|
1185. Angel-Five - 2/28/2000 11:17:34 AM hahaha, Niner. To think that I could have ever once believed you were thomasD.
I'm finding that all the heads on a pike argument are beginning to sway me a little bit, especially having seen some more of Cazart in the meantime. It's always been a near thing for me, whether I should support swift executive action to remove people for the good of the forum, or whether I should support an idealistic point of view where we let miscreants and sociopaths roam the Mote at will. It's becoming much nearer of a thing.
I agree a lot with what Jay's said about how the success of the forum is dependent more upon the leadership than the rules themselves, which is why I find myself favoring a rules statement which emphasises the empowerment of leadership. 1186. wabbit - 2/28/2000 8:18:06 PM Benevolent dictator checking in...
As Irv is working on a rewrite, I will refrain from comment for now, except to say that I agree with Seguine when she says "less is more".
1187. JayAckroyd - 2/28/2000 10:30:27 PM Defusing sociopaths is usually as simple as ignoring them. It's just hard to do, sometimes. 1188. Seguine - 2/29/2000 1:27:20 AM If you're an Iraqui, I expect it's hard to ignore Saddam. 1189. Angel-Five - 3/1/2000 3:35:52 AM Defusing sociopaths isn't unfortunately as simple as ignoring them. They will always, in practice, find someone to exploit within the forum, and the problem will grow from there once it has taken root. The same goes for people who aren't overtly sociopathic but are nonetheless divisive and destructive to the health of the forum as a whole. To ignore the game they're playing is to court disaster. However, there's no better alternative to ignoring that I can find. There are really only three ways of effectively dealing with one of these folks -- a) everyone agrees to ignore them (which as mentioned doesn't happen in reality) b) everyone rises up against them and bans them from the forum (which doesn't happen for similar reasons) and c) provide them with as few targets as possible and wait for them to get bored. They always get bored after enough time passes. One thing for sure is that appeasement usually doesn't work at all. It just makes the idiots stronger. And totally ignoring them doesn't help either, because they're usually really good at getting someone's attention that should know better. I think the best means is to point out, loud and clear, what they're up to -- and THEN do your best to let them bore themselves and leave. 1190. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2000 12:35:23 AM Re Niner's idea about a Gulag, earlier: I'd like to propose a new topic that would be a subthread of the Inferno: "Kick the shit out of cazart, the fecalphagous jackanapes."
Its purpose would be for hosts to remove any and all cazart droppings from their threads. Also, other posters who feel the need to say anything to this human offal would know where to go (figuratively, of course) to ream his/her/its asshole.
I'm sure many will volunteer to host. 1191. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 2:08:38 PM I think it's 'coprophagous'. I'm still not for banning Cazart outright (though I think he's getting pretty close to justifiable grounds with his incessant spamming) but I predict you'll probably have a few takers on that one, Indiana. 1192. Indiana Jones - 3/6/2000 10:36:52 PM A5: Thanks. I couldn't remember the word and had to jury-rig an approximation, but that's the one I was looking for: cazart, the coprophagous jackanapes. 1193. cazart - 3/8/2000 11:26:32 AM Excuse me. Do I need to show a hall pass to complain about cazart?
What fucking jokes you are. If you've got a beef against me, air them---don't hide in this fucking subthread, assholes.
As for kicking the shit out of me, Stinky, I now realize that theMote doesn't enforce a prohibition against threats of physical violence--what's stopping you, cocksucker? Hey, I'll accommodate you any fucking time you wish. Think of the big hero you could be, dipshit. Why not back up your threats, shithead? Could it be that you're a motherfucking coward? 1194. Indiana Jones - 3/8/2000 9:23:53 PM Tee-hee-hee. 1195. cazart - 3/8/2000 10:41:15 PM Nice giggle, pussy.
Fact is, after seeing your pictures, I can understand why you'd be unwilling to back up your threats of violence.
Say 'hi' to the cats, asshole. 1196. cazart - 3/12/2000 1:00:21 AM Be advised, Stinkums, that you have 4 hours to remove your entry for my pseudonym from the MoteMovies link.
No games. 1197. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2000 6:22:29 AM Still going...
It keeps going and going and going. 1198. cazart - 3/24/2000 10:57:16 AM Wabbit:
You are directed to have Stinky remove the picture by 0800 CST Sunday.
Thank you. 1199. Indiana Jones - 3/25/2000 7:39:55 AM Speaking of "hysterical and girl-like outbursts..."
(And redundant and repetitive, too.)
Do not forsake me, o my darling,
On this our wedding daaaayyyy.
Bump-da-di-boomp-boomp. Wait, wait along.
The noonday train will bring cuisinart.
If I'm a man I must be brave,
And I must face that lyin' fart,
Or lie a coward--a craven coward--or lie a coward in my grave.
Oh, to be torn 'twixt love and duty!
S'posin' I lose my fair-eyed beauty?
Look at that big hand move along,
Nearin' high noon!
He made a vow while in state's prison
That it would be my life or his'n.
I'm not afraid of death, but oh,
What will I do if you leave me?
Bump-da-de-boomp-boomp. Wait-along, wait along. 1200. cazart - 3/25/2000 10:28:36 AM Hey, it's not hysterical or girl-like ala Stinkums.
Here are some song lyrics, in keeping with Stinky's trend:
Oh Mickey, you're so fine you're so
fine you blow my mind, hey Mickey, hey Mickey) (Oh Mickey, you're so fine you're so fine you blow my mind,hey Mickey, hey Mickey) (Oh Mickey, you're so fine you're so fine you blow my mind, hey Mickey) Hey Mickey! You've been around all night and that's a little long You think you've got the right but I think you've got it wrong 1201. cazart - 4/3/2000 4:13:56 AM Now. Somebody fucking 'splain to me why CG gets to censor posts? 1202. Seguine - 4/4/2000 6:49:20 AM The following posts appeared in N&Q. I am re-posting them here in case folks wish to continue discussing the topic, as this is probably the better thread for it.
373. Indiana Jones - 4/4/00 10:00:27 PM
This is to announce that cazart's ID was disabled yesterday for his disruption of the Mote Movies thread. I took this action in wabbit's absence based on precedence (she had previously disabled his login when he did the same thing in policies) and the initial list of duties Alistair assigned when appointing me to the position of Gatekeeper. I simultaneously notified wabbit so that she could override my decision if she thought it was in error.
Until wabbit had a chance to respond, I considered the matter closed. But as cazart's status has caused some confusion in the Mote thread at TT, I want to clarify the situation.
Disabling cazart's account was a unilateral decision by me that I judged the best response to his behavior. When wabbit returns, she will as always make the final call.
374. PelleNilsson - 4/4/00 10:29:19 PM
Indiana
With all due respect I consider the banning premature. It was not all that bad and CalGal handled it well. Knowing that there is a lot of bad feelings between you and cazart it could be construed as abuse of power.
375. CalGal - 4/4/00 10:34:57 PM
We might want to move this conversation to Suggestions/Features? or Policies, now that I think of it.
376. Raskolnikov - 4/4/00 10:40:05 PM
Conflict of interest be damned. If Wabbit had delegated admin responsibilities to me, I would have cut off Cazart's access after the first reposting of spoilers.
1203. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 7:06:09 AM Pelle: Any exercise of power can be seen as an abuse.
Cazart had spammed the same post about a half dozen times (CalGal says at least 10, but I'm not sure it was that many) with the thread host deleting it each time. I have no doubt given the temperament of the two that it would have continued much longer if allowed to. Perhaps it's unclear from reading the thread, but cazart didn't stop until his ID was disabled (i.e., my action wasn't punitive; it was to stop what was occurring).
Apparently his attempt to log in returns the message that he needs to contact the Gatekeeper to get back in. He hasn't made any such request, so apparently the bad feelings work both ways, as he certainly would have emailed wabbit (and likely has).
Did my personal feelings toward cazart affect this decision? That's cart before the horse. My personal feelings toward cazart grow out of his behavior on this forum, nothing else. I don't know him in real life and don't wish to. Despite his constant lying, I have never corresponded with him. He has never said one true insult about me, and I assure you I'm not nearly as sensitive to false criticism as many here. The only reason cazart has any affect on me whatsoever is that I think he is detrimental to the prospects of this forum.
Do you know why he keeps insisting on "accountability"? Because when someone takes accountability here that is someone he will be able to bully and intimidate. That's why he tried to get the POC for the server. If you say, for example, you are responsible for what goes on at the Mote, you will never hear the end of it from him. You will be threatened and harassed over every perceived slight to him. 1204. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 7:06:46 AM (cont.)
I enjoy posting here much more than forum duties. Unfortunately, the only compensation at an all-volunteer forum is posting, so it's inevitable that perceived personality conflicts occur between volunteers and others. If the choice comes down to free interchange between myself and others and no duties or duties and no free interchange, then heck, man, take the duties away.
Bottom line: my judgment is that we had two precedents in which a thread was continually posted to despite requests by the thread host to desist: Rosetta and cazart. In both cases the ID was momentarily disabled.
I do appreciate that your judgment in this instance differs. That's why we have discussion forums.
|
