|
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. 1205. CalGal - 4/4/2000 7:19:49 AM Indy,
As far as your decision goes, I have no problem with it. I don't know that I would have done it--on the other hand, I left for a two hour meeting and was relieved to come back and not find a mess of spoilers. And it is silly to have to be worried about such things. Why should he be allowed to be so destructive? (There, I have successfully argued myself from one pole to the other.)
I just think it is important that we announce these decisions right away.
1206. Raskolnikov - 4/4/2000 7:23:22 AM The thread host shouldn't be required to hang around endlessly to wage a post war with a pest. A suspension of posting rights was warranted. I do agree that it is a good idea to immediately announce it, though. 1207. Indiana Jones - 4/4/2000 7:23:46 AM Cal: I did announce it to wabbit. I had no idea that she would be "out-of-pocket" this long, and since (as Pelle has noted), my action seemed preemptory, I didn't want to take more authority upon myself.
For all I knew, wabbit would respond immediately and reinstate cazart.
As far as a policy about announcing this, how often does it come up (even for wabbit)? I certainly won't be making this a regular occurrence, but all this second-guessing of every decision made here is what keeps the forum from ever going forward IMO. The people who are trying to build something here should quit worrying so much about what the people who want to run it down think.
...
Anyhow, Moteheads, I'm off to San Clemente for tonight. Hopefully, the more benevolent dictator can return soon and you won't have Indy Jones to kick around anymore.
1208. CalGal - 4/4/2000 7:28:40 AM Indy,
I'm not second guessing you. If you have the ability to disable IDs, then you should just do it and be done with it. Wabbit can always come in and issue a reprieve without it reflecting on you.
San Clemente? Are you local? 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.
|
