|
1209. 109109 - 4/4/2000 7:32:03 AM Indiana
A brief word.
Speak no more of this. If you justify, you will get nit-picked to death. You did what you did, hopefully, wabbit will make the banning permanent on the reasonable basis that cazart represents 99% of social/interactive problems at this site. Moreover, justification of your decision will lead every minor democrat on these threads to wax eloquent about the rules ("I have great difficulty with the intemperate decision without consultation to blah, blah, blah").
Cazart and others live for a long discussion of the propriety of various actions by well-meaning hand-wringers. Everyone should shut the fuck up about it, and if wabbit reinstates him, then he can be reinstated. Do not make one more post on this topic. That is my advice, and I'm following it. 1210. CalGal - 4/4/2000 7:33:06 AM As far as a policy about announcing this, how often does it come up (even for wabbit)?
It really doesn't matter how often it comes up. When it does come up, it's not good for people to wonder whether someone is blowing smoke about being banned or not. If we commit to announcing it, then there is no need to wonder.
But as I said, I'm not second-guessing your decision. I think the charge that we err on the side of leniency is probably accurate. And his spamming and general unpleasantness isn't missed. 1211. Seguine - 4/4/2000 8:32:36 AM I am pleased to see CalGal advocating for greater transparency of operations.
And I second this from Rask: "The thread host shouldn't be required to hang around endlessly to wage a post war with a pest."
The sky will not fall if semi-draconian decisions are made here occasionally. (Or more frequently, or less so.)
1212. CalGal - 4/4/2000 9:30:23 AM I am pleased to see CalGal advocating for greater transparency of operations.
????
Unless this refers to our earlier confusion about the definition of "transparency" (I did go back that time to reread and saw where you had made the distinction), I don't understand. I have always been an advocate about forum management decisions being "transparent", to use your term. I only oppose requiring transparency of identity.
I think our disagreement arose because you didn't think that the original decisions had been handled openly, whereas I felt it had. That's certainly a good area for discussion (and lord knows, it was discussed), but I don't think I ever advocated keeping everyone in ignorance.
And in the specific case of announcing administrative decisions or who the decisionmakers are, I am more conscious than most about appearances. 1213. Seguine - 4/4/2000 9:48:11 AM Oh please, please stop before my LOATHE function is reactivated. 1214. Raskolnikov - 4/4/2000 10:56:56 AM Indy:
My mantra - "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission".
People have put up with Cazart's impression of a tsetse fly for too long. Well done. 1215. PelleNilsson - 4/4/2000 2:13:32 PM Indiana
I didn't observe that cazart posted the same shit several times.
Consequently I withdraw my earlier remark. You did right. 1216. CalGal - 4/4/2000 3:08:47 PM Seguine,
Stop making comments about me, then. You had no reason to make the first remark, and it was inaccurate. I'm really quite fed up with your bullshit, and your LOATHE function can go to red alert for all I give a fuck.
1217. Seguine - 4/5/2000 12:31:35 AM CalGal,
My comment was not a slight, you self-obsessed psychotic. And who really cares what you're fed up with? 1218. Seguine - 4/5/2000 12:57:09 AM For the record, my opinion is:
1. Cazart has behaved as Raskolnikov has characterized him: a pest.
2. CalGal dealt with Cazart appropriately in her thread.
3. IndianaJones dealt with Cazart appropriately; as he has pointed out, Wabbit may overrule him if she sees fit.
4. It was appropriate for CalGal to ask Indy to announce his decision publicly.
5. In future, as a matter of policy, all such decisions should be announced.
1219. CalGal - 4/5/2000 2:21:55 AM I didn't say it was a slight. I said it was inaccurate. I corrected it, then I got the "oh, please", etc. And I don't think anyone cares any more about my being fed up than they do about your "LOATHE function"--and yet, we both announce it because it makes us feel better.
That being said, I agree with your 1218, and I hope we can all drop the Caz issue. 1220. Seguine - 4/5/2000 3:34:52 AM "I didn't say it was a slight. I said it was inaccurate. I corrected it, then I ...."
Thank god someone has set out to determine once and for all whether an energetic enough drill can drive a loose screw all the way to China. 1221. dusty - 4/5/2000 4:36:28 AM Based upon Cazart's recent posts in TT, I'm in favor of converting the disabling to semi-permanent banning (meaning, in a year or so, we might give him/her another chance—I think almost anyone has the potential for rehabilitation.) 1222. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 5:34:28 AM "I think almost anyone has the potential for rehabilitation"
Liberal. 1223. dusty - 4/5/2000 5:57:37 AM Hey, this isn't the Inferno. 1224. Raskolnikov - 4/5/2000 6:05:24 AM Sorry, I was distracted by the sight of blood coming out of your heart. 1226. soupisgoodfood - 4/5/2000 9:46:33 AM
- Needless abuse
The definition of "needless" and "abusive" are left to the thread host, whose word is final. Any posts that are deemed abusive will be deleted. Understand that standards are set by the host. Continually abusive behavior may be grounds for banning.
It goes without saying that this has holes you can drive trucks through. This is intentional. The inventiveness of a small minority forces us to be vague.
Except for the opportunity to read such fresh and sparkling prose as "holes you can drive a truck through," what's the point of this rule?1227. Seguine - 4/5/2000 10:42:06 AM Exactly. But Soup, if you scroll back (considerably), you'll find that there was an effort made here to rewrite the rules so that they addressed these issues a little less adolescently, while ultimately leaving all interpretation of matters like "needless abuse" to the moderator.
We are still waiting for a semi-final draft from Irving, who has until recently been on some sort of sports-inflected vacation in the Land of the Great Satan. 1228. wabbit - 4/9/2000 1:26:58 AM Can we come to some sort of agreement amongst ourselves, as if we were a group of adults who don't need every damn thing spelled out in black and white?
If someone used to use their real name for posting online and they ask that their name not be used here anymore, don't use it. Don't link to it either. It's a simple enough courtesy, isn't it?
1229. Indiana Jones - 4/9/2000 5:50:00 AM wabbit: I have replied to your recent email. If you don't receive it, please let me know.
|
