"I want this person gone!" threads

[Gillette]

These are a form of harassment in themselves.

Don't do it.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Yes, I thought that one disappeared a bit quick!

 

[Gillette]

Yes, I thought that one disappeared a bit quick!

4 hours, not quick enough. It was started while us North Americans were enjoying our sleepytime.

It's a funny little catch 22 with these things. If we feel that a member is harassing another we want it dealt with. That's fair. However, in harassing that member in turn a second ToS violation is created. Along with a bit of a dilema. Deal with neither, or deal with both.

Repeating myself from another thread...If you want the rabid dog shot don't get in the way by holding it down.

 

[HazelGod]

Way heavy-handed, G.

That thread wasn't harassment...it raised a very salient point and focused on a particularly vile, abusive outburst from another member. I've seen people banned from this site for less. If nothing else, it served as a notice to other members what a nasty fuckwad Symphonic is.

This is the sort of irrational moderator action that has exasperated members here in the past.

 

[jlr080281]

Way heavy-handed, G.

That thread wasn't harassment...it raised a very salient point and focused on a particularly vile, abusive outburst from another member. I've seen people banned from this site for less. If nothing else, it served as a notice to other members what a nasty fuckwad Symphonic is.

This is the sort of irrational moderator action that has exasperated members here in the past.

How was that thread not a violation of the TOS?

If someone's being abusive, don't make a thread about it, PM a mod and let them deal with it.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I've seen people banned from this site for less.

I certainly agree with this bit of your post. As far as I can work out I got a week's* timeout for calling someone an asshole and telling him to shove his head up his own ass. Very mild in comparison the vile comment in question (which I reported myself - believing the mods needed to know about it at a minimum).

* With time off for boring behaviour by the rest of the board while we were gone :tongue:

 

[Gillette]

Way heavy-handed, G.

That thread wasn't harassment...it raised a very salient point and focused on a particularly vile, abusive outburst from another member. I've seen people banned from this site for less. If nothing else, it served as a notice to other members what a nasty fuckwad Symphonic is.

This is the sort of irrational moderator action that has exasperated members here in the past.

Any thread singling out a member for negative attention is a form of harassment. You're perfectly aware of this otherwise you would have mentioned Mem's successor by name, no?

His posts alone serve as notice of his "fuckwad"ishness. Creating a new thread as a billboard to that fact is no different than following him thread to thread rehash it. It is in fact a more extreme version of this.

Removing threads of this nature isn't irrational. It's in keeping with the ToS. I can see how it might appear irrational when it isn't being done consistently.

There are steps we try to follow in an effort to be consistent. I guess I have to remind you again that not every step is visible to the general membership. Just because what you do or don't see isn't what you want doesn't give you leave to become a second problem to be dealt with.

 

[Gillette]

I certainly agree with this bit of your post. As far as I can work out I got a week's* timeout for calling someone an asshole and telling him to shove his head up his own ass. Very mild in comparison the vile comment in question (which I reported myself - believing the mods needed to know about it at a minimum).

Well, that was a special circumstance. An explanation was given for it, satisfying or not.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Well, that was a special circumstance. An explanation was given for it, satisfying or not.

I don't see how it was a special circumstance at all - in your post above this quoted one you talk about consistency and now it is 'special circumstances'. I had no history of arguing with the member I spoke that way to, I made one aggressive post and got banned. How is that different from this situation? It isn't - mod behaviour is inconsistant depending on which mods are on and who the member under the spotlight is. That's not really a criticism of the mods - it's just the way it works. I just wish you'd all be honest about it.

 

[Pecker]

* With time off for boning behaviour by the rest of the board while we were gone :tongue:

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Gillette]

I don't see how it was a special circumstance at all

You don't know what a bitch it was to locate this.

Here is how it was special circumstances.

By a majority vote of the moderating staff, we have issued seven-day suspensions for an unprecedented and large number of members, in response to interpersonal conflicts that escalated to the point of having violated section III of the LPSG Terms of Service.

We recognize that not all of the affected members were involved to an equal extent. We discussed -- passionately and at length -- the idea of meting out differing sanctions for different levels of involvement. We concluded that it would be impossible to make a fair determination, and even more impossible to make a determination that was accepted as fair by all parties involved.

It had never happened before. I'm hoping it never happens again.

It wasn't a part of the usual procedure and shouldn't be used as an example of such. If you are unable to see how it was a special circumstance then I have no choice but to consider you a simpleton.

Like I said, satisfying or not. It just was.

I'm not about to discuss it any further.

 

[bobabooey69]

The topic reminds me of this movie quote:

"I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!"

:tongue:

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I'm not about to discuss it any further.

 

[Gillette]

That's right, make the funny faces.

"Stick it to the MAN, Man!"

Always so much cooler than maturity.

I said that I wasn't discussing it further because it was discussed to death and to no apparent purpose the last time. Also because it has no bearing on this thread.

There was no attempt by the mods to represent it as SOP when it happened so there should be no attempt by the members to represent it as SOP now. This is my only reason for addressing it at all.

 

[Drifterwood]

OK I don't see why we should beat each other up when someone else is being the asswipe here.

Self defense is an acceptable excuse in all circumstances. I appreciate that Mods need sleep (seems some are still in a coma though :biggrin1 but the lovely Symphonic crossed every line of decency when some of us were wide awake. What are we supposed to do? Let him carry on until the world spins in your direction?

Anyway, Symphonic has marked his card with the membership.

Did I mention his name was Symphonic?

 

[faceking]

Rubs bleery eyes, yawns.... then asks "whu happened?"

 

[Gillette]

OK I don't see why we should beat each other up when someone else is being the asswipe here.

Self defense is an acceptable excuse in all circumstances. I appreciate that Mods need sleep (seems some are still in a coma though :biggrin1 but the lovely Symphonic crossed every line of decency when some of us were wide awake. What are we supposed to do? Let him carry on until the world spins in your direction?

Twat.

The thing is the removed thread was started after; 1.The post was already reported, 2. The OP had confirmation by PM that it had the mods attention, 3. A moderator (me) had commented in the initial thread.

Creating an additional thread with the prior knowledge of the above is deliberately holding a single person up for public censure. That's harassment.

Naming him is pointless. His name is already next to the posts. If your post was designed to test the favorites theory, it was a flop.

If you really want to make this into a harassment thread I'll just close this one, too. If you want to continue a tirade against him the original thread where he deserves the abuse is still open.

Seriously, how much of the designated tasks do people expect us to accomplish when we have to explain or defend each and every one?

 

[Drifterwood]

Twit.

:biggrin1:

I still think that harassment or no, it is a fair form of defense.

I appreciate that there are procedures for reporting etc, but that doesn't help if everyone is asleep, not that that makes any difference to the issue of fighting back against someone who is in breach of the TOS.

It is hrassment, but isn't that sometimes justified? I don't think it's as clear cut as you think. There is a case for reasonable force.

 

[B_Nick4444]

damn! missed out, again!

(BTW, who's Symphonic?)

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

:biggrin1:

I still think that harassment or no, it is a fair form of defense.

I can't agree.
Some of those threads will be more justified than others.
But if you're not allowing them, you're not allowing them. Case closed, imo.
There remain lots of ways of achieving self-defense ... continuing to post in the original thread (an option still open), PMing moderators, using the post alert button.