|
1302. quivver - 9/28/2000 10:00:38 PM Nos will most likely be back in like a week. I'm refraining from comment about his banning, since I don't feel a pressing need to add to the list of comments. But no-one should look surprised if some smart alecky, slightly over-the-top-with-egomania kid comes barrelling back in real soon now. Of course, I'm probably stating the blindingly obvious there, but it may only be supposition. Time for bed.
aem. 1303. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:16:24 PM Kuligan
To go in detail into Nos' first banning would almost be to repeat the offense that justified his banning. Suffice it to say that there are enough of us who remember Nos's past behaviour that lead to his banning and your part in it so that your professed bewilderment now rings false.
As I said before, Nox's behaviour in his first banning far outstripped anything that he accused Indiana Jones of doing. So egregious were those actions that I don't see why his ID was re-instated in the first place. Nox in attacking IJ repeated that pattern by dragged a dispute from another venue into the Mote and refusing to let it go when advised that it was inappropriate. He followed his past pattern of attempting to trash people in the Mote over disputes that happened outside the Mote. I think that no one was buying this time because of his past track record.
If, by questioning Mote norms, you mean attacking non-combattants and lashing out at Diva in the most hurtful way he could come up with for no reason at all, then I question the value of that type of "participation". Overall, his behavior over the past week, coupled with the fact that he'd been previously banned for particularly egregious behavior justifies reinstating the ban. 1304. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:22:11 PM Ducky
I'm not a fan of banning either. I'd much prefer to ignore the fool til he goes away. And though I didn't call for Nox's banning in the first instance, I think it was justified and question the reason (if there was one) for reinstating him. 1305. rubberducky - 9/28/2000 11:07:37 PM well, i've always been one for 2nd chances. i don't really think past behavior for which penance was served (the day banning) should be taken into account wrt current behavior.
but, was it "justified"? well, i dunno. most anything can be justified in the proper context. that being said, this is probably reached the point of diminishing returns in terms of discussing it. 1306. CalGal - 9/29/2000 1:16:52 AM A few clarifications:
Nos was never banned. When he showed up as God, he committed a rather horrific privacy violation. He wasn't banned for that, either. (although many thought he should be.) He then continued to try and violate privacy, and I believe that he was then banned (as God). At that point someone logged in with a number of ids and began spamming the place. It was very ugly; tons and tons of posts. We actually shut the place down from new logins for a bit, it was so bad. God/Nos/JF denied that this was him, and we had no real proof--but it was the same night, and I've always believed it was him.
That same night, Nostradamus showed up, and started posting in the Spiritual Issues thread. I would say most of us knew within a week that it was the same guy--same interests. But no one acknowledged it, and he was a generally pleasant part of the community for a few months and hosted the Religion thread--until he acknowledged that he was God. He was never banned as Nos; the incident with thread hosting caused his suspension and removal of as thread host, I believe. 1307. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 1:36:03 AM bubbaette, you are continuing it seems then to perpetuate an out and out lie about me and my "involvement" with the first banning of Nos. That isn't anything new coming from you, of course, since you have majored in falsities about me in the past, over and over again. So this is nothing new, but I feel the need to just point out at least to those people here that may be easily duped by your lies that I had nothing to do with his first banning. Again, I can't even remember why he was banned (although CalGal's recent post sheds some light).
So really, the thing you need to do is either 1) substantiate your current claims with facts, or 2) retract your lies (or let me be a little more forgiving and say your "inability to recall things accurately.") But in either case, it is clearly evident that you don't know what you are talking about in this particular matter.
Also, just for clarification, many people are saying that what Nos said to Diva was horrible and disgusting and whatever. Again, all I saw was one post to the effect that "I hope the baby doesn't look like the mailman" type of comment. Nothing horrific about that. In fact, we have seen far, far worse here - even by the likes of bubbaette, for example - that has been quickly excused. If Nos was banned for "shitting on the threads" and contributing not substance, then fine, ban him. But puhlease, ban him for that one comment to Diva?
So far most people that have been for his banning have cited his comment to Diva. Perhaps I missed some other comments to her from Nos? [the comment I am referring to involved pelle in the discussion with Nos] 1308. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2000 1:40:03 AM So, you have made a false claim about me bubbaette, and so again, I ask you to either retract it, or substantiate it and at least give me the chance to specifically address your errant claim. That certainly isn't asking too much.
And silence on this point will have to be taken by you to mean that you still prefer to perpetuate the lie (or error) than to correct it, since your claim sits openly on the table now. Unless you retract it, there it sits. And unless you substantiate it, the lie will continue to be a lie.
But I am even willing to allow it to rest with this, if you so desire: perhaps you simply recall incorrectly the facts surrounding his previous banning? If you at least allow for error on your part in this recent claim by you against me, then I will be happy that you at least allow for error on your part, and then we need not go into any details concerning the matter (although I prefer the details, since clearly there you will be shown your error).
It is your choice. 1309. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2000 11:40:11 PM Your silence is golden bubbaette. 1310. Dusty - 10/13/2000 1:31:37 AM Did we decide that thread hosts have absolute authority? I thought we had a minor blowup over an issue where a thread host thought this was the case, but was wrong.
Of course, thread hosts should have broad discretion. But the suggestion that a post containing commentary on the Presidential debates in a thread on Presidential debates can be considered abusive, seems like an odd interpretation of abusive. 1311. CalGal - 10/17/2000 1:37:01 PM ?????
I said that were Jack to repost an entire article instead of linking it in Movies, I would delete it. I was only semi-kidding. But were I to delete it, I would also relink the article in.
I certainly think it is within any thread host's purview to say that they don't want five posts dedicated to an article that could be linked in. I would warn several times first. 1312. wabbit - 4/2/2001 1:22:03 AM Is it time to revisit the RoE? 1313. ChristinO - 4/2/2001 1:41:42 AM They look good to me Wabbit. I'm in complete agreement.
1314. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:20:10 AM Wabbit,
Do not be needlessly abusive of other posters.
I expect there's nothing I can add that hasn't been seriously considered before, but, if possible being a little more objective enforcement could be applied .... looking at behaviour as much as the moniker.
The RoE looks fine to me, just an enforcement issue. If a newbie used the term "menapausal hyena" when referring to one of our well liked ladies here, they would face banishment ... if CG used this same term referring to a newbie, what would happen.
I'm not out to get CalGal and sincerely hope that she gets over the anger she's obviously dealing with, but we should be equally considerate of others.
Wabbit, again, I am posting this respecting that you (and others) have pondered these issues before ... but you screwed-up and asked for opinions (hehe).
1315. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:30:21 AM Forgive the lousy grammar. 1316. wabbit - 4/2/2001 3:36:30 AM Seadate,
We have this thread just for hammering out these rules.
In the past, we have tried to keep the rules few in number and vague, which allows leeway in implementation. For most, this seems to work, but for some it becomes an issue of inconsistency. There is no way to be absolutely consistent in enforcing civility. Those who dish it out should also be willing to take it, and usually they are.
Newbies are cut a lot of slack. In the case you mention, someone would probably warn them off, but I doubt they would be threatened with banishment. And while it would be nice if everyone would be a bit more careful with how they speak to newbies, I don't see how that is enforceable. I also think it's unreasonable to expect moderators or thread hosts to have to act as babysitters. btw, while CalGal seems to be everyone's favorite example, there are others who have been unnecessarily rude to new posters in the past couple months. None of us are perfect.
1317. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:48:01 AM Agreed. 1318. seadate - 4/2/2001 3:51:53 AM Wabbit,
I used name(s) in my earlier post in an effort to be specific. It's not my style to point fingers or rashly accuse .... If you care to delete or edit that post, I certainly understand. 1319. wabbit - 4/2/2001 4:24:15 AM No problem, Seadate, your post was fine. 1320. wabbit - 4/2/2001 7:08:43 AM Anyone have any problems with the revised RoE? Now is the time to speak up. 1321. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2001 7:21:54 AM I have no problem with them.
|
