|
272. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 4:51:56 AM I don't want to sound flip about this, really, and would take that last comment back. At least the tone. But this, to me, is just crystalline proof that banning doesn't work. It just incites people to greater efforts. In a discussion a few days ago with a very interesting friend, the subject of arguing with dishonest and unscrupulous people came up. It's a bitch to sit and endure what they have to say, especially when they've decided that they're gonna distort whatever you say to their own ends. But it is no more sensible than trying to prove them wrong, outwit them, or sway public opinion to your side. This is because, to use her phrasing if not exactly, these people's metabolisms are so much more devoted to their endeavor than yours can afford to be. They're willing to spend more energy finding a way to do what you don't want them to -- whether or not it's post 'personal' information, lie about what you're saying and doing, or just doing damage to the forum -- than you can be expected to spend on stopping them. This is the law of the Internet -- rules aren't going to save a self-destructive forum from itself. 273. glendajean - 9/20/1999 4:56:14 AM As I said the other day, Irv banned someone a couple of times who put someone else's name in the fray. If that individual came back as a new moniker, he/she kept a low profile because the offensive behavior stopped.
No we cannot keep someone out. But I don't think we're defenseless either. We just need some consistency in our enforcement.
As far as Seguine, I think she should be suspended for some period of time. To me, her posts were intentional.
In the fray I remember only a couple of times where somebody posted others real life names, and it seemed like a slip. It was never discussed and life went on. 274. glendajean - 9/20/1999 4:57:47 AM As I said the other day, Irv banned someone a couple of times who put someone else's name in the fray. If that individual came back as a new moniker, he/she kept a low profile because the offensive behavior stopped.
No we cannot keep someone out. But I don't think we're defenseless either. We just need some consistency in our enforcement.
As far as Seguine, I think she should be suspended for some period of time. To me, her posts were intentional.
In the fray I remember only a couple of times where somebody posted others real life names, and it seemed like a slip. It was never discussed and life went on. 275. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 4:59:38 AM CalGal, it doesn't work because what you say won't work. It won't happen. You can't patch the system like that. If people want to acquire your personal information they WON'T unsubscribe that thread, and if you're concerned about what is being said there you won't either.
As far as banning not working, jesus, think. Did Banning ever stop MCLA? Did it ever stop Bull Elephant? Did it ever stop Hark? Is it currently stopping God? Is it going to stop someone from going into TT and posting your full name, place of residence, phone number, and legal history if they so desire?
No, no, no, no, and no. Every force provokes an opposition. If you insist that something must be done you will generate an opposition to it.
Let's look at this. The only poster so far who has transgressed the line and HASN'T been banned is the only one who hasn't followed up her offensive post with another. That -- self-regulation -- is the only way OL regulation really works well. I'm not saying she chose to self-regulate herself because we didn't ban her outright. However, if you examine the history of banning, people are inevitably nastier when they return or otherwise circumvent the banning's idea. 276. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:01:58 AM The problem here is one that may stand at the heart of our desire to have a fair forum -- We have designed a forum where there is no ultimate accountability on a personal level for the actions any poster may personally take. 277. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:06:37 AM Angel, yes it did work. I don't remember Paradigm coming back after he was banned. Squids was banned. He came back as somebody else, they were banned. If he returned, and I assume he did, he didn't repeat the offensive behavior.
What is an open invitation to those who want to disrupt this forum is non-enforcement or occasional enforcement. 278. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 5:08:07 AM glendajean, how do you feel about trying someone in abstentia with a kangaroo court? That's what seems to be going on here. 279. CoralReef - 9/20/1999 5:12:08 AM I'm out of here for today folks. Have fun. 280. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:13:57 AM Coral -- I don't think punishment, ultimately should up to a vote or even to the outcome of this dicussion. It should result as enforcement of rules that we've accepted by participating in this forum. If you're referring to Seguine, and my support of her being suspended as being like a kangaroo court, I'm sorry. If she has another opinion, she's welcome to present it.
In terms of banning, which is what most of my argument was about, I feel strongly that this forum has the right to do that when people cross a line by being abusive and disruptive. That doesn't have anything to do with Seguine. It has everything to do with the ability of this forum to function. 281. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:19:47 AM
And this is all thanks to everyone's best friend, Seguine.
No harm could possibly come from her "non-malicious" slip. Why, no one would ever think of spamming her revelations indefinitely...
But really-- what possible harm could come from what she did? She'll never do it again. 282. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:20:19 AM no, the point is that BullE and Hark didn't stop doing what they were doing because they were being banned. That was at most an inconvenience, once you examine the level of devotion these people displayed toward their activities OL. IT isn't hard to figure, folks. You can spend a minute to log into a new mail address at Notmail or Yahoo or whateverelse.com and be RIGHT back. No, these people quit because they got bored. 283. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:22:54 AM
As far as a "Kangaroo Court"--
the evidence is well known. Seguine could provide all the spin she likes, but her buddies (and, I must say, the Judge) is providing enough spin as it is. 284. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:23:54 AM BTW: in my memory BullE definitely DID come back after the Paradigm incident. I remember at least three posts under IDs of his that he'd been outed on before. So banning-as-punishment really doesn't work, because the person can always come back. They can come back even if you only allow 'legit' email addresses. Whether or not you can sit and say 'in the present circumstances it's the best we can do' is irrelevant. It doesn't fricking work.
285. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:25:24 AM Re: 283: Well, Ace, one could certainly say the same thing about you and your 'advocacy' over the last three days. 286. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:25:25 AM Angel -- I don't remember Paradigm coming back and repeating his behavior over and over after he was banned. I assume Squids came back (he said so in tt). But he never issued the other fraygrants name again after he was banned.
287. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:26:10 AM
I think we probably should allow only "legit" e-mail addresses. Why not?
That might not completely solve it, but it goes a long way. 288. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:27:24 AM And, no, I don't subscribe to the notion that you should run and plug your finger in the dam even though it won't stop the flood. The point is to go get a boat, because floods happen, and to try to find a way to live that isn't so susceptible to something that will ALWAYS unfortunately happen in ANY forum where anonymity is allowed. 289. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:27:31 AM
Hey Angel Genius:
What do you think about your "judgement" that the cipher was "too short a code sample to solve" now?
No point erring on the side of caution, after all. 290. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:28:16 AM Sorry, but your boat and flood metaphors washed right over me. 291. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:28:18 AM
Once again I'm getting angry at Angel.
I wonder if this gives me the right to out some very sensitive information about him?
|
