Important Clarification on Sietch's stance concerning SBs rules.

[Spartan303]

Let me get to the point. There appears to be a misconception that we here at the Sietch support Spacebattles rules, mainly concerning appeals. This is utterly false, we do not support the rules of Spacebattles nor will we punish here those who break the rules there.

As far as their appeals go, we have no involvement and no interest. While you are perfectly free to post your appeals at other sites here in an open thread and will not be breaking any rules as a consequence, we would be remiss if we did not remind all of you that people from our sister sites constantly monitor us and will use anything you say as an excuse to take action against you there. We do not support this, indeed we unequivocally condemn using one's actions on a different forum against one here (or vice versa), but we cannot force others to behave as reasonable adults.

This misconception is largely on me for a singular comment I made advising someone not to post an appeal here. My intent was to prevent said member from suffering backlash for this at the other site and prevent him from getting banned. Not because there is any coordination with their sites Mod staff. But apparently it seems to have been taken that way.

Hopefully this should clarify matters.

 

[PeliusAnar]

For reference here what was actually said. That way people have context for the OP. Apparently we should not take Admins talking about rules seriously, seriously anymore. Good to know.

REDACTED said:
A bit silly to punish a person when there are no rules for it, you should appeal and share what they say. ;p

I seriously hope that you are not suggesting he break their rules of Appeals? We take that very seriously here.

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.ph...rums-sb-sv-qq-ah-etc.626/page-325#post-115469

 

[Spartan303]

For reference here what was actually said. That way people have context for the OP. Apparently we should not take Admins talking about rules seriously, seriously anymore. Good to know.

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.ph...rums-sb-sv-qq-ah-etc.626/page-325#post-115469

Now you're just being passive aggressive and disingenuous. Which isnt as cute nor as witty as you seem to think it is. This issue has come due to me misspeaking on the subject. I have clarified that effort to set the record straight. Simple as that.

 

[PeliusAnar]

Now you're just being passive aggressive and disengeuois. Which is t as cute nor as witty as you seem to think it is. This issue has come due to me misspeaking on the subject. I have clarified that effort to set the record straight. Simple as that.

You are claiming I am being disingenuous. Here are some of your follow up posts. These are your words not mine. Yes you made it clear that you did not want to bring stuff from SB over here like in the OP of this thread. But you also made clear that you were speaking from a position of authority and that you viewed said posts as intractable. Also note that these posts were made around November 3rd and this statement was put out on November 22nd. I also had made a thread asking about this issue in staff comms around the 3rd.

The only reason you seem to be giving a statement is because I linked the thread in my signature, which is fine. But on the other hand when the response is weeks after the initial incident, there is no link or quotes from the original thread to put it in perspective, and misrepresent yourself by saying it is only a single comment. That is when I look at what you are saying and have a hard time taking your statement seriously.

Rocinante said:
I'm not sure why we care about their rules? They'll already ban us if we even link to the place. It's not like our rep can get any worse...

Because we dont go creating problems. Because inevitably those problems get imported here. The AOOB rule was actually one I agreed with, because it prevented a host of problems. They've since amended that somewhat and not for the better, but we dont appreciate people here playing to the crowd how they're going to troll and what not, on another site, and then do it.

No. That shit stops. Now.

For the record. I'm not asking you to follow SBs rules here. I'm asking that you guys not plot to do stuff over there and import drama. The whole issue of their appeals and sharing them is a form of that. Now if ya'll want to do stuff like that then take it to a discord or something. Just not here.

Ya'll are grown adults and you can say and do as you please. But your actions have consequences for the site too.

Bacle said:
Spartan, to be blunt, this thread is specifically designed for bitching about other forums, and that includes bitching about Infractions and Appeals bullshit.

If you do not want people doing that, and sharing things that are against SB rules here, why have this thread at all.

What SB thinks and what their rules say should have exactly 0 bearing on what happens on this site.

Sure, you can bitch about SB, SV, AH and other sites all you like. We dont object to that. But plotting to do something on those boards here is a no go. We never made a rule on it because we thought you all were mature enough to know that. Were we wrong?

Did you not read a thing I just posted? Complain to your heart's content. But if you guys plot to troll, get infracted and then share those appeals, knowing they're watching, just so you can get another laugh is petty and unproductive. What if SB decides to retaliate? What are the optics for the site here?

 

[Spartan303]

My issue was that by people posting their appeals here at the Sietch they would thereby invalidate their appeals at SB. They monitor us here and would see this as break of their appeal policy and thus automatically reject them and it could possibly lead to backlash. Which is what I was trying to avoid.

What you see is pretty much what you get. And now I've clarified our stance on this on my own accord. Because it was my fault it was an issue in the first place. Thus on me to fix it. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Deleted member 1]

@PeliusAnar Your user name has been returned to "PeliusAnar" as the change was a blatant rule 3.0 violation of directly challenging staff.

 

[PeliusAnar]

@PeliusAnar Your user name has been returned to "PeliusAnar" as the change was a blatant rule 3.0 violation of directly challenging staff.

Then can you please list what name changes are acceptable then and what is not acceptable so I can not challenge the staff with future name changes. If I change it to Anar-Pelius is that acceptable? What about SuilepRana? I have a lot of other variations I was wondering about since I can't change my user name to my preferred one anymore. I plan to comply with all rules told to me, except I need to know exactly what the new rules are so I can specifically comply.

Also I don't want to be referred to by my SB name, which you now forced on me. Is that not forcing an incident of soft doxing? By forcing someone to their SB name? According to the staff, there is no wiggle room or exceptions in regards to soft doxxing a person. At all, or ever, regardless of the reasoning behind it according to what I have been told. So isn't this forced name change violating that policy? How is your soft doxxing me reconciled since there are zero exceptions to soft doxing?

 

[SuperS4]

Then can you please list what name changes are acceptable then and what is not acceptable so I can not challenge the staff with future name changes. If I change it to Anar-Pelius is that acceptable? What about SuilepRana? I have a lot of other variations I was wondering about since I can't change my user name to my preferred one anymore. I plan to comply with all rules told to me, except I need to know exactly what the new rules are so I can specifically comply.

Also I don't want to be referred to by my SB name, which you now forced on me. Is that not forcing an incident of soft doxing? By forcing someone to their SB name? According to the staff, there is no wiggle room or exceptions in regards to soft doxxing a person. At all, or ever, regardless of the reasoning behind it according to what I have been told. So isn't this forced name change violating that policy? How is your soft doxxing me reconciled since there are zero exceptions to soft doxing?

Pretty sure if your original username(I'm guessing it was since it was "returned to" and not "changed to") was your SB Username. You can't say "I don't want to be referred to by this username I actually signed up with because now I can try and play a "gotcha" moment because of a rule.

Had you not wanted to be known by an SB Username, generally... you don't sign up with it in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 1]

@PeliusAnar Your post is just a bloody lot of twaddle to continue your position of playing games with the rules. You don't mean a lick of it, you're just attacking the policy with it, and we know that because if you really didn't want to be known by your SB user name, you would have chosen a different name, instead of "NotPeliusAnar", which was mere brazen effrontery and a challenge to a rule you disagreed with. You can complain about the rules in posts; you cannot complain about the rules by changing your name and then implying you will use the rules as your personal weapon subsequently. If you don't like the rules on this forum, go find another forum to post on.