Discussion in 'THE TEMPLE' started by Maljonic, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. Maljonic Administrator

    Can someone look at the member list for this site to see who isn't with us any more, I've made AuntyJangle, Silmaril and Tonyblack inactive so they can't sneak on and vote on stuff (not saying the last two would of course, just that they shouldn't be able to); is there anyone else that shouldn't be allowed to vote who's a member here from before?

    Also, are we going to make a proper banlist of people incuding the people we've sent to coventry, if we are can someone do that too sometime? :)
  2. Maljonic Administrator

    Just added Cat...

    Am I right to add Jaunty whatsit by the way?
  3. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Ba thinks so. Jaunty was given plenty of chances on the old board.
  4. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

  5. Hsing Moderator

    What would be the criteria/ are the criteria for being made inactive - besides coventry (aka, a disturbance to the community?) Declaring you're not a part of the community anymore? That would fit to all. A possible abuse of the old account? That would, as Mal pointed out, not describe every one of them.
    Just asking, because if I'm not sure, I can hardly say anything... :)
  6. Electric_Man Templar

    Whilst I don't disagree with the decisions in theory, I think we're setting a dangerous precedent by banning these people straight off without having a vote first.

    Bannings should be a community decision.
  7. Maljonic Administrator

    I thought we were talking about people we'd already banned as a community decision, apart from those who publicly stated they no longer want anything to do with us?

    Are you saying we should start again?
  8. Electric_Man Templar

    Silmaril and Tony... I guess as they have said that they don't want to be part of the community then maybe that's them asking to be banned, although I'm not really sure about that.

    We had a coventry petition on JA that yielded 13 signatures. If we are going to use the criteria of 25 votes for a banning, then really we need a poll for his banning.

    I think we need a community decision on bannings, and I feel that we need to start as we mean to go on
  9. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Could you make a suggestion for what our policy should be, Ben?
  10. Electric_Man Templar

    Largely what I said in the 'Coventry' thread below, although it's a bit garbled so I'll try and make it a bit clearer here.

    a) Persistent problem poster is identified
    b) Poll is started about banning. All people who vote should make a post saying that they have voted to ensure that the problem poster hasn't just made lots of new accounts to vote against. Alternatively... is it possible to have a poll with one option? The other of course being not to vote at all.
    c) Once the threshold number is reached (you suggested 25 earlier, I think the Roll Call thread might play a role in determining what the number should be), the poster is banned.

    Any comments?
  11. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I've got a crap addition to the plan.
    I think the number of people needed to ban someone should be lower (say 15). I think if that amount of the population (which is about a 3rd?) have a problem with someone, and no one wants to defend him, the that should be enough. If some people vote against a banning (say 5) then the number should rise(to say 25).

    I'm quote hungover and thinking hurts. So sorry if I make no sense.
  12. Electric_Man Templar

    That might just be crazy enough to work!

    Seriously, I think that's a good idea.
  13. Maljonic Administrator

    [quote:52cdf9b056="Electric_Man"]Silmaril and Tony... I guess as they have said that they don't want to be part of the community then maybe that's them asking to be banned, although I'm not really sure about that.

    We had a coventry petition on JA that yielded 13 signatures. If we are going to use the criteria of 25 votes for a banning, then really we need a poll for his banning.

    I think we need a community decision on bannings, and I feel that we need to start as we mean to go on[/quote:52cdf9b056]Well shall we unban these people then or what?
  14. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    I've said more on this elsewhere, mostly in email which I don't have immediately available, but just a quick chime in:

    I agree that if no one's stuck up for someone then we shouldn't need the same majority to justify a ban.

    I think a coventry is also equivalent to a ban, but as I've said elsewhere I'd be willing to revisit the thought if someone was genuinely going to apologize and try to improve. If they've been coventried, they shouldn't ever get a "Second" chance though.

    As for people like Tony and Silmaril... they did a lot of wrong by me personally, and to some degree the community as a whole. I'm therefore not going to even attempt to hide the fact that this is a very biased opinion...

    If someone's publicly "Left" boardania, then they've left. I don't think this is something that should be taken lightly. I say we ban them right then and there on the spot. If they decide they were rash and screwed up, they need to make up for it and apologize. actually, now that I think about it... maybe a one week cooling off period? Look at Pretty Butterfly... she overreacted and declared she was leaving, then came back and, when put to the point, apologized for it and it was all water under the bridge after that.

    To use Silmaril as an example, if she came back and said "look, I'm sorry I behaved the way I did. I'm sorry I said I'd address anything I left unfinished and then went and told Buzzfloyd I couldn't care less about answering Rinso's posts... I based a lot of bad behavior on emotional feelings and had the gall to deny it. I was naughty. Please forgive me.", I'd say we could look at giving her a last chance. if she screwed up or tried to Tonyland the place, then I'd say she should go out.

    The thing is, to refer to something swreader said in her parting shot, there are times when an abject apology is REQUIRED before you can ever hope to start making amends for your behavior.

    So, I have no problem with banning tony, cat, silmaril, etc. I wouldn't want to ban Leather Monkey, he appears to have left us for the stamps forum before the Tonyland exodus, but he never specificly said he was leaving. I wouldn't want to ban Chris Jordan or Pepster, because they didn't quit the community, they quit the old boards. There's a difference.
  15. Marcia Executive Onion

    I think we should ban people who specifically said they left our community because they didn't like it, and haven't changed their mind since their last post on Harper Collins.
  16. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    well, I'm inclined to agree, but I think we should leave the option open to review banning decisions and overturn them if exceptional circumstances warrant it.
  17. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I don't think we should. If they've left, they've left. My thoughts aren't with it today. I try to make more sense later.

    First, it seems a bit petty to me. They've left us so we ban them for ever? A bit 'You can't sack me, cuase I quit'.

    Also, and more pertinently(sp), they haven't done anything wrong (on the whole) to the community. Unless, They become trolls we shouldn't ban them.

    For Silimaral, she left cuase she realised I'd proved how wrong she was. On the whole I didn't have a problem with her. If she came back. Said 'Sorry', meant it, and understood why she should say sorry. I'd wouldn't mind her coming back though I wouldn't be jumping for joy.

    Tony, I think is a different matter. He was pretty bad, his parting shot pissed off more than those it was aimed at. If he came back, said sorry, meant it, and understood why he should be sorry. I'd be like 'thanks for the sorry, glad you've understood, but I still don't think you can fit in here, I can't view you in a good light anymore, please leave'

    Then if he started being mental he'd get banned.

    And Cat, she didn't do anything wrong and was on the whole a good poster. She didn't like the way we did stuff, but she wasn't trolling or anything.

    I thing we'd be doing them a disservice by banning them without giving them the chance to see reason.

    The power to Ban can help protect us, but I think it can become a problem if we rely on it to solve all are problems. Or something.

    Banning should be for own trolls. Not people we've fallen out with.
  18. Maljonic Administrator

    Okay then, shall we say that no one is banned then; if they show up here and behave in a deplorable manner we ban them from here after making a community decision? It would make things a lot easier, not worrying about who's banned and who isn't, just start again.

    P.S. showing up and posting as if nothing had happened, without apologies, counts as deplorable...
  19. Marcia Executive Onion

    Maybe this is silly, but my concern is that people like Tony Black and Zencore will come here and try to make this into "their board." Sort of like at the Harper Collins board, where there was a conflict with the Tonylanders and the oldsters. Especially after a while, when this board gets going and we have new people who find it who don't know anything about Harper Collins or any other discworld forums, and people start posting about how mean Garner and Doors are, and maybe PMing newbies about how Doors and Garner are just big bullies. And I'm also concerned about the "others" voting anonymously in polls, determining who is moderator, what the rules are, etc, which puts us right back where we were with the Harper Collins board.

    edit: Maybe not Tony or Zencore specifically coming back, but their friends who thought Harper Collins wasn't a "nice place" and the people here aren't "nice".

    edit2:Crossposted with Maljonic, who is typing in the next room.

    edit3: Jonathan just told me that the reason he deactivated Tony and the others in the first place was so that they couldn't affect the votes for moderator.
  20. Maljonic Administrator

    The ones we just had this week I meant. :)
  21. Hsing Moderator

    I agree with Rinsos post, although I have to admit I'm not quite sure as how to take in Marcias concerns. That was the plus of the HC site, you couldn't vote anonymously. Is it technically to tie voting to making a comment, to be able to tell at least who voted, in such cases as moderator votes, to prevent that from happening?
  22. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    while I agree that most of the people who declared they were leaving are unlikely to come back and try to foul our voting or corrupt the boards in general, I do have to say that I think Marcia's raised some valid points.
  23. Marcia Executive Onion

    [quote:404e24607b="Hsing"]. That was the plus of the HC site, you couldn't vote anonymously[/quote:404e24607b]

    I don't know if that was a plus, as if people had to declare their votes, they could be accused of voting the way they did because they felt intimidated by other board members. For example, on the HC site, if Garner started a thread to send someone to Coventry, and then a whole bunch of people added their names to the list, the Coventried person and his fans could say that the people on the list are just Garner's sychophants.
  24. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Well, We know how many people have voted. So if every one post to say they Have voted (they don't have say how they voted). So if there is more votes than posts well know something is up. Then we can just do an open vote without a hidden poll.
  25. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    If people come back and start cuasing trouble or trying to corrupt the board and 'scream Garners a bully' we can use thoughtout rational arguements to prove that garner is not a bully showing the new members the right way. If we have good reasons for what we do, we can defend what we do. It won't need to ban people. We've got other 'weapons' to use first.

    If somecomes to spout crap, we rationally argue, prove them wrong. If they keep spouting crap ignoring our rational arguements then we can talk of banning.

    I don't like the idea of banning people for what they [i:66a74c9ca3]might[/i:66a74c9ca3] do.[/i]
  26. Cynical_Youth New Member

    I agree with Rinso on this. Coventry should be upheld, but banning people because they might mess with the polls... if they really are that persistent in their dislike they'll find another way. The polls are easily fooled.
  27. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    the thing is, people like tony and swreader and dragonmother all crossed some lines that can't ever be uncrossed.

    how many people here could ever say that swreader should be treated with any "Dignity and respect" after she denounced grace for a 'poor grasp of the english language', and then went on to say the very things grace suggested she was saying?

    how many people here would ever trust tony again after YEARS of saying that he was a pacifist and glad to be my friend he suddenly made the most violent and hate filled post we've ever seen in the community?

    how many people here want to give dragonmother the chance to show up and ask for people to PM her so she can give them the REAL story about how we made her act in such a way that she came across like a fool?

    what about Danskin, who a lot of people here probably don't even know of? at least not directly?

    there are some people who I simply don't want to see even LURKING, but there's nothing that can be done about that. what we CAN do is say "You are absolutely unwelcome here, and we can enforce that."

    banning people for what they MIGHT do is crap. banning people for what they've done, however, is not.

    still, this is something that we need to discuss, and discuss rationally. rinso's making good points, even though he's hungover and smells of poo and stolen blankets (mostly stolen from tramps, who also smell of poo).

    I don't think we're going to reach an instant solution to this or other issues, so let's keep talking about it for now.

    if we start to get some really clear reasons for or against corses of action, we can draw up a list and then vote on policy.
  28. Maljonic Administrator

    I agree to the above, but Jaunty isn't in the same league as them, shall I unban him and see what he does - he did change his avatar right before he was banned, not knowing he was going to be? :)
  29. Dane New Member

    New forum [b:5442a26da6]one[/b:5442a26da6] new chance for jaunty I say
  30. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    [quote:127934690e="Maljonic"]I agree to the above, but Jaunty isn't in the same league as them, shall I unban him and see what he does - he did change his avatar right before he was banned, not knowing he was going to be? :)[/quote:127934690e]

    I say no. He already had LOADS of chances, thats why we sent him to coventry in the first place.

    When decieding to make a 'freash start' here, he chose to pic an avatar that numberous people on the old board complained about. Why did it pick it? Why did it think that would do anything but piss us off? I hasn't changed. Giving him another chance is just a waste of time.

    I wonder why people (other than being nice or nice sake) want to have him around. If Junty was in the habit of making witty or clever post when he wasn't being anoying, I'd consider giving him another chance. We have plenty of reasons too not want him in our soceity, want is it about juanty that makes you want to have him the the community?

    What has he done to warrent a second chance?

    This being a new board isn't a reason for him to have a second chance. This being a new board no way effects the way he's acted and the way he still acts.

    In picking an avatar which he also ready *knows* both pisses people off and screws with people downloading times, he's displaying the thoughtless ignorant behavoiur that proved to be the bane of his posts on the last board.

    I don't want to have board member who cant be bothered to think about how his actions will effect and anoy others.

    If he does stay, We'll have to badger and mother him all the way. I don't seen the point in that.

    It's not hard to think: 'mmm, many people disliked me having this avatar. I want these people to like me, maybe I shouldn't do something that they dislike'

    There would be a type of person who would think about his actions. There is a type of person who has to be told about his actions.

    I know what type of person I want here.
  31. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Jaunty is [i:2ce2b0b961]infamis[/i:2ce2b0b961]

    His first actions here were, as rinso pointed out, a continuation if his unacceptible behavior. he HAD his "fresh start" chance and he cocked it up.

    we will NOT give infinite chances to people. there MUST be a point where you can't go back and get another chance.

    Jaunty's in need of a guidence councilor, and I'm not getting paid to help him learn that other people have feelings, too.

    I'm not getting paid to put up with his bullshit, or the bullshit of people who get manipulated by his cries for pity after he's acted like a dick.

    Jaunty stays on ban and NEVER comes off.
  32. Maljonic Administrator

    Okay, I just felt kind of sorry for him because one of the trolls from the old board tried to win him over after he went there when he was made inactive here and he told them to shut up, which made me think he may have meant he was going to give it another try. To be honest though I never read any of his posts after the first two on the old boards because I thought he was irritating the way he kept posting two or three messages in a row, so I never saw any of the stuff he wrote to get sent to coventry, just assumed he'd been very irritating. I also didn't know that he'd already tried using the same avatar on the old boards and been told not to. I just know someone a bit like him who'd be just as stupid but not mean to upset anyone I guess, I suppose he would just do all the same things so perhaps there is no point in unbanning him?

    P.S. that was in answer to Rincewind by the way. :)
  33. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I understand your point Mal, but becuase you can think about other peoples feelings, and feel sorry for him isn't reason to give him a chance.

    JA isn't a bad person, he's not mean or nasty. But he *is* thoughtless and anoying. I think JA will do well at a different board where people have more patience.

    Maybe he should go the to Stamp board. He might enjoy it more there.
  34. Maljonic Administrator

    Maybe he should go the to Stamp board. He might enjoy it more there.[/quote:45a77ce038]I did think of suggesting that to him, but I thought it might be too much like interfering. :)
  35. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    He only reason I don't want to suggest it, is becuase I don't want to send all are problem posters over there... though I think he registered there, anyway.
  36. Maljonic Administrator

    Okay, so anyway the banlist of people actually registered here so far is:

    Jaunty Angle

    note: they aren't banned as such so they may still appear on the list of members looking at the site, but if they try and look at the message boards while loogged in they will see nothing but a blank screen.

    JA has also been given Devil Karma so he can't comment on any other parts of the site either, games, stories, and I think the shout box.

    Is this banlist okay, or do any of them need removing from it; bearing in mind they can't post any kind of apology because they can't get on the boards to do so, unless they reregister.
  37. TamyraMcG Active Member

    I think it is petty to even think of banning Cat, Silmaril (who was kind enough to post the information about Tempus on the H/C board after she left), and even Tony. I think we should assume that people who have stated that they have left the community have actually done so.

    I think banning should be reserved for problem posters and true spammers( make money quick, this really works) types. The only people I would like to see on our ban list would be those who have already have had Coventry declared against them, any further additions to the list should have a community vote.

    There are a lot of former H/C members showing up who haven't posted in months or longer, I assume some of them had hard feelings at times but I would never presume to ask them to apologize or sign on to any sort of "loyalty oath". I say innocent until proven guilty.

    I never signed on to coventry for Jaunty Angle; he never bothered me, any more then Dane did. but he did have a lot of people against him; hopefully those who did sign the petition did so because they really thought they could never get along with him and not just because he sort of pissed them off when they were already pissed off. I will always think it was a shame.

    I have a dial-up connection and his animated avatar was no bother to me, except for the way it reminded me of certain other sorts of internet offerings. He did change it as soon as he was asked to , maybe if he wasn't so quick to apologize (I've seen him do it without being prompted) he'd have be seen in a better light.
  38. Saccharissa Stitcher

    I disagree with banning Cat. After all, she was just as fraked out as the rest of us with Tony's parting shot.

    As for the ban list?

    This reminds me of what happened in another board I am frequenting. At the Debate forum, a poster complained because the thread he had started on politics was locked by the moderators. The reaction of the rest was "This was turning into a flamewar, this is not a democracy, this board has owners and moderators so take it like a man and shut up".

    Being democratic in cyberspace AND have a functioning site is extremely difficult; the HC board is Exhibit #1 for the prosecution. The whole point of moving here, to a moderated board, was to have a safe guard against the trolls.

    Mal, you are the owner, you are paying plenty for the server space, it's up to you. After the HC board I could do with a bit of autocracy here.

    And here is where I get to the point.

    Banning Cat is putting her needlessly in the defensive. I don't think Tony, Silmaril, SWreader and Dragonmother will ever bother posting here and if they do and still behave like idiots their posts can be deleted. Same goes for Jaunty. Frankly, I have seen adolescents behave much, much worse than this so he in comparison is a much lesser evil. If he continues to be a pest (and yes, using an animated avatar when other members had told him that it messed up with their downloading time IS annoying), get his posts deleted. This ought to knock some sense into him. If he still can't get it into his head that being in cyberspace is not licence to behave like an idiot, then he can either leave, or try to stir up trouble and get thundersporked for it.
  39. QuothTheRaven New Member

    My main greivence with JA was that his excuse was:[quote:f1e0d7c482] I am only sixteen, i am not supposed to act mature.[/quote:f1e0d7c482]

    Well I am fifteen. One year younger that he claims to be, and I can manage it.

    I just hate it when other teenagers complain about not being treated as adults. They would be if they acted like them.
    Edit: the above contains an inexact quote. I couldn't be bothered to go back to the old site and look up his exact words.
  40. Maljonic Administrator


    Mal, you are the owner, you are paying plenty for the server space, it's up to you. After the HC board I could do with a bit of autocracy here.

    [/quote:9b9df774da]It isn't up to me, I wouldn't be asking if it was; I don't think most of the people would have moved here if everything was up to me - we have to decide all this stuff together. Personally I would have no one banned to begin with, then ban people if we need to as we go along, but I haven't always paid attention to why some people have been banned in the first place, so I take into account what everybody else thinks and will go with any decisions that are made by the community.

    P.S. It's not just the community spiriot thing either, I don't want everything to be up to me. :)
  41. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Cat behaved badly. When I pushed the point of discussing the situation on the old boards, she retaliated with sarcasm and hostility and said she HAD TO USE SARCASM to respond to us.

    I bent over backwards to try and make things peaceful with her after Tony's post. In return, she did not give an inch and deliberately quoted me out of context in her good bye post simply to see how many people would assume that I'd been nasty to her.

    As shocked as Cat was about Tony's parting shot, she's still his best buddy and enjoys spending time with him on the unseen boards.

    Now, none of this may warrant banning her from these boards, but get your heads out of your asses. Just because she was "Nice" does not mean she never did anything wrong.

    I don't think she should be banned for the same reasons Jaunty should. (Incidentally, I'd like people to listen to me, for once: Jaunty joined the stamps forum BEFORE he joined the harper collins forums. Do you hear that? BEFORE! I've said it several times now, and you're still talking about suggesting he join there?)

    Silmaril was demonstrated to have taken a personal dislike to me and based her slanderous claims on that dislike rather than on any actual wrongdoing on my part. She's defended Zephyr at every turn and insisted we were phsychoticly having a go at her when we were calmly discussing what she'd done wrong. When she left and said she'd be happy to clean up any loose ends, Buzzfloyd emailed her to address the points Rinso made which prompted Silmaril to leave with her ass in a sling. She flatly told Buzzfloyd that she didn't care about Rinso's posts and would not answer them in any way. The fact that she posted about Tempus on the stamps forum is not a redeeming gesture. The fact that she came to post on ours is not a redeeming gesture. I'd have posted the same thing if I hadn't been at work at the time, and yet no one's saying that I should be forgiven for my wrongs because I let everyone know about Tempus... It was just a polite thing to do, and that doesn't mean that all the other rude stuff never happened.

    Tony... Tony should be in an institution.

    None of those people should be banned for the same reasons as Jaunty. Jaunty should be banned because he has never showed any understanding of why he upsets people, he resorts to emotional manipulation and blackmail to extort second chances from bleeding hearts, and he is openly hostile in his "apologies" - which, by the way, have never been sincere.

    He had second chances years ago. He had third, fourth, fifth, on into the near infinite numbers of chances then and now. He has cocked up EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

    Jaunty is, sadly (for him) our first test case.

    There is an end of cake. Jaunty has reached it. If you disagree, go to the stamps forum and leave us alone.

    The others... the others are Bad People who I don't think deserve second chances. That's my opinion, but I'm not the only one who holds it. I don't think they can ever make up for what they've done, and frankly I don't think they'll ever even bother to try, but for right now I know some of them hold a grudge. I'd just rather they not even SEE our boards to satisfy their own morbid curiosity.
  42. Marcia Executive Onion

    People like Tony Black, Zencore, Dragonmother and Zephyr haven't been coventried because they've left the boards before there was a chance for a coventry vote. If anyone wanted to coventry Silmaril or Cat, they wouldn't be able to either because Silmaril and Cat left as well.

    If anyone is considering banning any of these people, then we can just do a vote now.

    edit: Cross-poseted with Garner.
  43. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Well, as I've said elsewhere, I'm definately taking a rod-and-axes approach to advocating policy right now, but I think that's to be expected.

    If we put it to a vote, I'll honestly probably vote not to ban them. They should have the chance to say they're sorry, they should have the chance to say they changed their mind, and they should even have the chance to say that we're a bunch of wankers, if that's what they want to do. HOWEVER, I think that should be their last chance. And, for all the wooly thinkers out there, last means that they don't get anymore after that. ever.

    Let's go ahead and look at a proposal vote...

    I suggest something along the lines of

    1) Posters who renounced the community in the past should be prohibited from rejoining it
    2) Posters who renounced the community in the past should be allowed to rejoin, but instantly banned if they attack or defame the community in any way
    3) Posters who renounced the community in the past should be given a clean slate

    Now, honestly, I think option 3 is impossible. Tony's always going to have that parting shot over his head. I wouldn't trust anyone who says he COULD have a clean slate after that. Of course, luckily in cases like Tony's, I don't think he ever would come back, so it's almost a moot point.

    But, we could have a protocol in place.

    Anyway, does anyone second the motion for that vote? Or have any suggestions to change it or add to it?

    If there is a second and no motions to change by, say, 6pm British Standard Time, I say we make it a vote.
  44. Cynical_Youth New Member

    I second that motion.
  45. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Hmm. Well, Tony and Swreader sure as hell should never be given another chance. Ba advocates banning them. What they did... It was just too big. Ba hopes that they find happiness with each other. He does. But he doesn't think they can ever be a part of this community again. There's too much history there.

    He's willing to leave the option of Cat or Silmaril coming back, but only if they really apologize, and then he'd watch 'em like a hawk. They didn't screw up as badly as Tony and Swreader, but they still left on bad terms, and the onus is on them to apologize.

    Jaunty is over. Enough is enough.
  46. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    I don't even hope they find happiness with each other, but anyway...

    The thing is, as I see it, Cat and Silmaril really only affected ME directly, and not everyone else is going to feel that they were even affected indirectly, or care about it if they were.

    Someone like Zephyr, on the other hand... that's a much more clear case. She slagged off people behind their backs, without any provocation or justification. When confronted, she ran away. Her friends called that the "Mature" thing to do and applauded her for it.

    Now, bit by bit, things she did wrong that are never excusable:

    1) slagging people off
    2) behind their backs
    3) without any provocation
    4) or justification
    5) when confronted, she ran away

    Now, even if she didn't say anything about YOU, this is not someone that WE want to have around. We are a community of HONEST people who have the balls, metaphorical or otherwise, to say "That's not acceptible behavior."

    I'm inclined to say that Silmaril, with her cowardly running away after being demonstrated if not proven to be harboring a petty grudge that prevented her from making accurate or unbiased judgements, is not someone we should want among us. Cat was opposed to half of the community in principle, because we are confrontational people and she was not. She made it clear that she would not be happy here and would not stay.

    My only reason for saying these people should be banned from posting is that since they are not part of the community and openly said they disapprove of central aspects of it, they should not even be allowed to comment on it at all.

    That said, most of these people we're talking about haven't even registered here. Those that have will probably not even lurk much (though we know Silmaril was keeping an eye on us after we moved). I genuinely do NOT think that these are the sort of people who'll commit fraud on our boards...

    BUT, at the same time... I don't like em, I don't trust em, and I don't wanna risk having em come back if they ever decide some day further down the line that there's something they kept bottled up but now they have to say it.
  47. Jauntyangle Banned

    Hello, i'm sorry it turned out like this. and i'm sorry you really hate me garner, i'm also sorry for having to register this second account to post this. I have to say having to delete the cookie to the website so you don't automatically login so you can read debating whether or not you should be banned and being unable to say or do anything is really, really frustring. I would of liked to be given a chance to at least defend myself, it's not a like i'm a troll or anything. Just, as i think garner said, a bit annoying, which i don't really think is a banable offence. The thing is, i post on alot of message boards, and while i know the way i've been treated here is partly (mostly) my fault, i don't feel i've been treated as fairly as i should of been.

    It's not my fault the "rude" thread i made was similar to the hundreds you had already got by trolls. I didn't know.

    And the really really annoying thing, is it all started there and spiralled out of control. My comments, while i really genuinely meant no real offence ever, always got taken the wrong way, people always expected the worse of me. I thought moving here would mean a fresh start, a new chance. Instead the conventry that only (i'm not sure waht the final total was, about 13?) signed.

    Most of all, i'm sorry garner really doesn't like me. and i'm sorry that all this has seemed to have happened to him many times before, it's no wonder he's lost his patient for it. I understand that now.

    I don't really know what i'm trying to achieve with this post. *sigh*
  48. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Maljonic, please bar this account ASAP.
  49. Jauntyangle Banned

    You're not a Mod? I assumed you would be. bye bye garner.
  50. Ba Lord of the Pies

    And once again, Jaunty is trying to avoid personal responsibility.

    Let's get something straight. Jaunty was responsible for the mess. He made his bed. It's time for him to shut up and lie down in it. He doesn't like it? Too bad. He was given plenty of warnings. People tried to explain what he did wrong. He kept on screwing up.

    At this point, an apology won't do it. Not that Jaunty is really apologizing. Maybe he thinks this is as sincere an apology as he needs. One day, maybe he'll understand why it isn't. Maybe he'll understand what he did wrong, and why he should feel contrition. But still, it's over. Jaunty had his chance. It's over now. No more time for cake.
  51. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    It's not even an apology, it's continued emotional blackmail and outright lies, because it's demonstrated to be effective with some people. It's the Carcer syndrome.
  52. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    What is it about Garner!

    I've been far more forceful in making sure you get banned. Why is it only him that was a problem with you!

    JA, your not a bad person. But you are a anoying. You do stuff that you don't think is anoying but we do. Maybe you don't think the same way as us, but you're going to keep doing little things to anoy us all the time.

    The difference, TamyG, between JA and Dane is that while Dane was anoying. He listened to us, He took onboard what we said and made a change. He's become a good poster, who i quite like.

    JA wasn't. He's freash start was consisted for picking an avatar a number of people on the last sight had problems with!

    He's been banned here. By coming back under a false account he's disrepected the communitys deciesion that we won't want him here. If he wanted to 'defend' himself he could of just e-mailed someone expressing his point. That way he could have his say without going agianst are wished. But he didn't. He didn't think. He won't and never will.

    I don't understand why he would if want to be in a place where at worst he's disliked and at best he's tolerated.

    If, you post on other boards go to them. Go to boards where you can get on without getting hassle, you'll be happer there than here.
  53. Jauntyangle Banned

    Tried to avoid personal responsibilty? in what way? if you mean i'm saying that not all the blame lies on me then yes. Obviously the continued trolling of the board led to the severe reations i got. You have to admit that. I can't see how that's... It's true, it obviously true.
  54. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:c0cc3c470d="Rincewind"]What is it about Garner![/quote:c0cc3c470d]
    He has Mercury and several other planets in Leo.

    ...What? ;)

    Seriously, I basically agree with everything that Ba has said in this thread. Do go back and read his comments and take them on board.
  55. Jauntyangle Banned

    I really tried to find an email honestly!

    i even considered emailed maljonics dream email thing. But thought it was a bit too invasive.

    [quote:12116b3dc0="Buzzfloyd"][quote:12116b3dc0="Rincewind"]What is it about Garner![/quote:12116b3dc0]
    He has Mercury and several other planets in Leo.

    ...What? ;)

    Seriously, I basically agree with everything that Ba has said in this thread. Do go back and read his comments and take them on board.[/quote:12116b3dc0]

    i can't, i'm banned :(
  56. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    You haven't taken responsibility for contueing to do stuff that we finding aboying. E.g Picking an avatar that you've preivously been told is both terribly anoying and a problem for members with a slow connection.
  57. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    [quote:000c2ab920="Jauntyangle"]I really tried to find an email honestly!

    i even considered emailed maljonics dream email thing. But thought it was a bit too invasive.

    [quote:000c2ab920="Buzzfloyd"][quote:000c2ab920="Rincewind"]What is it about Garner![/quote:000c2ab920]
    He has Mercury and several other planets in Leo.

    ...What? ;)

    Seriously, I basically agree with everything that Ba has said in this thread. Do go back and read his comments and take them on board.[/quote:000c2ab920]

    i can't, i'm banned :([/quote:000c2ab920]

    How can you both post and quote but not read BA's comments!
  58. Jauntyangle Banned

    [quote:88ef975c3a="Rincewind"]You haven't taken responsibility for contueing to do stuff that we finding aboying. E.g Picking an avatar that you've preivously been told is both terribly anoying and a problem for members with a slow connection.[/quote:88ef975c3a]

    yeah, sorry. i have that avatar on all my boards that i just uploaded it without thinking. *cringes as he know the "not thinking" part will get picked up*

    And about the rest, you say you've given me all the chances i could ever need. I've only posted on it for about a fortnight, i really don't see how that could be true. And on focussing on garner, i think that's a bit obvious. he made all the "community" "coventry" and whatever other threads about problem posters, obviously i would end up focusing on him. whether he intended it or not. I really don't dislike anyone on this board, incase anyone has got that impression.
  59. Jauntyangle Banned

    [quote:77ead41cd5="Rincewind"][quote:77ead41cd5="Jauntyangle"]I really tried to find an email honestly!

    i even considered emailed maljonics dream email thing. But thought it was a bit too invasive.

    [quote:77ead41cd5="Buzzfloyd"][quote:77ead41cd5="Rincewind"]What is it about Garner![/quote:77ead41cd5]
    He has Mercury and several other planets in Leo.

    ...What? ;)

    Seriously, I basically agree with everything that Ba has said in this thread. Do go back and read his comments and take them on board.[/quote:77ead41cd5]

    i can't, i'm banned :([/quote:77ead41cd5]

    How can you both post and quote but not read BA's comments![/quote:77ead41cd5]

    i mean i can't read and takr the comments on board, as i'm banned. Me taking the comments on boardmeans nothing as as soon as this account is banned, i can't post. See what i mean about my comments being taken the wrong way.

    oh, and thanks rincewind for not banning me. unless you can't in which case ummm.
  60. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    We have not suddenly told you new ways to fix your wretched personality since your previous account was banned here. You've registered a new account which can indeed see all the posts that are made, and, here's a blinding flash of the obvious, you could LOG OUT and view everything as a guest!

    Honestly, Jaunty, you are a sniveling, whining, pathetic cur who bites and attacks where other lap dogs would simply sniff and lick. When you're sent out to the doghouse for it, you cringe and whimper because you know some people never learn and will let you back in.

    The thing is, we'll put mad dogs down now.

    You are an annoying dick who's never shown any sign of improvement and only gotten worse.

Share This Page