Warbros Propaganda via Earthworm Jim

It has recently come to my attention that Digital extremes has banned the Warlord of the clan Warbros, to which I belong. I would like to elucidate the forum community about why such a thing happened, and the tactics employed by Community Moderator [DE]Rebecca to achieve this end.

To begin, have the exact conversation that led up to this event; unedited save for the removal of our Warlord's name. I would like to point out that posting logs of PMs, whether or not the poster is party to the conversation posted, is not against Warframe's terms of use, the EULA, the Forum's code of conduct, or the website's private policy.

[img]http://sadpanda.us/images/1885897-H0WY7UA.png[/img]
http://sadpanda.us/images/1885897-H0WY7UA.png

[img]http://sadpanda.us/images/1885898-M2FNUF5.png[/img]
http://sadpanda.us/images/1885898-M2FNUF5.png

[img]http://sadpanda.us/images/1885899-LL529Z2.png[/img]
http://sadpanda.us/images/1885899-LL529Z2.png

The first thing to note is the screen-cap of our recruitment rules, most notably Rule 0)

"You must make a post on the official forums using your IGN that says "Warbros #1". As the mods may delete this, you should screenshot this post and your image should include it."

This is what was causing people to spam the phrase in the forums. As you can note from the string of messages, Rebecca had asked us to change this rule, which we did. This is our new recruitment rules:

[img]http://puu.sh/6T9je.png[/img]
http://puu.sh/6T9je.png

Note that Rule 0) has indeed changed. It now reads:

"You must make a post on the official forums using your IGN that uses "Warbros #1"  somewhere in a legitimate response to someone. (i.e. "I disagree with your opinion about the Ogris because it is clantech. Also, Warbros #1.") As the mods may delete this, you should screenshot this post and your image should include it. Do not simply create a new thread with this as the subject and body of the post."

The rule now states that you must make a post that would otherwise be legitimate and acceptable on the forums, and have it contain the phrase 'Warbros #1'. [DE]Rebecca apparently believes this is just a proxy for spam. Since our rule explicitly states that the post on the forums must be a legitimate one (As in, one that would be normal and rule-abiding), taken logically this means the very act of adding the phrase 'Warbros #1' to an otherwise perfectly fine post regardless of content or feedback now makes it spam. This is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.

I would have expected this sort of thing to be welcome; our recruitment rules actually force players to use the official forums and potentially leave feedback in the first place, something many players do not actually do even though this game is in a beta whose success is largely based on player feedback in the first place. That is the very reason there is a beta in the first place; feedback.

I am under no illusions that my Warlord is some kind of saint; [DE]Rebecca did indeed rattle off some alleged past transgressions and provide a handy record of alleged reports. However, it is important to note that this is NOT why he was banned. Instead of using the alleged reports and counts against him as reason enough to suspend or ban his account, they instead resorted to the clan's recruitment method and placed sole responsibility on his shoulders when he was not even responsible for such things in the first place. As this is the reason given he is being banned, it is this reason that is being judged. Using other evidence to substantiate this action outside of the actual reason given is simply moving goalposts.

Furthermore this has now set a precedent; If you are a clan Warlord, Digital Extremes can and will hold you responsible for actions taken by your clan-mates and/or potential recruits, regardless of whether or not you yourself had or have any control over it. It was not my Warlord posting 'Warbros #1'; it was potential recruits, and later potential recruits who lack either basic reading comprehension, tasteful judgement, or whom acted with actual malice knowing that doing so would ultimately damage Warbros in some way.

From here, I'd like to take a look at [DE]Rebecca's logic and tactics regarding the situation. While I do not anticipate needing it, I would first like to point out that as the Community Manager for Digital Extremes, this makes Rebecca a public figure and therefore subject to fair comment and criticism upheld by New York v. Sullivan in the United States and both Crookes v. Newton and Grant v. Torstar in Canadian law. I would also like to point out that according to the Federal SPEECH act, foreign defamation suits against American citizens are unenforceable in the United States unless that judgement also complies with US libel law.

First, Rebecca asks us to remove the forum caveat of recruitment. She goes on and states that "Any more threads that occur with the intent to fulfill that requirement will come back against you". The problem, then, and the reason for the conversation in the first place is established as people creating threads to try to fulfill this requirement. If you look at our requirements both past and present, you will note that nowhere do they state that people are to make a thread. The people doing that are doing it of their own volition, and their actions we cannot be held accountable for as they are independent of our recruiting procedures. Resultant? Maybe. Causative? No.

Rebecca then justifies her opinion by posting our recruitment information, which if you read it still does not state anything about making threads, just as my Warlord has stated. The point of conversation then shifts entirely away from the matter and hand and switches to whether or not my Warlord has the authority to change the recruitment rules, which we have already identified do not state anything about making threads and therefore cannot be considered the sole or even a large part of the reason threads are being created to fulfill that requirement. Again, I will point out that the people doing so are not actually following our rules to begin with.

It is at this point that Rebecca delivers her ultimatum and briefly changes the subject yet again to past transgressions made by my Warlord, the details and specifics thereof conveniently removed. The recruitment rules are changed to their current form, which not only specifies a post as opposed to a thread but also a legitimate post. The only way a legitimate post could in theory be confused for a spam post would be if spam is legitimate, which it is not. Rebecca, however, seems to feel otherwise but does not state a reason why.

Rebecca pushes her ultimatum a second time and insists that either legitimate posting is spam, as this is the only way the two can coexist, or that people will blatantly ignore our recruitment rules ans post spam, which is not our problem to begin with and those people should be dealt with accordingly. Rebecca then explains why spam is bad, which is a diversion from the topic at hand, and then pushes her ultimatum a third time.

There is an appeal to emotion, the fourth ultimatum push, and the topic again shifts into past transgressions not relevant to what was asked of us in the first place, which despite Rebecca's assertions to the contrary was fulfilled fairly clearly. Rebecca's part in the conversation ends with a failure to provide the spreadsheet that was not relevant to the conversation at hand in the first place.

While it may seem at first I am not being fair in not holding my Warlord's words to the same scrutiny, that is because what my Warlord said is not relevant to what happened, that being: Our recruitment rules told people to post 'Warbros #1' on the forums, some potential recruits thought it was funny to be obnoxious about it, Rebecca became tired of cleaning it up and asked us to fix it, we fixed it in a way where people being obnoxious about it could no longer even potentially be viewed as following our rules, Rebecca didn't like how we fixed it despite fixing it, probably because it doesn't stop people from being obnoxious about it since we have no control over that in the first place, and banned him anyway despite the problem and the stated reason he was being banned in the first place being fixed.

I do not believe this to be fair or reasonable by any means, and I do not like the precedent this sets for what Warlords of clans can be held accountable for.