|
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? 292. glendajean - 9/20/1999 5:29:02 AM No, it means calm down and come back when you're not angry. 293. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:29:25 AM GJ: I wasn't here for Squids, though it's my impression that he came in more than once and posted info and had it deleted and his new name stricken. And it kept up til he got bored, or repented, or whatever the hell he did.
I can assure you, however, that BullE did return. Tobey008 and Momof3, among others, were ids that he used in the past, and they were ids that posted after Paradigm's banning. 294. Ace of Spades - 9/20/1999 5:29:39 AM
Glenda:
I don't know. Coral suggested that it was okay if I was in a "heated, fast-moving" discussion. 295. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 5:31:02 AM Actually, Ace, I saw one person post a list of several different first names that would have fit into the cipher. So even though I will no longer allow ciphers, my original point stands and if you need to argue it with someone, find someone else. I'm content to let it speak for itself.
|
