An interesting ban (my intention is an impartial discussion)

[HazelGod]

Penitent - wow so close to penistent

How like you to just glibly pitch that out there... :biggrin1:

 

[B_talltpaguy]

perhaps his overall behaviour was taken into account with this ban.

Of course it was... But that obvious truth won't get in the way of people here who looove to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Drifterwood]

How like you to just glibly pitch that out there... :biggrin1:

You're the one with the curve balls.

Mine just spin, or swing. :wink:

 

[dolfette]

Of course it was... But that obvious truth won't get in the way of people here who looove to argue for the sake of arguing.

i've never seen the mods do knee jerk overreactions here, they've always appeared more than fair.
i have though seen the banned member misbehave plenty of times.

just going on track records, i trust the mods to make the right decision..

...maybe i wasn't the only person to complain about his stalkerish behaviour.

 

[petite]

My first encounter with him, he kept posting rude things to me, then after I responded appropriately, he'd go back and alter his posts so that they didn't sound rude and made them sound more reasonable, probably in an attempt to make me sound like I was being unreasonably upset at him. What a jerk move!

He only did that during that first encounter, but I never forgot it even though he suddenly seemed to learn manners towards me after that. I treated him with respect as long as he treated me with respect, but I didn't forget that he was capable of behaving like that. He left a very bad first impression on me.

I never complained about him, though.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I change posts all the time because after i type them up i reread them and want to word things differently. I think we all do this, it's not necessarily a stealth move to make the person you are responding to look like an idiot.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Jacob - fortunately the real world does not work the way you think it should. People are punished appropriately for their actions. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks that a bombless prankster shouting 'bomb' should receive the same punishment as someone with the actual means on hand to kill people. The intent alone is so completely different that the two crimes barely equate. If you can't see that I have to join HG in his above comments about and to you.

But that is veering of topic - this thread is not about bombers, it is about a fake virus threat. You see, your feelings make (slightly) more sense in relation to a ban from a website - or at least aren't as offensive to my senses of reason and justice.

Perhaps I was daft to use the bomb analogy in the first place. After all, severity of crime does change what response is appropriate.

Also, I wouldn't roll my eyes at you because I respect you too much.

Respect me? Like me? I have no freaking idea who you are. Have we even posted on the same thread before?

I say again

My first encounter with him, he kept posting rude things to me, then after I responded appropriately, he'd go back and alter his posts so that they didn't sound rude and made them sound more reasonable, probably in an attempt to make me sound like I was being unreasonably upset at him. What a jerk move!

And this is the reason you should always quote the person you are responding to - because then you have a record of their words and other members will see that and the fact there is an 'Edit' tag on the quoted post and be able to put 2 and 2 together.

But seriously folks - please don't make this a 'spiker was a cunt anyway' thread. I know spiker could be a cunt - but, as far as we can see, spiker was not banned for this kind of behaviour - he was put on an indefinite ban for posting a fake virus threat. There's no mention of harassment or any other kind of disruptive posting. Make a 'spiker was cunt' thread if you like - but it'd be nice to keep this one on topic.

 

[petite]

I change posts all the time because after i type them up i reread them and want to word things differently. I think we all do this, it's not necessarily a stealth move to make the person you are responding to look like an idiot.

He was doing it in a way that was intentional, which I haven't seen anyone else do except for him. Our interaction went on for several pages and later I went back and re-read the interaction, and he had edited out the rude things he said, making my responses sound like I was being irrationally upset or mean to him for no reason. It's not what everyone else does.

Everyone edits their posts, especially me! I'm the worst about that! And sometimes it's not intentionally after someone else responds, like you'll be re-editing a post and while you were spending 15 minutes thinking about it (or you ran to the bathroom or answered the phone) someone already responded. That's not what he was doing.

 

[petite]

And this is the reason you should always quote the person you are responding to - because then you have a record of their words and other members will see that and the fact there is an 'Edit' tag on the quoted post and be able to put 2 and 2 together.

Yeah, I learned my lesson there about that.

But seriously folks - please don't make this a 'spiker was a cunt anyway' thread. I know spiker could be a cunt - but, as far as we can see, spiker was not banned for this kind of behaviour - he was put on an indefinite ban for posting a fake virus threat. There's no mention of harassment or any other kind of disruptive posting. Make a 'spiker was cunt' thread if you like - but it'd be nice to keep this one on topic.

Sorry, didn't mean to take it off topic!

 

[Drifterwood]

Viruses probably are the online equivalent to terrorism.

I can understand people having a sense of humour failure, but I would let him back if he asked politely in a few months or so on probation.

 

[JacobFox]

Jacob - fortunately the real world does not work the way you think it should. People are punished appropriately for their actions. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks that a bombless prankster shouting 'bomb' should receive the same punishment as someone with the actual means on hand to kill people. The intent alone is so completely different that the two crimes barely equate. If you can't see that I have to join HG in his above comments about and to you.

But that is veering of topic - this thread is not about bombers, it is about a fake virus threat. You see, your feelings make (slightly) more sense in relation to a ban from a website - or at least aren't as offensive to my senses of reason and justice.

Perhaps I was daft to use the bomb analogy in the first place. After all, severity of crime does change what response is appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobFox

Also, I wouldn't roll my eyes at you because I respect you too much.

Respect me? Like me? I have no freaking idea who you are. Have we even posted on the same thread before?

I say again



Again, I am sorry you feel you have to roll your eyes at me. I have read just about every post of yours every day. No, I haven't posted in them but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about them. Also, I tend to value a difference of opinion in general and don't roll my eyes at anyone because it's disrespectful. Just because my thoughts differ from yours does not give me the wanting to devalue them by such a poor gesture.

And yeah, the real world does work the way I said it. Ever heard of hate crimes? They are totally based off "intent."

Again, I respect your opinion and won't roll my eyes at you. You didn't influence me to use the bomb analogy and it's not always the best one. I think I only used it because I have been reading Luban a lot lately.

But anyway, I still respect you and your posts even though your recent posts show you think little of me.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Again, I am sorry you feel you have to roll your eyes at me. I have read just about every post of yours every day. No, I haven't posted in them but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about them. Also, I tend to value a difference of opinion in general and don't roll my eyes at anyone because it's disrespectful. Just because my thoughts differ from yours does not give me the wanting to devalue them by such a poor gesture.

And yeah, the real world does work the way I said it. Ever heard of hate crimes? They are totally based off "intent."

Again, I respect your opinion and won't roll my eyes at you. You didn't influence me to use the bomb analogy and it's not always the best one. I think I only used it because I have been reading Luban a lot lately.

But anyway, I still respect you and your posts even though your recent posts show you think little of me.

I don't think little of you. I don't know you. I don't agree with your thoughts on this matter and I'm saying so - but I haven't once called you fuckwit, nor will I - it wouldn't be appropriate or justified.

Your remark about hate crimes and intent, rather than refuting what I am saying, actually supports it. Intent is key. A person with an embedded link to a real virus has a clear intent to threaten and perhaps inflict actual harm. A person with no such malicious page to link to clearly does not have the same intent. Do you see?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Your remark about hate crimes and intent, rather than refuting what I am saying, actually support it. Intent is key. A person with an embedded link to a real virus has a clear intent to threaten and perhaps inflict actual harm. A person with no such malicious page to link to clearly does not have the same intent. Do you see?

They still intend to threaten even if they don't actually intend to cause anyone any harm by using a virus (which doesn't exist) but they may be happy to harm others by dint of their empty threats.

 

[JacobFox]

They still may intend to threaten even if they don't actually intend to cause anyone any harm by using a virus (which doesn't exist) but they may be happy to harm other's by dint of their empty threats.

I am with you, cutie. Thanks for putting into words what I have been having an issue doing

 

[ManlyBanisters]

They still may intend to threaten even if they don't actually intend to cause anyone any harm by using a virus (which doesn't exist) but they may be happy to harm other's by dint of their empty threats.

Harm other's what? :tongue:

The intent is clearly different and cannot seen to be the same because the same outcome cannot be achieved.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Harm other's what? :tongue:

The intent is clearly different and cannot seen to be the same because the same outcome cannot be achieved.

:tongue: The curse of the stray comma.

That depends on what the intent of actually having a virus and threatening to use it is. If you have a Virus and threaten to use it but never intend to actually do so then the intended effect is almost identical to not having a virus and threatening to use it.

In fact the exact same effect could be achieved by both not having and having a Virus if all you intend to do is have people respond to your threats to use one.