Suggestion that Lieutenant Fatman's Account be Deactivated

I don't think we have to deactiviate anyone who thinks bad things about us. If they cause trouble then, we'll do it. I don't care what they think of us. I don't think that highly of them either. Deactiviting there account will just needlessly aggrevate them. If they start causing trouble *here* then we'll do something. But until they start causing trouble here, I say we leave it.

I think bannning and blocking people before they've really done anything wrong here reflects badly on us.

If people think we're wankers, blocking/banning them will only really prove thier point.

Well, thats what i think anyway.

Ban them. flat out.

We're not looking at banning people who think poorly of us, we're looking at banning people who ADMIT TO TROLLING US. one of those over on the harper colins site claims he only started to troll us to encourage us to move.

there IS no morla justification for trolling, and if we knew who it was, i think it'd be worth pointing out to the mods of the Stamps forums.

I urge an absolute zero-tollerance approach to this sort of thing.

Streewulpeter admitted to trolling us. I'd be happy to put him up for ban striaght away, if he ever shows up here.

Fatty, didn't troll us, but he did post in a 'comic' alter-ego who was in the character of death. But other than that he was an ok poster.

Ihavecomeforthee, hasn't trolled us or really broken any rules. He was a slightly anoying, but no more so than other posters.

I'd say Struwelpeter is on an insistant ban (pending a vvote, of course)
Fatty is on an offical warning.
I have come for thee isn't on an offical warning, but if he starts posting we'll tell him we're wary of him and not to be a cock.

Fatty was deliberately, and by his own admission, trying to anger us. that is TROLLING, rinso. You know that.

Whether or not he was actually steve is unprovable, but the implications were made by fatty, steve, and death.

Ok, fair enough.Your right. He was beening a prick on purpose. ban him.

edit:rather put him up for banning. or if this is a voting thread. my vote for him is yes.

Actually, I'm with Garner on this one now. i was beening too soft. he should be up for banning. For these reasons.

1. He created a second account and posted in it without imforming anyone as to this real idenitity. (Mutiple accounts is banned unless you have good reason-e.g Roman K losing his details.)

2. With this alter account, he posted in character even though he was repetely (about 5 times) asked not too.

3. He posted in caps, even though he was repetely asked not too. He then lyed and said that his caps key was broken (even though it was working fine for his fatty account).

I think thats 3 strikes.

I'm not sure if Icome should have a warning for saying we're sometimes wankers. Whats the rule on this? Becuase If using insulting language is reason for a warning half the board will be up for monitation in a month.

If he came here and posted 'Sometimes for wankers but i'll stay' I think he could get one for 'unneccessary insults'. Maybe, but how many times has Garner or Doors insulted someone when it wasn't strictly needed? How many times have I called someone a retard, when we know i'm capable of getting my point accross without insult? How many times has pepster or saccrissa said something rude? or Mynona or roman k?

We'll can't say 'if you insult us, you get a warning. But if *we* insult you, we don't'


Espiecally, considering, he didn't even say in on this board (though he must know we're looking at the old board). I say if he starts posting him, quote what he said about us, and say 'look, if you want to post here don't be a twat and don't break the rules, you ain't mr popular'

In my opinion, identity fraud (ie use of multiple accounts to hide your identity) is grounds for an immediate ban. Perhaps I'm just being extreme.

I don't think that all those who left in a huff should be banned - they should be given a chance to come back. If they then came back feeling the same way, they should politely be told that their account was being banned. This does not go for Tony and SWReader, who made extreme accusations and threats and declared an intention never to return. Tony's account should be banned, in my opinion. I imagine he would be quite happy with that. I do not think it's petty.

Annoying posters do [i:f5d6a29ab8]not[/i:f5d6a29ab8] warrant banning. Posters who repeatedly and flagrantly defy the community rules do. Fatman is one of them.

Also, I agree with Rinso about the 'wankers' comment. It's not grounds for anything other than being slightly cool with him.

I agree with Grace on this one.

I'd like thank Garner for giving me a bit of a kick up the arse with fatty. I think I'd acciently left my bluegarbil hat on.

I think we really need to sort out what are rules actually are. Right now, the horse is pushing the cart.

Also, I'd like to reenforce my earlier point:
NO-ONE SHOULD BE BANNED WITHOUT A COMMUNITY VOTE.


edit: oh, that was an ealier point on a different thread.

[quote:4dce0631fc="Electric_Man"][quote:4dce0631fc="IHCFT"]Although they acted like wankers sometimes, I laughed at all the arguements.
[/quote:4dce0631fc]

He seems to be saying that he doesn't like us, and came to our community to laugh at us whilst we tried to remove trolls. As Grace has said before, it's not the word wanker, it's the way it's being used (with the rest of the sentence) to denigrate our community



[/quote:4dce0631fc]


I interpreted it as ‘sometimes their constant moaning made them look like wankers, but I found the arguments entertaining’ It shows a lack of maturely and thought. He doesn’t understand that we had to be strict and we *had* to have arguments, because that’s all we had.

Also, I think that the because he said it off board it makes a difference. Now, I’m against people saying things behind our back (even if this case we can see behind our back), but I don’t think that should be a warning offence. If I said something offensive about someone to Garner on msn, and it got out. You give me an official warning? I don’t think so.

We have to be careful that the rules we oppose on others are ones that we can live by ourselves. Now, I’d say that *if* you say something offensive about someone off board and it gets out and you don’t back up your comments with rational arguments or give an apology, then you get an official warning. See Zephyr wasn’t wrong in bad mouthing Garner and Doors (though she was silly in your choice of moanees) but the fact that she refused to deal with the issue once it was been made public was what made her wrong.



[quote:4dce0631fc]E-man:
As for Fatman, I think you've convinced me of that extra strike. [b:4dce0631fc]But it should still go to a vote.[/b:4dce0631fc] Shall we turn this thread into a poll for him?[/quote:4dce0631fc]
Every banning should go to a vote.
Our Banning is based on community decisions. We can’t start making any instant banning rules (other than once a person as been ban by the community and come back- they can be re-banned instantly). Every banning that takes place should represent the will of the community so every single banning must be open to the community

I disagree with your interpretation, Ben. I think he's saying that although he thinks we can be wankers, we are not that harmful (implication: unlike the trolls). What I would take issue with is that he doesn't appear to take our arguments seriously!

But is someone not taking arguements seriously reason to give them an officall warning?

I think not. I think *if* his inability to take them seriously results in him acting like a cock, then he should get a ban.

A number of people didn't take them seriously, Chrisjordan, took a leave becuase he thought we took he board to seriously and had to many arguements.

Oh: But yes, to ben, I do think this should be turned into a ban vote thread for fatty.

Can I turn it into a poll? Or should be just do it the old way?

this can be a thread to poll fatman's banning.

I'd like to take this time to say that a LOT of you have had bluegerbil hats on. You're welcome for all the swift kicks I've given and will continue to give.

As for I_come_ and his wanker comment...

Honestly, that doesn't bother me in the least. If someone has a problem with us, i prefer they say it openly. Now, if he comes back here after having said that, and says "You guys are the best!", I say ban his ass immediately. If he says "You guys are wankers sometimes, but i still find it a worthwhile community" or whatever, then, as grace says, slightly cool (as you would be to someone who called you a wanker), but it's not anything to get that bent out of shape about. we CAN be wankers quite easily.

now, the more serrious issue, as i see it, is one of belonging to the old harper collins forums and still posting on these.

frankly, I was already upset at seeing a few posts over there, especially ones responding to jaunty or the trolls, from people who'd agreed to move here.

I think if you're going to be posting on these boards as "Boardania", you have agreed to ignore the harper collins site and not post there again. We, the community, packed up and MOVED. we do not go back there. not even to feed the trolls.

there is a CLEAR difference between being part of the stamps forum and the boardanian community, or being part of the stamps forum and the trekk boards, or what have you, and being a part of the terrypratchettbooks.org forums AND the terrypratchettbooks.com forums.

Those of us who were part of the harper collins boards prior to august 18th agreed to move. we agreed NOT to be part of that old community any more.

violating that ought to bloody well be a strike.

oh, and i realize this is no longer relevant to the fatman thread but i'm just flowing with the consciousness, but if you need to "test your signature" on the HC boards, you can do that by PMing someone, rather than by publicly posting something to bump threads or bait a troll.

[quote:218cdedd47="Garner"]this can be a thread to poll fatman's banning.


As for I_come_ and his wanker comment...

Honestly, that doesn't bother me in the least. If someone has a problem with us, i prefer they say it openly. Now, if he comes back here after having said that, and says "You guys are the best!", I say ban his ass immediately. If he says "You guys are wankers sometimes, but i still find it a worthwhile community" or whatever, then, as grace says, slightly cool (as you would be to someone who called you a wanker), but it's not anything to get that bent out of shape about. we CAN be wankers quite easily.

[/quote:218cdedd47]



Ok. By 'Ban his ass immediately' Do you mean, put him up for vote banning?

Even so, I'd probably disagree. I'd rather we just said 'Well, if I quote you from HC you actually said 'X,Y,Z.' And see how he reacts. I worry that we're forgetting that the old ways of dealing with people can still work. But maybe thats just becuase I like argueing to much.

Also I'm not sure about this Immediate banning. Either we have a 3 strike system or we don't. Or we have a few Break once your out rules, Some strike rules, some minor pointers that if you do enough might equal a strike.

Either way, I don't think being a bit two faced could be worth anything more than one strike. I think we really do need to start working on what the rules are. It will make banning people alot easier.


I agree with Garner on the old board. We shouldn't be posting there. At least not now. Maybe, in 6 months when they have a new community there, one that isn't a troll one, maybe then. But right now, we should forget about it and let them forget about us.


edit: How we gonna make it a vote thread? Go and edit in a poll or kunpock style?

[quote:9729d3bb8f="Rincewind"]But is someone not taking arguements seriously reason to give them an officall warning?

I think not. I think *if* his inability to take them seriously results in him acting like a cock, then he should get a ban.

A number of people didn't take them seriously, Chrisjordan, took a leave becuase he thought we took he board to seriously and had to many arguements.

Oh: But yes, to ben, I do think this should be turned into a ban vote thread for fatty.

Can I turn it into a poll? Or should be just do it the old way?[/quote:9729d3bb8f]
Sorry, Rinso, I didn't see your post on this page when I replied to Ben.

No, I don't think calling us wankers warrants a warning, for the reasons you and Garner have given.

Edit: Gah, crossposting mania! I agree with Rinso that if he showed up here expressing a different opinion, that is just something he should be called up on and not banned for.

I agree that we should make this a poll thread - assuming that people will notice it has changed.

Rinso, don't you change it though, because you'll misspell the poll options.

"Should Fatima's coconut be darthicated? Eyes or Nose?"

i think there are many cases where a community decision is a waste of a fucking week. Gooner, Regicide (formerly Juggy), any new Jaunty accounts... I've got quite a lengthy list as I'm sure many of you will assume, but there are people who've already been banned one way or another, and should not even need to be considered before being thrown out on their ear again.

Someone like Dragonmother should be thrown out as soon as we see her register, and if at all possible she should never be given the opportunity to post. Someone like Samantha Vimes i would say should be banned on sight, as there is no way her personality has changed enough to overcome the old issues, and the backstabbing behavior that preceeded her departure from the boards is just as vile (i'd say moreso) than anything Zephyr ever did.

Zephyr ought to be banned on sight. Tony and Swreader, and silmaril... I'm slightly open on the idea of Cat, but Silmaril definately has no reason to be tollerated here anymore, and cat only slightly so.

Kinkypornqueen, Kelly lives, Batousi, The Luggage, Shadowplay, kinkypornthing, danskin, ook ook, selina... these are all people who we know to be trolls, assholes, or 'problem posters' but never had a "coventry" for. would you serriously suggest that we waste a damn week debating it if any of them showed back up?

Turn them out on their fucking ear and be done with it.

We do not want them, we do not need them, and they have nothing to offer us but their eventual demise.

marcia should be allowed to convert this thread into a poll for fatman if she wants, or she can start another one. she raised it, we've seconded it, it's her choice for how to act

I think in the case of known trolls, such as Kinkypornqueen, a moderator should be able to say; "This account has been immediately banned, please raise any objections in the objections thread." Or wherever we decide to put objections/appeals.

I disagree about people who were not trolls but with whom there was a personality clash. Even with someone like Dragonmother, if she registered here, she should not be banned. But if, after registering, she caused trouble, then that would be different. I realise it is probably inevitable that she would try to cause trouble, but [i:737f3083b9]we[/i:737f3083b9] must be above reproach. Always, Garner. That's what makes us the better people. Sometimes you have to allow the inevitable to happen before your action is justified. If a country attacks you, it's ok to go to war, but it's not ok to bomb Iraq just in case they have WMDs and could attack you with them, even though they had a war with you before and their leader is a despot. See?

I think people that are already reconised as trolls from the old community are ok for insant banning. Even if they haven't been conventryed. They where banned (maybe only metaphorically) before we had conventries. There are known Trolls. They've been banned.
Some of these are old, old, old issues. They're only really relivant to a few of us now. If dragonmother came back, most people only know her from the her recent postings, which is enough to she what she is like but not really. I think if we could of banned/coventried Dragonmother at the time we would of, so I think saying shes already been banned once on her is fair enough, and we'd treat her like juggly coming back.

Samatha Vimes, I never signed the thing to get rid of her in the first place, so I'll keep quite about that, and just listen to the will of the community. I don't think i know her well enough to see what she was like.

Zephry if she ever ones back, I say she'd get a chance to explain her actions, if she couldn't do that bannville.

Tony and Swreader, I think they should be put up for public banning now, That issue is close enough in time for everyone to know about it. I can pretty much predict how the vote will go, but for the sake of things we should to it properly.

Simierli and Cat and the others, I don;t think have even done anything wrong. They backed a losing horse, and argued very poorly. Simirali got proved to be making rubbish hyprocritical and bias points, and she ran away. Cat had a few decent things to say but spoke aload of blabble mostly. She did condemn tony. Cat hasn't done anything to troll or deeply offend the community. None of these people have, They've done stuff to offend a few of us.

Cerphinzi leaft and pretty much said he didn't really like us. Boriern is a bit of a twat. rentawitch is mad. They are people I don't personally really want to hang around with. But I don't think they've done anything that warrents trolling. And I think only trolls should be banned.

no, i don't see...

Dragonmother has had her three strikes. We know what the fourth one will be for when it comes. We don't have to say "We got the one what looked like he was going to do it", what we say is "Ah-ha! We were able to stop him before he killed [i:fc0a2a7da1]again[/i:fc0a2a7da1]" It's that 'again' bit which is important.

there are personality conflicts that will consume the whole boards. tony is one. dragonmother is another. shadowplay is a third. they're utterly unrelated to each other, but all should be banned on sight.

crossposted with rinso.

i have to say, what affects one member of the community affects the community. Silmaril went looney in regards to me. that doesn't mean it shouldn't affect you, or anyone else, even though it was centered on me.

cat was 'shocked at tony's post', but if you'd see she's quite happy to spend time with him still. Tony's done a marvelous job of keeping all his clique together, and it's grown because of his posts. That should be a warning sign to all of us.

Cat deliberately and admittedly misquoted me just to see what would happen. that offends me personally, but it is BAD BEHAVIOR by any standards and should not be accepted within this community.

additionally, I think the record shows that I went out of my way to try and smooth things over with Cat, and she not only never gave an inch to meet me halfway, but also clearly was one of the anti-garner people dedicated to their view that i'm some sort of anti-christ.

i'd like to think that I am a formative enough part of the community that what affects me DOES affect the rest of us, but appearantly that's me going out on an egocentric limb a bit.

As for Samantha Vimes, she slandered me behind my back to Doors and Mynona, just as zephyr did, and would later slander doors and I and others as "the usual suspects" on her live journal.

it's also been demonstrated that she was in league with Dragonmother and, I think it's impossible to deny, helping Dragonmother with her posts towards the end.

The ally of our enemy is also our enemy.

sometimes things ARE that black and white.

I think you are being too extreme, Garner. But I do not feel well enough to put together my argument right now.

I'm taking an extremely harsh stance because no one else is willing to, and the prevaling arguements seem to me to be extremely lenient.

We need a middle ground, and the way we'll get there is by debating it.

I've said elsewhere, in other threads and via the email discussions, that I'm perfectly happy to negotiate and discuss, but that I'm also going to be argueing for the Rod-and-Axe approach because no one else will.

Ben's overly cautious about us doing anything at all, rinso's adamant that all decisions have to be by public consensus, I'm arguing strongly for harsh justice... we don't HAVE much of a "reasonable" tone yet because we're still finding our feet. we'll know what "reasonable" once we've found it.

for right now, we've got a new home, and we can defend it. I think we MUST defend it, and as I see people arguing against that, I will argue loudly in favor of it.

Silmaril, made a number of false claims about you and doors. I prove them wrong on every account and she ran away without the decenty to give me a response.And e-mailed Grace that she never intended too reply. The only people that should feel slighted by her are me, you and doors. The rest of the community may disapprove of her, and if she ever came back here she'd have ALOT of work to do. But she hasn't done anything to hurt the entire community, our dispute wasn't like Dragonmothers that it was so big that it soured the entire board.

The rules that we impose on her, will have to be imposed on the entire board. This is what she done: Made a poor arguement agianst a person on the board, lost the arguement, and ran away, without achknowlging it. Are we going to ban everyone one can't admitt to losing an arguement. I'm sorry But I don;t think that is a banable offence. It's worth a warning.

Like I said with Samantha Vimes I'm happy to go with what the community wanted.

Cat, I'll come back too, cuase I need to get lunch.

I'm not sure about banning either of them (fatty and ICFT), but after what they both said I don't think I'd ever have anything to say to them any more, well definately not the second one anyway.

I think we should put some rules about creating multiple accounts in our posting rules.

i think we've already got rules to that effect, but if we don't, we damn well need to.

[quote:7b4c6bbaaa="Garner"]



Ben's overly cautious about us doing anything at all, rinso's adamant that all decisions have to be by public consensus, I'm arguing strongly for harsh justice... we don't HAVE much of a "reasonable" tone yet because we're still finding our feet. we'll know what "reasonable" once we've found it.

for right now, we've got a new home, and we can defend it. I think we MUST defend it, and as I see people arguing against that, I will argue loudly in favor of it.[/quote:7b4c6bbaaa]


Well, lets start comprising. My view on public consensus, is that this is community board, and all decisions should be made by the community and reflect the will of the community. This is to move us above the claims of board ditators, and such.

I believe for anyone to be banned from this community the should be put up for public vote (unless they've already been put up vote before and banned or is a know troll from the past). If they have been banned before, any new account created by them can ne re-banned on sight.

I believe once the community has confirmed are rules on spammers they can be deleted (and when need be Banned) on sight.


We NEED the community to have there say becuase it's the community backing that makes us strong.

I don't disagree with any of that, Rinso, but I'm going to pick at a few things just to see if we need to go into more detail on them...

Keep in mind that when Tony started to become a major presence on the old boards, the "will of the community" divided a bit. I'd say that we, the older community, had priority, but what if Tonyland had more people? Are we a majority community? A meritocracy community? geritocracy? some combination of the above?

I don't think that "moderators" should have anything like a vote-and-a-half, but I think that our moderators will automatically be people who have a lot of influence in the community and been around for a while. If we've had an influx of a dozen or so people who DON'T fit into the community, but filtered in so slowly and didn't earn "three strikes" to be banned, what do we do when they all vote against the older people?

That needs to be clarified.

now, as for putting up people to a public vote, I think this should be done for anyone who hasn't allready been banned, defacto or by coventry. For those from our past, I think we just need to go down a list and ask the community yes or no if they're banned or not. "Dragonmother?" if anyone says no, we go to a vote. "Silmaril" if anyone says no, we go to a vote. etc.

Folks like Shadowplay and Gooner will never rejoin our community under those names. we need to keep that in mind as well. Juggy has renamed himself Regicide on the old boards, and talks about "Juggernaut" as though it were another person altogether. lord knows what we can do if Juggy ever shows up over here under the name "BillyCat" and posts casually for a month about how he reads pratchett to his cat, who seems to appreciate it.

We'd neverk now it was Juggy, but by the rules he should be banned on sight if we ever do figure it out.

No one's objected to my propsed rules for spammers, so I think that issues' pretty much dealt with.

So, the issues here are:

We need to decide who's already banned. I think a simple list of people could be drafted, and any objections to any entry on that list precipitates a vote... except that there will be plenty of older people who should be banned on principle that most folks here won't even know.

We need to settle, once and for all, how we ban people. I think that the more leeway we give ourselves to handle a case-by-case basis the better, but I also think we have to have concerete enough rules that limit how many times a person can be given "one more chance" before that is no longer a valid objection.

I would prefer it if, when banning people, we had a unanimous vote, but there are those who will object to banning at all, on any grounds. I don't think a vote is necessary to say that a majority supports that punishment, however. That's why we moved here!

Once buzzfloyd's recovered from her unwellness, I think she's got some notes on the old guidelines that she can present, and we can start from there to go through and update the rules, or at least highlight areas that need updating.

If we can't get to that by the weekend, then let's consider just copying the guideliens into a thread here, and working on them cut-and-paste style.

Thanks Pepster, that is more or less exactly what I've been trying to get out of my muddled, infected head and onto the page.

Thanks pepster, that looks good to me, too. Will give it some more detailed attention later, but while I'm sure I *can* come up with changes, they won't necessarily be any good!

Buzzfloyd's got a pretty nasty ear infection today (we think), she'd been dizzy from the moment she woke up, and dizzy enough to have a bit of trouble walking while at work. that finally went away around midafternoon, but she had a bad ear ache so she's gone to an emergecny appointment with the doctor.

appearantly her usual doctor's closed on wednesday, but another doctor in the same surgery keeps emergency hours. also, appearantly, the receptionist for the surgery gave Buzzfloyd a bit of a hard time about making the appointment, as in her opinion this wasn't an emergency.

I say if you're so dizzy you can't walk properly and stay that way for several hours, it's bloody well important enough!

so, all donations of cups of tea for Buzzfloyd are solicited. she should be seeing the doctor right now, and hopefully will be home with antibiotics (if its just an ear infection) very soon.

right, back to being on topic then...

anyone see anything with pepsters suggestions that won't work? anyone think they're the best plan we've ever had, EVER?

I'm not clear about one strike for problem posters. Does it inclued people we've definately banned in the past? Or just those who have left on unevent terms.

I think it should be just those on uneven terms. I mean if Juggy or Gooner showed up and started making reasonable best behavoir posts and where carefull not to get a strike could they stay here.

Or do they count as already banned, and any registering should be rebanned straight away?

They've linked this thread on the old Board.

no matter who he is, he seems bent on causing us grief. even if he's a well meaning puppy who just wants attention (which, frankly, i'm not nearly concussed enough to ever believe), he's a puppy that pees on the carpets and shits on the kitchen table. how in the world he even got up there is a mystery to me...

took a look at I_Come's thread over on the old site. they did indeed link to us from it, and the "just trying to help by trolling" guy is attacking some leetspeaker for being me, too.

lovely!

but anyway, i was looking at I_Come's post that started the thread, and you know the tone is starting to get to me. I don't think he was just calling us wankers, I think he was laughing at how serriously we took the boards. when he said he wasn't sure if he should post over here, that little elipsis before "for fun" gives it an ominous tone.

what's more, I_Come is chatting buddy buddy with the 'helpful troll' and fatarse.

I dunno what to think right now, but I'm less inclined to say I_come's post was of no importance. additionally, given that the trolls are already attacking newbies on the boards and being obessive about what they see over here, I think we should laugh at them for being a bunch of hypocrites.

anyone in favor?

I noted the Irony of them thinking you we're trolling them (espeically, considering that troll was trolling us too! a nice double bluff there). Also they e-mailed harper collins about the spam. I like to see they've inhertited all the problems that we had and seem to be dealing with them the same way we did. But I think the less said about them and that board the better. Like in the simpsons 'Just don't look, Just don't Look!'

No. If you want to be part of the Stamps forum, that's different, but we MOVED.

If we keep posting on the harper collins site, then we failed to move.

If everybody's suddenly changed their minds about this *again*, then feel free to ignore me, but I thought it was accepted that this was an ALL or NOTHING move.

true, and good advice, Sleepy. thanks for it.

I agree with Marcia. I disapprove of us posting on the HC board right now, but I think it's a good idea to check on it, at least for the time being.

However, even if that were not the case, that doesn't mean the poll should be scrapped, Marcia. the things Fatman did wrong were done to us while we were still there. He screwed over our community at HC while we were at HC, but left before we sent him to Coventry. That doesn't mean we would not have treated him as a troll if he returned.

Fair point, Sarge. I think we should probably abide by that from now on, for the sake of peace.

However, the point still stands that Fatman was a problem before we ever got here.