An interesting ban (my intention is an impartial discussion)

[Mem]

Well no actually in the context of the metaphor of a bomb threat in an airport it's more like being banned from ever using the particular airport in question every again. But feel free to be absurdly hyperbolic to prove a point if you prefer.

Well, yes, you just don't understand it.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well, yes, you just don't understand it.

I don't understand what? How metaphors and analogies work? Logic? What?

 

[Mem]

I don't understand what? How metaphors and analogies work? Logic? What?

Exactly. :biggrin1:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Exactly. :biggrin1:

Ah, how comical. So tell me, how is Spiker's perma-ban like a death sentence again? Clearly I need an education in this logic of yours.

 

[Mem]

Ah, how comical. So tell me, how is Spiker's perma-ban like a death sentence again? Clearly I need an education in this logic of yours.

I will have you know that I have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in the Analogy category for that analogy, so there. :swordfight:p:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I will have you know that I have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in the Analogy category for that analogy, so there. :swordfight:p:

Ah yes, how forgetful of me! Those Norwegians eh? Now they know how to pull a good prank.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I think that's one more person on my ignore list that got banned.

This suggests that my judgment is pretty good.

 

[798686]

I will have you know that I have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in the Analogy category for that analogy, so there. :swordfight:p:

I think they embedded that prize with a virus tho. :frown1: All in the name of bioweapons research. :wink:

 

[Mem]

I think they embedded that prize with a virus tho. :frown1: All in the name of bioweapons research. :wink:

Oh, no. I hope I don't win, or I will have to decline it. at:

 

[798686]

Oh, no. I hope I don't win, or I will have to decline it. at:

:biggrin1:

 

[camper joe]

Spiker067 actions might have been over the top and warrant action, but was a permanent justified? I believe not. To me a 30 day temp. with a clear and understand further behavior wouldn't be seen as lightly, as a better punishment.

 

[Bbucko]

Why if it was a joke?
Perm ban-no.

What Spiker did was no joke. It was a threat: a childish, petulant bitch-slap with a threat of greater consequences than (it turned out) he was capable of actually following up on. But that doesn't make the threat any less grievous.

A stupid and unpleasant prank played purely for the amusement of the Prankster is one thing, and might elicit a fair quantity of rightful hostility toward the Jolly Japester, but in this case the "prank" was aimed at manipulating people, and at manipulating a debate. A prank from which the prankster wishes to benefit in some way, the equivalent of the person shouting "fire!" in the theatre and then going round robbing people's bags after they've run screaming out the fire exits in panic, is of a totally different character.

The latter kind of prank is not just for kicks, it's about malice and manipulation.

Do I think it deserves a perma-ban? In light of what JF says about the negotiability of a perma-ban and that they can in any case be commuted to a temp-ban on appeal it seems fair that Spiker067 should be required to apologise for his actions and perhaps explain himself and make some case for why anyone should trust him again before he can be allowed to rejoin the site.

As always, Hilly said it much better than I.

spiker067 didn't err as his action was not a mistake, but deliberate, malicious mischief.

Exactly.

 

[dreamer20]

spiker067 didn't err as his action was not a mistake, but deliberate, malicious mischief.

People planting viruses (hacking etc) is a big problem on the internet.Whether joking or not this was a threat. A member saying he committed a crime. This is no joking matter. The fact is in my opinion he can no longer be trusted. Please understand the moderators take the safety of this site very seriously. They work hard at keeping this site safe.

Agreed. What ultimately turned out to be spiker067 committing malicious mischief was also an Internet Crime:


Internet Crime - Conservapedia

 

[Mem]

Agreed. What ultimately turned out to be spiker067 committing malicious mischief was also an Internet Crime:


Internet Crime - Conservapedia

I shall contact Officer Url and have him promptly arrested. okey:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

As always, Hilly said it much better than I.

:redface: :wink:

 

[Pitbull]

Agreed. What ultimately turned out to be spiker067 committing malicious mischief was also an Internet Crime:


Internet Crime - Conservapedia

And according to your reference

• 18 USC § 1470, prohibits unwanted obscenity, punishable by up to 10 years in jail

So, there are people here who have repeatedly referred to me in an unflattering way using obscenity I did not want.

Are they to spend the next 2000 or so years in jail?

And will they have access to the internet while there?

 

[HazelGod]

I love it when you are assertive.

Dumb prank - Yes

Perm Ban - No

What he said.

Please note that I'm explaining process and not hinting that an appeal will or won't succeed

The point of this thread was to illustrate that your process itself is stupid.




Wonders if Dolfette is doing her happy dance naked or in black leather lingerie...

 

[TomCat84]

Sorry guys, even though my barely veiled distaste for moderator overreactions isn't so barely veiled, I have to agree with the ban. Computer viruses are nothing to joke about. I've had to deal with that crap before. I liked the "joking about having a bomb at an airport" analogy. The mods obviously do not want the integrity of LPSG to be impugned, so they banned the member. If you have to ask yourself if something is ok to be posted, dont do it folks. Use some common sense.

Perma-ban: YES

 

[luka82]

What Spiker did was no joke. It was a threat: a childish, petulant bitch-slap with a threat of greater consequences than (it turned out) he was capable of actually following up on. But that doesn't make the threat any less grievous.

Yes, what Spiker said WAS a bad prank!
Some people are getting too paranoid, I hope that is the correct word!
He deserved to be punished, yes...but perm-ban, I would say NO.
Edit-I would like the members who are for a permanent ban to tell me why is it so necessary in this case???
Why is this so different from harrassing? Your opinions please.
Keep in mind that the link wasn`t infected.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The point of this thread was to illustrate that your process itself is stupid.

Is it? I mean, isn't MB's OP more about opening discussion about if this perma-ban is warranted or not?