheNose for lifting it.

[SVS]

Ban removed. This was not allowed.

 

Ban replaced by Viligante. Due to improper removal by a non BanG admin. The only people allowed to remove a network ban are bang admins or the person who placed it, seeing as how you are neither it was very wrong for you to touch it.

 

I suggest next time you follow the guidelines, I know you are aware of them seeing as how you were there when they were adopted.

 

SVS

[Lord-Mustang]

Ban removed. This was not allowed.

 

Ban replaced by Viligante. Due to improper removal by a non BanG admin. The only people allowed to remove a network ban are bang admins or the person who placed it, seeing as how you are neither it was very wrong for you to touch it.

 

I suggest next time you follow the guidelines, I know you are aware of them seeing as how you were there when they were adopted.

 

SVS

 

 

 

 

A picture is worth a thousand words...

 

 

http://69.73.140.202/lordmustang/bullcrap.jpg

[mill]

he owns the website/domain he can do whatever he wants with it

[schitt]

One of the reasons for schitts network ban was threats to compromise the security of an SSC server which is clearly defined in the guidelines as being punishable by a network ban. I gave Viligante the go ahead for his ban because it was a ban with a reason obviously within the guidelines. If any of you doubt whether schitt actually did threaten DS and SSCC... how hard is it to believe that someone who would be pissed off enough to redirect the DS website to a porn site would be pissed off another to threaten the security of the server... or even pissed off enough to actually DO harm.

 

NEVER ONCE did i threaten the security of a SSC server, i took my website and left quietly, I pay for a domain for almost 2 years, hosting fees, renewing the !@#$%^&* thing, and i get the shaft by shooting a cat with a blow dart outside of subspace, !@#$%^&* yes im taking my domain with me, i see what im worth.. and will you guys hop off your horse, and look at the site its directed to.. ITS A MAGAZINE, NOT PORN it just so happens its directed to a GAY MAGAZINE.

 

Theres too many people on here know me to well to take down a server, I have been PAYING FOR SS for years, trying to keep it alive, he'll i've helped many come up with ideas, and helped getting them put into effect,

 

SO UNTIL I DO HARM, you have no right to say im worthy of a netban for compromising the security of a ssc server. theres too many people in SS that know me, and know i wouldnt take down a game i've helped too much with, but viligante got what he deserved, for letting me be axed for a Bull!@#$%^&* reason.

 

Im not going to email you and beg for a ban removal, because i know you to well svs, you'll laugh, and ignore it, so theres no point in me emailing. i'd rather take it public, and let everyone else know, which people ban for bull!@#$%^&* reasons. because this is one !@#$%^&* good instance of that.

 

-schitt

-www.dszone.net

[Lord-Mustang]

One of the reasons for schitts network ban was threats to compromise the security of an SSC server which is clearly defined in the guidelines as being punishable by a network ban. I gave Viligante the go ahead for his ban because it was a ban with a reason obviously within the guidelines. If any of you doubt whether schitt actually did threaten DS and SSCC... how hard is it to believe that someone who would be pissed off enough to redirect the DS website to a porn site would be pissed off another to threaten the security of the server... or even pissed off enough to actually DO harm.

 

NEVER ONCE did i threaten the security of a SSC server, i took my website and left quietly, I pay for a domain for almost 2 years, hosting fees, renewing the !@#$%^&* thing, and i get the shaft by shooting a cat with a blow dart outside of subspace, !@#$%^&* yes im taking my domain with me, i see what im worth.. and will you guys hop off your horse, and look at the site its directed to.. ITS A MAGAZINE, NOT PORN it just so happens its directed to a GAY MAGAZINE.

 

Theres too many people on here know me to well to take down a server, I have been PAYING FOR SS for years, trying to keep it alive, he'll i've helped many come up with ideas, and helped getting them put into effect,

 

SO UNTIL I DO HARM, you have no right to say im worthy of a netban for compromising the security of a ssc server. theres too many people in SS that know me, and know i wouldnt take down a game i've helped too much with, but viligante got what he deserved, for letting me be axed for a Bull!@#$%^&* reason.

 

Im not going to email you and beg for a ban removal, because i know you to well svs, you'll laugh, and ignore it, so theres no point in me emailing. i'd rather take it public, and let everyone else know, which people ban for bull!@#$%^&* reasons. because this is one !@#$%^&* good instance of that.

 

-schitt

-www.dszone.net

 

 

 

Truth...They can't HANDLE the truth! But there it is. Vili just up and LIED and SVS doesn't want to hear both sides...just Vili's. Talk about misconduct!

[protoman.exe]

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9381/canttouchzd8.jpg

[Vorbis]

If it's a choice between getting the old threads back and losing this or keeping this thread and losing the archive I vote to keep this.

[Agurus]

This is quite sad...and what is this SVS spamming or am I just blind :X

[mill]

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9381/canttouchzd8.jpg

 

ahahahahaah

 

svs is the goat!

[Mr. Right]

I strongly disagree that redirecting the website of Desert Storm disrupts the security of the zone itself, and here is why:

 

When you sell a domain name, the information from the server that is registered to that domain name does not go with it. All it is is re-registering the name to a different IP/server. In this case, schitt sold his domain name to a dutch magazine. He did not sell the contents, nor willingly gave access to the information (whether it be names/aliases, passwords, etc.) contained in the server that used the dszone.net name. Basically what I'm saying is that you can still have access to the actual server that hosted the website and used that domain name.

 

According to one part of the SSC netban policy which reads:

 

"Security - Disrupting or attempting to disrupt the security of the

billing server, any SSC zone or server. Examples include flooding

servers or players, spreading knowledge of how to disrupt security,

-unauthorized access to the billing or zone servers, stealing

passwords, impersonating SSC Zones, or distributing confidential

information about servers or players. Maximum 30 day first offence

net ban for a threat to disrupt security."

 

one of these infractions would entail a network ban. Based on what was discussed and the information supplied here, schitt did not do the following:

 

- flood servers or players

 

- spread knowledge of how to disrupt security

 

- access or allowed access to the billing or zone server unauthorized (he sold the domain name, and not the actual server that held the contents for the website)

 

- steal, or allowed opportunity to steal passwords

 

- impersonate any SSC Zone

 

- distribute confidential information about servers or players (as he only sold the domain).

 

Bottom line, schitt did not disrupt the "security" of the zone, Desert Storm, or its players and staff.

[SVS]

I strongly disagree that redirecting the website of Desert Storm disrupts the security of the zone itself, and here is why:

 

The only problem with your post is that no where did I say schitt had disrupted the security of the zone. I will quote myself.. AGAIN, just for you.

 

One of the reasons for schitts network ban was threats to compromise the security of an SSC server which is clearly defined in the guidelines as being punishable by a network ban.

 

Please refer back to the original post for more details.

[Mr. Right]

I strongly disagree that redirecting the website of Desert Storm disrupts the security of the zone itself, and here is why:

 

The only problem with your post is that no where did I say schitt had disrupted the security of the zone. I will quote myself.. AGAIN, just for you.

 

One of the reasons for schitts network ban was threats to compromise the security of an SSC server which is clearly defined in the guidelines as being punishable by a network ban.

Please refer back to the original post for more details.

 

Oh. well, in that case, refer to my first post about explaining the situation/logging it. But for now, I'll just ask that you refer to lord mustang and agurus' last posts, and possibly protoman's post.

 

Also, the guidelines you posted suggests actually disrupting the security, does not say anything about THREATS to do so. I threat newbies everyday that I will come to their houses and stomp their nads out. Doesn't mean that I'm a criminal. Either way, the ban isn't legit.

[protoman.exe]

Do you have logs of where he actually threatened the security?

 

Perhaps if Jericho wasn't such an !@#$%^&*...all of this could have been avoided?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goat.

[SVS]

I strongly disagree that redirecting the website of Desert Storm disrupts the security of the zone itself, and here is why:

 

The only problem with your post is that no where did I say schitt had disrupted the security of the zone. I will quote myself.. AGAIN, just for you.

 

One of the reasons for schitts network ban was threats to compromise the security of an SSC server which is clearly defined in the guidelines as being punishable by a network ban.

Please refer back to the original post for more details.

 

 

 

Also, the guidelines you posted suggests actually disrupting the security, does not say anything about THREATS to do so. I threat newbies everyday that I will come to their houses and stomp their nads out. Doesn't mean that I'm a criminal. Either way, the ban isn't legit.

 

You know, I really can't help it if you can't read. This has already been quoted multiple times but I will do it one more time just for you (please learn to read, kkthx). *Read the bold section*

 

Security - Disrupting or attempting to disrupt the security of the

billing server, any SSC zone or server. Examples include flooding

servers or players, spreading knowledge of how to disrupt security,

unauthorized access to the billing or zone servers, stealing

passwords, impersonating SSC Zones, or distributing confidential

information about servers or players. Maximum 30 day first offence

net ban for a threat to disrupt security.

[Mr. Right]

that definately wasn't in the original quote, but i'm not going to argue it any further. I actually forgot about banfrees.

[SVS]

that definately wasn't in the original quote, but i'm not going to argue it any further. I actually forgot about banfrees.

 

Rofl.

 

You sir are an !@#$%^&* hat.

 

http://sscouncil.com/bang.php

 

Go there, note that it also contains the same language. Scan up to the prior posts and also see that they contain the same language.

 

Good day sir !@#$%^&* hat.

 

SVS

[Mr. Right]

that definately wasn't in the original quote, but i'm not going to argue it any further. I actually forgot about banfrees.

 

Rofl.

 

You sir are an !@#$%^&* hat.

 

http://sscouncil.com/bang.php

 

Go there, note that it also contains the same language. Scan up to the prior posts and also see that they contain the same language.

 

Good day sir !@#$%^&* hat.

 

SVS

 

Ok, i see now. I think i tried to quote you before you added all that, !@#$%^&*, I even got that quote in my quote. I apologize for that, no need to call me names and insult me in PM.

 

But yes, I do not want to talk about this debate as SVS still hasn't provided logs or proof as to why he authorized the ban. I guess he doesn't like to be wrong, or look bad. Right now, it's all he said she said, which doesn't solve anything.

[protoman.exe]

It seems like lots of people over reacted here. They fired schitt for something he did in real life. (I whipped a pillow at a dog, so what, ban me)

 

--Guess work starts here---

 

They then proceded to ban him from the zone because once he got fired they perhaps thought he would go and do something rash.

 

Schitt said he didn't care about being fired, but once they banned him that was where he drew the line.

 

Schitt pays for the website, it is his property. They then procede to netban him because he changed certain items of his property.

 

-----

 

Security - Disrupting or attempting to disrupt the security of the billing server' date=' any SSC zone or server. Examples include flooding servers or players, spreading knowledge of how to disrupt security, unauthorized access to the billing or zone servers, stealing passwords, impersonating SSC Zones, or distributing confidential information about servers or players. Maximum 30 day first offence net ban for a threat to disrupt security.[/quote']

 

I hardly see how schitt is to blame in any of this.

[mill]

wtf proto

 

HES OBVIOUSLY THREATENING SECURITY (somehow)

 

like even SVS could see that

 

sigh

[Synister]

This is quite sad...and what is this SVS spamming or am I just blind :X

He's not spamming..

[schitt]

i never "threatened" the server, or the zone. you all know that.

[»Swift]

I'd remove it if I cared.