Lieutenant Lollipop/Alex Drama

Alright, so here's the deal. Recently, Lieutenant Lollipop (with the help of Alex) faked his death in order to troll the ZU community. Subsequently, they were both given 3 month bans, and since then, various attempts have been made on his behalf by his friends to unban him. The logical next step is a thread in the feedback board, so I'm going to preempt it here with my own.

The question here is as to the level of their punishments, as some feel that a ban is excessive. Lollipop and Alex insisted that the members should decide the verdict, which sounded like an amusing enough concept. So, after hearing the facts in this thread, you get to pretend to be a mod and provide your arguments for or against a ban! Let's see if you can impress the judges. :3

Firstly, the rules. There is no specific rule against faking your own death, though it does fit under trolling. The crime of an ordinary trolling post (e.g making fun of somebody's artwork for a response) is considered a 4 point infraction. Depending on the severity of a crime, though, the points are often reduced, and first-time infractees with mild rule-breaking may simply receive 2 points or a 0 point warning.

The argument for the "ban" side is that causing several people to cry and go into mourning because they thought they had lost a friend is worth a lot more than a regular troll post would be, while the "infract" side says that following the point system precisely is the point of a mod and that it would be out of the their jurisdiction to ban them without a specific rule against it.

Secondly, precedent. The original "death faker" was a user by the name of Bahamut. This desperate plea for attention earned him a permanent ban. Next, on April Fools 2008, a thread was created claiming that Captain Cornflake was dead, but evidence pointed to him being away from the internet at the time so while others proven to be related to the prank (such as the thread starter) were punished he was not.

Thirdly, the precedent that this moderator action will set. If the decision is made that people who fake their death for the purpose of trolling forum members are given a ban, that will carry on to the next such case, while if they are given a four-point infraction, taht will also carry on to the next such case, as the culprits will appeal to this case as precedent.

What is your decision? An infraction? A short (1 month) ban? A 3 month ban (currently in place)? Or do you feel strongly enough about it that you feel they deserve a permaban?

First of all, the point of the law is to uphold the people, not for the people to uphold the law. In this case, this does not fit in the same bounds as an ordinary form of trolling, and certainly does not fit in with the mere 4 point punishment outlined. If we uphold this law for the point of upholding this law, we will be doing the members of ZeldaUniverse a great disservice indeed. So, I shall therefore ignore the previously established law on the grounds it fails to support the people, and to do otherwise would be beaurocracy at its worse.

There are four aspects to punishment: Retribution, Protection, Deterrence, and Rehabilitation. Retribution can, by this day and age, be considered irrelevant - an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. However, if you were to consider it, then a permaban would be a fitting punishment. They were dead to us, and if we banned them, we would be dead to the, for they could no longer access us in any way. Protection is possibly the big point. Timothy and Alex have shown themselves incapable of restraining from stunts like this. This certainly isn't the first time either of them have been banned before. If we perma ban them, they will not be able to pull something like this again, and thus we will have protected the members of ZeldaUniverse. Deterrence is another big point. We all know that Tim is desperate to suck the Cap'n's cornflakes, and has copied his stunt from a while back. If we step back now, yet another person may copy, and another. We NEED to make a strong and clear example NOW. A perma ban would make almost all people think very strongly about doing something like this again. Rehabilitation has proven itself to be irrelevant. We have banned them before, and each time they've come back they have re-offended. It has failed at all past attempts, and is almost certain not to succeed, seeing as they can just head off to some other internet community. As such, all the main points are in favour of both of them being permabanned.

EDIT: Although Alex is probably less so a problem. I'd advocate a month for Alex, perma for Tim.


To be entirely honest, I'm surprised we haven't permabanned them already...

4 points no good?

Maybe 8 then?

Originally Posted by SephiTotth

4 points no good?

Maybe 8 then?

That would leave Lollipop with a ban due to his previous infraction, without tipping Alex over the edge. :3

Originally Posted by Cody

There is no specific rule against faking your own death

This is the problem, I think. I think this actually does need to be a rule now. I'd say this is an offense (due to the heavily manipulative nature of the offense) that's worthy of an insta-ban punishment on the part of any who participate in such a prank. That would discourage others in the future from doing so (or if not discouraging them, at least letting them know they'll be taking a vacation from ZU for doing it). But because it is a prank and nothing more malicious, I think it should be a short ban--say, one month. Three or five months is rather unnecessarily long, I believe.

Apologies in advance to Timothy and Alex for advocating a ban, albeit a short one.

Crab Helmet makes a very good point. And, there should be a precedent set on this sort of offence, seeing as how this isn't the first time someone has pulled this kind of prank.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

First of all, the point of the law is to uphold the people, not for the people to uphold the law.

strike that, reverse it.
then reverse it again.

Rousseau....


They can live without ZU for 3 months.

If their friends are butt-hurt about not seeing them on ZU they can AIM, SKype, e-mail, etc....

ZU is a privilege, not a right.

Having said that.

I found the whole charade to be mildly amusing.

Originally Posted by And Rew

This is the problem, I think. I think this actually does need to be a rule now. I'd say this is an offense (due to the heavily manipulative nature of the offense) that's worthy of an insta-ban punishment on the part of any who participate in such a prank. That would discourage others in the future from doing so (or if not discouraging them, at least letting them know they'll be taking a vacation from ZU for doing it). But because it is a prank and nothing more malicious, I think it should be a short ban--say, one month. Three or five months is rather unnecessarily long, I believe.

Apologies in advance to Timothy and Alex for advocating a ban, albeit a short one.

So you suggest a one-month ban and an addendum to the rules stating that future attempts should be met with a longer ban? That does sound like a viable option too. :3

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

We NEED to make a strong and clear example NOW. A perma ban would make almost all people think very strongly about doing something like this again. Rehabilitation has proven itself to be irrelevant. We have banned them before, and each time they've come back they have re-offended. It has failed at all past attempts, and is almost certain not to succeed, seeing as they can just head off to some other internet community. As such, all the main points are in favour of both of them being permabanned.

I strongly agree with Crab Helmet. Such action deserves a permabann. Besides being an awfully good joke, it made some people suffer emotionally. Now, I am not saying that this is revenge for that joke making me and some other people feel bad, but indeed such action deserves this kind of punishment. It would not only show people that such actions are not tolerated but it would also protect fellow ZU betherent's emotional being being. (ala: making people cry or feel bad.)

A troll is a troll, no matter how you look at it. Despite Captain Cornflake not getting busted even though the rules say that anyone can be infracted/baned if they break the rules is failure on the mod team. Now, faking a death is not a crime on ZU, as Cody has stated, but doing it to troll is. The one and only reason is they were banned, as explained, was due to a troll. Knowing Lollipop, he has been trolling a lot on ZU these past years. I am not familiar with Alex's behavior because I have not been here long enough to see his actions. However, because Alex was "in on it" with Lollipop, their punishment should be the same unless Alex has shown good behavior on ZU throughout his membership. ...Due to these previous trollings, Lollipop had plenty of chances to "learn from his mistakes" but seemed to not care. This case is similar to that of Twilight Kitty's spam bannishment. Twilight Kitty got unbanned serveral times despite spamming ZU, and in the end, remained ban. "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it", that's the old saying. If someone continues to break the rules, they should remained banned, despite popularity, modship, etc.

I vote for Lollipop to stay perma-banned. I don't have enough information about Alex to decide on what should happen to him.

Originally Posted by And Rew

This is the problem, I think. I think this actually does need to be a rule now. I'd say this is an offense (due to the heavily manipulative nature of the offense) that's worthy of an insta-ban punishment on the part of any who participate in such a prank. That would discourage others in the future from doing so (or if not discouraging them, at least letting them know they'll be taking a vacation from ZU for doing it). But because it is a prank and nothing more malicious, I think it should be a short ban--say, one month. Three or five months is rather unnecessarily long, I believe.

Apologies in advance to Timothy and Alex for advocating a ban, albeit a short one.

I agree. The fact that people were made to cry should not be left ignored. I feel that a ban of a singular month is wholly justifiable, while a ban of an extended period branching across several months is a bit excessive. As Rew pointed out, there was no malicious intent, and I very seriously doubt that people were meant to be moved to tears by the prank.

The fact of the matter is, most people who criticize the mods for raising the four point regiment in this case are the same who generally criticize the regimented nature of your moderation. In other words, harshly regimented infractions, unless they were for the benefit of their friend, are something they're probably opposed to.

The way I see it, there's no reason to remain cemented to a regimented list of points in the infraction system in extenuating circumstances of this nature. Clearly, faking death =/= criticizing art, and it should be made clear that this is so, both connotatively and denotationally.

as I mentioned in the Community Thread, I thought it was a hilarious and well-played prank and I don't think they are deserving of any sort of punishment whatsoever. Pranks, jokes, and even outright lies are not considered to be against any forum rules I know of. If it did cause anyone grief and if anyone did seriously start crying or go into mourning, they really shouldn't have taken anything they read on an Internet forum so damn seriously. Never believe anything you read on the Internet, not without sufficient sources. I mean, even if Lolli really had died, I wouldn't have cried. I might have been a bit shocked for a moment, but I'd get over it and forget it by the next day. I didn't really know him. Strangers die all the time.

anyway, while I don't think they did anything wrong and I think they shouldn't be punished at all, it is true that they could be considered trolls for this particularly "tasteless" joke, as some might call it. If anything, they should receive the standard troll infraction.

My take on this:

A 3 month ban sounds just right, though a longer one is worth considering. I wasn't particularly offended by this event-- at least not to the degree that I felt extremely deceived or foolish. Based on the thread, some people appear to have shared their valuable time by remaining in there and express themselves pretty seriously.

To have Alex post:

God, I was crying, that was so funny. I feel bad about it, but it really was worth it.

and

We just got the ♥♥♥♥ing morons.

does likely offend those who spent time posting how sad the supposed event was, etc. I don't know what exactly Alex and Lollipop were expecting after amusing themselves, but a nice, warm welcome back to Lollipop or a pad in the back to Alex for being funny would be pretty unsuitable. That's my take on that.

In the next case of a supposed death of a member, such thread should be immediately locked. If the death of a user truly wants to be reported, the mods should handle the situation.

I vote 1 month. Even that I feel may be pushing it, considering the rules say 4 points. However, due to the severity of the trolling, I'm going 1 month.

Is there proof for both people being "on" it?

Originally Posted by Danger

Is there proof for both people being "on" it?

Being in on it? Yeah. They trumpeted their return by posting in the thread about how much the reactions made them laugh.

Originally Posted by Cody

...They trumpeted their return by posting in the thread about how much the reactions made them laugh.

Death Trumpets

by Wolfgan Stiller

How appropriate. :3

Permaban llll
One Month Ban lll
Three Month Ban ll
Eight Points l
No Penalty l

is the current talley.

Hmmm.. I am not amused. However careful thought of the situation made me suspect some funny business. I do believe between a 1 month to 3 month ban is a good idea. I agree with Rew. Joke wasnt funny. Trolling on this sort of level isnt something i can laugh about. Its in poor taste. Not only that, if something really did happen to another ZUer and someone posted about it, no one would believe it due to crying wolf.
If i were in charge, i would put those two on very thin ice. One more ♥♥♥♥storm, and a permaban would be in order. Buuut thats just me.

Tim was already on very thin ice. This is like the third or fourth time he's been on very thin ice. Alex, admittedly, was mostly clean until now.