Posted at 08:38 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Retired Gumby Posts: 964 | It's time to discuss when a visitor/member has to be banned. In my opinion, we have to wait until he/she becomes extremely offending, including personal or collective insults. In Eagle's case, none of my requirements for a ban was fulfilled. Yes, he was permanently here as a "guest", obviously to show everyone he actually doesn't belong here, and this forum actually is too crapy for him, which is a highly fatuous behaviour of course. However, this "provocation" is not even closely sufficient to disable his posting rights. Remember: It should be our aim never to ban someone. It is the last of all consequences, when the presence of a visitor becomes unbearable. And no one on this board can claim Eagle of Fire's attendence has such an effect. |
Posted at 09:26 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 560 | I didn't even know Eagle was banned... K, I knew that there were certain elements in this board who had a disagreement with certain other elements but this is no reason to ban someone so... ----- "In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable" |
Posted at 09:45 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11098 | In general, I completely agree. Above all, the aim you stated is the most valuable maxim. I'm not the one to judge this case objectively of course, that is why I'll only try to explain my points (including my train of thought which led me to this) without offensively arguing for them. Any other opinions on this are welcome. First of all, let me explain what I did 'to him' exactly: he is not banned. A ban, permanent of temporarily, includes measures to prevent a person from using the board other than reading. That has not been applied to Eagle. He has only been 'banned' from using the guest posting function. As I told in the thread in question, I would never stop him from registering and continue his silly attitude then - that would be the same as on the old board after all. Only if he tried posting under a different guest name, I'd try to stop it. Reason for this point: what Tapuak said. The sole purpose of this attitude was to put himself above everyone else and especially to be asked why he didn't register as often as possible - once again showing how superior he is by not replying to this. I consider this a severe 'collective' insult. Reasons against this point: splitting hairs. Everyone can easily argue the conclusion of such a 'half-hearted ban' is the same as for every other. Minor 'collective insult': breaking the e-mail rule for guests which he was the strongest supporter of back when he was a member, so I have to assume he knew about it very well. Point for: adding to the "I might not come back to this crappy place"-attitude. Point against: really minor - has not influenced my decision. Third point is the 'personal insult' (against me of course - after all, he has never done anything else than bitch against me ever since I made a small joke about one of his posts concerning the 'Indians-affair' ). Look at his first post in this forum (about the forum looks). Sure, it's his good right to have this view. But it is another question how to put it. Since I'm not used to anything else from him, I ignored it (after pointing out the obvious lies he used to 'back up' his 'point' ). After that, he stayed relatively calm, posted some things 'on topic' in several threads. I replied to some of his posts in a normal and positive way (directly addressed to him, because I was sick of this childish 'war' ) which he ignored. Another thing I accepted as 'his choice'. When he however made a post directly referring to something only Tapuak and me had talked about (the one picture in the comics thread), he had to assume I'd answer, because who else should (apart from Tapuak, yes)? On a sidenote, I consider his post 'confusing' Tapuak with NetDanzr a personal insult to Tapuak to, because it shows extreme ignorance (especially in such a small forum), but that is up to Tapuak to judge - I'm only saying I would take another minor personal insult from this if someone did this to me. Back to the main point: to my (ironic, granted) post, he reacted as if I had had no right to reply. As if I had insulted him without a call for it. Point for: why did he reply to something between me and only one other person if he didn't want me to reply? From this, I can only derive one thing: he could have posted this only to have another 'reason to attack', not to contribute to the discussion. That is something which I consider unbearable - looking for trouble! Point against: he might be a little kid who doesn't understand the slightest bit of irony (which I'm 99% sure of from past experiences). Now to my conclusion from these points. All this is by far not enough for a real ban and I would never consider it! And in addition, I would never completely ban someone without asking Tapuak and NetDanzr what they think first anyway (as you know from the past cases of juha and charakter or whatever they were called). That even more when it is mainly about me personally. What led me to put this 'light ban' on Eagle is that I'm convinced guests have less rights than members. Back when we first allowed guest posting, I made an announcement pointing out it is meant for people who will only make one or two posts anyway (typically a game request or reporting a site problem) and then never come again. This came along with the warning: "please don't abuse it in any way". This 'in any way' has never been defined further, because there was no use for it. My priority however is to make the forum as pleasant for the members as possible! And as it is, I am one of the members (and also an admin, a fact which doesn't make this case easier for me). If two members have a conflict, that is one thing the admins should not interfere with as long as it doesn't affect the other members. If a guest is constantly trying to piss of a member (and in some ways even all members), he/she should be stopped - because he/she has less rights! What I'm trying to say is that I'm fully aware that I'm probably about as 'guilty' as Eagle. There is no full equality in our stages though! A member has a certain basic right of protection which is bigger than that of a guest. A guest should only be protected from one-sided and unfair attacks against him. A member should be protected against any 'lower' group - and this is guests. Where I would not make a difference is between 'normal members', moderators (which we don't have here at the moment, but in theory) and admins - those all belong to the 'members' group I was talking about. The only second distinction which could be discussed (I'm not quite sure about that one myself) is between regulars and newbies. But that is not important for the initial question. Might be interesting for the sake of future discussion though. So much for now. Just in case some people still don't know me enough to be sure of that by themselves: I can assure everyone that nothing will happen to anyone based on what he / she says in this thread, no reason to be afraid to take up a controversial view to mine Oh, and to Pada (who posted while I was typing): I hope I made it clear my decision was not based on any conflicting opinions as you implied. Edited by Mr Creosote at 12:44 on October, 10th 2002 ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
Posted at 13:47 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Prof Gumby Posts: 607 | Quote: Mr Creosote:...after all, he has never done anything else than bitch against me ever since I made a small joke about one of his posts concerning the 'Indians-affair'... All this fuss about it makes me wonder just how 'small' that joke was; Eagle of Fire seems to have taken it quite personally... But I'll admit he may have been 'looking for trouble' in that comics thread and of course I'm unaware of the full history behind this 'incident', so take this for what it's worth... As for confusing Tapuak and NetDanzr (or more specifically NetDanZr), that doesn't seem like a (deliberate) insult to me... After all some others on this board have been referred to as 'Pada2', and that was most certainly not a mistake (nor an insult, for that matter). Edited by The Mole at 15:48 on October, 10th 2002 ----- "One Very Important Thought" |
Posted at 14:01 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Dr Gumby Posts: 267 | This reminds me, the card system you had in place, yellow, red, ... can you still use it on this forum? To me this looked like a fair system as people that have been warned are visibly affected by this, which might help on cooling down the dispute (or make it even wors depending on how they react). If you programmed the card system into this forum then why haven't you tested it out on me yet? To implement such a system clear rules on when someone gets a yellow, red or black card (or whatever the cards were). A yellow card could be issued when a person insults a person or a group of people for the second time for example. Or tries to brack into the system or ... ----- Lets make this a beefy place |
Posted at 14:40 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Admin Reborn Gumby Posts: 11098 | Quote: All this fuss about it makes me wonder just how 'small' that joke was; Eagle of Fire seems to have taken it quite personally... Ok, to make this clear once and for all: a former member had asked (in reference to Colonization): "Who are these Indians and what do they want from me?". Eagle, in a completely serious tone (and really completely serious as he pointed out later), replied giving a 'lecture' pointing out Columbus thought he was in India when he arrived in the 'new world'. I replied ironically that I never knew that and I'd be glad to have such 'insider knowledge' (that's what I called it) uncovered at last. That was it. Judge it as you wish.Quote: As for confusing Tapuak and NetDanzr (or more specifically NetDanZr), that doesn't seem like a (deliberate) insult to me... After all some others on this board have been referred to as 'Pada2', and that was most certainly not a mistake (nor an insult, for that matter). I've never referred to Pada1 as Pada2. You misunderstood me there. It was only making a (stupid maybe, ok) joke about the (relatively useless) number at the end of the name - making up a new person called 'Pada2'. Besides, this is different in one way: There is no Pada2 here, but there is a NetDanzr. As I said before, that was only a little sidenote anyway.Breaker: No, we don't have such a system here. I didn't include for for the simple reason that we never used it in the old forum. Besides, it would not work on guests anyway - that's the whole problem. ----- Now you see the violence inherent in the system! |
Posted at 16:29 on October 10th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Retired Gumby Posts: 740 | Allowing guests to post without registering is a good thing, but easily leads to abuse. I would suggest putting a limit on it such as 'a guest can only post 3 times a day'. You could identify individual guests either with a cookie or by IP (neither method would be perfect, but...). Edited by Cypherswipe at 18:29 on October, 10th 2002 ----- At the end of the day, you're left with a bent fork & a pissed off rhino. |
Posted at 08:10 on October 11th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Retired Gumby Posts: 964 | Quote: Posted by Mr Creosote: On a sidenote, I consider his post 'confusing' Tapuak with NetDanzr a personal insult to Tapuak to, because it shows extreme ignorance (especially in such a small forum) No, I don't take this as an insult. Considering Eagle never said anything indirectly, I think he wouldn't be able to use this way to show that he couldn't care less about this forum. Instead, his comments have always been extremely direct, often not noticing that he probably hurts people ("Your site is boring" and similar comments about 100 times). However, that's not a reason for me to ban someone; it just shows his highly egoistic attitude which always made him take something without giving some in return. As we're not in a reformatory here, we have to tolerate and accept this, and everyone has to judge on his own how he treats such a visitor. But we may not take such an attitude as a reason for a ban. Quote: Posted by Mr Creosote: What led me to put this 'light ban' on Eagle is that I'm convinced guests have less rights than members. OK, that's a valid point. |
Posted at 11:27 on October 11th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Retired Gumby Posts: 740 | Quote: I've never referred to Pada1 as Pada2. You misunderstood me there. It was only making a (stupid maybe, ok) joke about the (relatively useless) number at the end of the name - I beleive the 'useless number' is like the 'useless numbers' in words like m8 and l8er, Pada1=padawan (SW reference). I know, someone's going to say "duh, we've known that for years", well I just made the connection when I saw the padaw2an reference in the online game thre4ad. :p ----- At the end of the day, you're left with a bent fork & a pissed off rhino. |
Posted at 11:37 on October 29th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Guest | Ban me...Im insulting and offending! |
Posted at 12:38 on October 29th, 2002 | Quote | Edit | Delete | |
Member Retired Gumby Posts: 964 | If that's supposed to be some kind of childish criticism, I'd like to see the rules of your forum, Sarge. |