Jaunty Angles - what to do about him...

Discussion in 'THE TEMPLE' started by Garner, Aug 20, 2005.

  1. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Okay, here's a brief summation of the situation. It's not intended to be the final word, but I do think it will be accurate if not exact.

    Jaunty claims to have posted under an older account which he couldn't remember the password for. That account belonged to a fairly annoying poster.

    Jaunty, older and self-proclaimed wiser, reintroduced himself with a "joke" thread that was quite hostile and offensive to most people on the boards. He consistently failed to offer a real apology, persistently denied that he had done nothing wrong, blamed everyone possible for his shortcomings, and has demonstrated a casual unthinkingness time and time again when he clearly understands that we wanted him to think about his actions and posts before comitting to them.

    There is still some doubt as to whether or not Jaunty shared his login info with known trolls.

    Jaunty belongs to the stamps forum, and joined that forum before rejoining our community. He claims to be accepted on a number of other sites as well.

    When sufficient people had reached the end of their patients or tollerance of his behavior, a Coventry petition was started that received no objections from regular members (i think) and received a majority of support from the currently active posters.

    He was blacklisted on the old site, yet still chose to follow us to the current site and make use of an avatar that he already knew was annoying to us. After being banned here, he created a new identity to continue to demand our attention.

    I am well aware that known trolls attempted to make Jaunty look bad, but the sad truth is that Jaunty does a good enough job of that on his own. His unceasing inconsiderate and belligerant attitude is only broken up by efforts at emotional blackmail.

    I am, in sort, sick of him.

    I suggest that we addopt two policies:

    1) Ban any account he posts under instantly
    2) Moderators are free to delete on sight any posts by an account known to belong to Jaunty if the administrator is unavailable at the time.

    I'm going to do a three day poll for the first suggestion now, as I know this to have the support of the community. If there is a second to the other suggestion, and no objections, I'll make a poll for that in a day or two.
  2. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    I don't feel this needs to be compulsory, but for the record: I have voted on this issue.
  3. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    Three things, the third being most important.

    Number one, I do think JA should be banned, for all the reasons given above.

    Number two, those inclined to deel sympathetic towards him must recognise that he is emotionally blackmailing you. This is a bad thing, and you can add it to the list of things he's done wrong. He is manipulating you to try and make you feel sorry for him. Don't fall for it.

    Number three, I am strongly against deletion of Jaunty's posts. Aside from anything else, he continues to prove why he should be banned. More importantly, I believe that the only posts that should be deleted are junk posts, such as spam or accidental double posts. The written record of what has gone on here should not be tampered with in anyway.
  4. Maljonic Administrator

    His current ip has been banned by the way, posted too late on the other thread. Doesn't mean he definately wont be able to come back though, so the above is still relevant. I'm not sure what you can and cannot see after your ip is banned, it's different to been made inactive on the boards I guess but I can't test this on myself because I might not be able to log in again for all I know.

    Does anyone want to volunteer for a ten minute banning to see what happens? :)
  5. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    You can ban me for a while if you want.:)

    I agree with one. JA has already been banned on the HC board (coventry=baning) and has proved that he doesn't fit in here.

    Number two: I need to think about. I think it's only deteling posts until he gets banned, then they become visiable agian? I don't like the idea of baning posts permently, i'm open to the idea of deteleling post until the banned person can be re-banned, if only to act as stop gap. But i'm happy enough to just wait around. I am completely agianst the idea of permanly banning any posts.

    Maybe more clearification on what it?
  6. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Ok, 5 people have voted but only 4 have posted. While I don't think you should say how you've posted, I think it might be worth while making a post to say that you have voted, just so we know trolls are tampering with the poll.
  7. Maljonic Administrator

    Once a post is deleted it is gone forever. Banned people can be unbanned just as easily.

    I'll try banning Rincewind from 3:15 to 3:30, if that's all right with you Rinso? :)
  8. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Ok. Then I'm definatly agianst deteling any non-spam posts.

    Mal, Thats a cool ban time.

    But once I'm gone I what you all to cry.

    Real tears.

    Tears of saddness, not joy!
  9. Maljonic Administrator

  10. Marcia Executive Onion

    Rincewind was banned because he smells of Poo!
  11. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Not yet! and you're not crying! :(
  12. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    oh, I've misunderstood something then. I thought from what you'd said before, Mal, that if a post was deleted it would remain in the database and could be recovered from there?

    if deleting is permanant, then I retract my suggestion. there's a very finite limit to what damage could be done by a poster in the wee hours when he might go unnoticed or the admin account would be unavailable. (Jaunty certainly seemed quite curious that we couldn't ban him when he first showed up...)

    thus, we can easily wait it out until a ban can be activated on anyone who deserves it, and not have to delete anything at all.
  13. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    this board is too fast. crossposting happens. rinso smells so strongly that being around him makes me cry.
  14. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Pfft! I luagh in the face of Mals banning attemps!

    You cannot ban me!

  15. Maljonic Administrator

    Pah, can you still post now? :)
  16. Maljonic Administrator

    Unbanned again , did you try anything? :)
  17. Trollmother New Member

    I voted no, I think we must give him three warnings or something and tell him that if de doesn't behave he will be banned. Small boys are like that.
  18. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I tried to look on the site, but all i got was a message saying 'The Aminstrator was banned you' and there was mean looking shouty smilie. I couldn't see any part of the site.
  19. Maljonic Administrator

  20. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Trollmother, he's HAD three warnings. He's had THIRTY by now.
  21. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    He has been warned not to do stuff loads, then went a head and did it or something so similar anyone thinking would know it was mistake. The avatar choice here is a prefect example.

    But Trollmother as a point, that Garner and Grace mentioned before in a work avoiding e-mail. That we might want to look at giving people an offical warning. Or something, before voting to ban people.
  22. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    in Jaunty's case, how can he not be seen to have received several warnings? As has been said already, Coventry was effectively a ban, but as I said in some of those work avoiding emails, Jaunty received the lowest turnout of a coventry petition yet.

    The thing is... no regulars said NOT to coventry. in fact, the only person I can definately remember objecting to it was Fatman, who it turns out was deliberately trying to wind us up, even if he wasn't one of the trolls.
  23. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I think thats important. If 13 people have a problem with a poster. And the rest say nothing, I think the will of the 13 holds sway. If you don't say anything you I think it's fair enough to take the silence as a 'yes, we aggree with you' or at least a 'I don't care either way'. Then the 13 people who will be pleased that JA as gone should get there way.
  24. Saccharissa Stitcher

    I voted and I say ban him. Whether he realises he has been nothing but a pest and clean up his act or not, at least we will get some respite from his constant nagging and whining righ after making a damp stain on the carpet.

    And I hope he has the half brain necessary to come as a visitor and see this.

    Kid, you are too old to be forgiven for acting like a baby. You ought to have tried these stunts when you were two years old. [i:77d2521f75]Then[/i:77d2521f75], we might have been more forgiving towards you.
  25. roisindubh211 New Member

    I vote for Jaunty to be banned- he is both irritating and manipulative, as Grace said earlier, and has had far too many warnings to be let off now.
  26. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Re: Rinso's remarks, at the time, none of our regulars had spoken out in his favor. Now, Tamyra and Trollmother have.

    I think they're missing the whole story, as they say he should be given another chance - clearly, he's been given too many already!

    BUT, we've now got objections. If Tamyra and Trollmother can be swayed to our way of seeing things, then problem solved. If not, then it'll have to be majority rules.
  27. Kat_in_the_Hat New Member

    I voted to ban him...I really don't think he cares about Terry Pratchett or Discworld, and he's just here because so far we've given him bundles of attention. If he added anything to the community or even if he showed some appreciation for the Marthter's works, I would say keep him, but I certainly haven't seen any examples.
  28. Trollmother New Member

    Ok, if he has been warned, then he can be banned. Maybe some sort of "official" warningtext could be constructed for the future.
  29. Electric_Man Templar

    How many chances has he had? A thousand? Ban him.
  30. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Thanks Trollmother. This guy's had warnings and chances aplenty.

    Unless there's a way for Trollmother to reverse her vote, we're going to have to mentally adjust the score, subtract one from the "no" and add it to the "Yes" pile.

    and, as for official warning text, this is indeed an idea to consider. I think something simple could be universally applicible, and we'd just need to embellish it a little for specific cases.

    we could also look at Buzzfloyd's idea of a social contract... presenting someone with a strict set of conditions under which they're permitted to continue posting, and any deviation from that would be banning.

    the risk there is that we'd be putting an awful lot of time and effort into someone who, odds are, would just say "pfft, fuck you" and leave. or troll.

    still, we can discuss this on another thread.
  31. Marcia Executive Onion

    Slightly off-topic, but in general, I think Trollmother's "3 strikes, you're out" rule is a good one. If someone makes a mistake the first time, we treat it as an honest, unintentional error, and politely tell them the rules. The second time, we warn them that if they do it again, they will be subject to banning. The third time, we vote to ban.
  32. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    hell, i think if we're going with a three strikes approach complete with ultimatum warnings, there shouldn't be a need to vote!
  33. Ba Lord of the Pies

    Ba has already spoken his mind. Banishment!
  34. Maljonic Administrator

    [quote:80dfd96220="Garner"]hell, i think if we're going with a three strikes approach complete with ultimatum warnings, there shouldn't be a need to vote![/quote:80dfd96220]I think we should draw up a document that details these proceeders in line with/or included in a posting guidlines, then have everyone vote on the merits of that, so that moderators can then do their job as written down and not have to bother every member with a vote everytime a miscreant wanders along. This is meant to be a literary discussion board after all, there's no reason why everyone should have to keep getting involved in every bit of politics unless they want to. I think if we make a document and everyone agrees to it, it would cover most events in the future without the need for further involvment on the community as a whole, seeing as they already did that once when they voted for the document.
  35. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    absolutely. I think we're only doing a little bit of necessary house keeping right now while we gear up for a discussion on the guideliens.

    serriously though, would we need to vote on banning someone if we had a clear 'three strikes' policy with provisions for warnings and second chances before the ban?
  36. Marcia Executive Onion

    I agree that having a standard set of guidelines that applies to everyone is a very good idea. It shows that the moderators aren't just acting in an arbitrary fashion, picking on people that they personally dislike, or playing favorites.

    In a way, wasn't that the problem with the Tonylanders--they excused people like Zephyr because she had a "nice personality."

    edit: Crossposted with Garner, and I agree with him.
  37. Hex New Member

    I voted for a ban. We gave Jaunty a number of chances, and there's only so much you can do. I say keep him out.

    edit for typo's.
  38. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Mmmm. I'd kinda prefer 3 strikes, for up for a vote to be banned. I like the idea of everything being more a community decicision. Otherwise, it rests to much on what the mods think. What If i think something is worth a strike, when really it;s not. At least if there is a community vote at the end, it shows that the mods are supported by the community, which will ensure that mods get kept in check. Becuase we have this separate forum, we can make as many political threads as needed, people who have no interest (therfore, no reason to complain) don;t have to see it. Poeple who do have an interest can take part. Now if the mods are fair and just, the majourity of people will agree with there banning choices becuase the mods and say on 1.Date blah he broke the rules in fashon X, afterwhich he was warned. 2.on Date blah blah he broke the rules in fashon y, afterwhich he was warned, on Date blah blah blah he broke the rules in fashon z afterwhich I created this thread preposing to ban him.

    I think the more we keep the running of the board the reponsilibity of the community the better.
  39. Tephlon Active Member

    I've just voted. It was a Yes.

    Jaunty has had his chances, is only here to annoy us and not worth the trouble. Even if we were to allow him one more chance, he'd screw up again anyway. I for one am not going to wait for that again. Add to that that he's already at home at the Cunning Artificer's board, I see absolutely NO point in allowing him here.

    Note: I don't mind IP banning, but as pointed out some ISP's use "dynamic IP's" this means that if you IP-ban someone, you might end up banning other posters. What if this guy was using the same ISP as Garner and Grace? Just because he was living in the same area? It is a bit serious.
    Maybe we could add something to the IP ban screen saying: "This IP has been banned because of a troubleposter/Troll or advertising. If you feel this is a mistake and would like to join our community, please contact XXXX". Then again, this will open up Mal or the person that handles those mails for a lot of abuse.
  40. QuothTheRaven New Member

    I voted yes.

    I posted this on the other thread, and i think i should put it on this one.
    [quote:03b25ff872]My main greivence with JA was that his excuse was: Quote:
    [quote:03b25ff872]I am only sixteen, i am not supposed to act mature. [/quote:03b25ff872]

    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[/quote:03b25ff872]
  41. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    couple of things...

    first off, Well said Rinso and Tephlon, both good suggestions.

    secondly, while I think it'd be a good habbit to say you've voted, I don't think anyone should feel the need to say HOW you've voted. I see we've got another 'no' vote, and I'm not going to ask anyone to say it was them unless they want to.

    still, considering that trollmother reversed her decision, that means only one person has objected in the poll, and since Tamyra hasn't said she voted, I'll assume it was someone else.

    because this is just a one sided minority, if you DO object to the banning, I think it might be appropriate to say why so we can understand the decision.... but that'd be incompatable with staying anonymous. ah well.

    as it stands, we're at the halfway point for our community, are we not? just a few more yes's and we'll have a simple majority. unless we start seeing a flood of No's, I think this ban's going to stick.
  42. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    cor blimey!! we've got 99 people registered already?

    okay, clearly not a simple majority at all then.

    any ways, I think Quoth's made a bloody good point as well. As was said once in the past, we don't have a problem with younger posters, we have a problem with jerks and annoying people of all ages.
  43. Freya New Member

    I voted to ban earlier this fine morn. Took me this long to figure out what to say about it!

    While I didn't interact with JA and was never directly affected by his actions. I am concerned at JA's attitude to the Board and the effect he had on the atmosphere.

    Being a member of this Board (and for that matter, a part in any Community), is not a deity-given right. If you annoy a circle of friends or colleagues, despite repeated requests to amend your actions, they will avoid you. Any amount of yelling "It's not fair" is not going to change that.

    Life teaches us that we won't get on with everyone, nor will we fit in with every group. Don't waste time, move on. I wish him well.

    Oh and I forgot to add. Won't it be rather difficult to get a majority in this case; since this ban really stems from JA's time on the Harper Collins Board which many Newbits and returning posters won't have been privy to?

    [i:77a0ab5134]EDIT: spelling[/i:77a0ab5134].
  44. Marcia Executive Onion

    Jaunty has gone back to posting on Harper Collins, trying to be friendly with the trolls there.
  45. Splang New Member

    I voted yes, because i don't think Jaunty really wants to fit in or get on with us, but would rather us all change to suit him. And he seems completely incapable of understanding why everyone is so annoyed with him.
  46. fairyliquid New Member

    Sorry, I couldn’t get the arguments to sound right so it’s taken a while to get this posted. I am the second ‘no’ vote. First things clear, I’m not for allowing him back in the community.

    My argument is pretty basic but if we ban him, he will just come back. It’s been said but I honestly think that as long as we keep pressing him and telling him he is not really wanted around here, he will (eventually) leave of his own accord. If you just continue to ban him on sight then it will just turn into a game for him. A sort of ‘how long can I survive before they find me’ game. There are millions of guises he could come up with and no matter how much you think someone may be him it could also be some poor newbit that’s a little lost.

    That’s another one of my main problems. If he does return, which if you ban him he most certainly will, how can we be positive it is him. I am afraid that some poor newbit will get banned for sounding slightly like his character in a few sentences. There is enough suspicion in this community as it is. The message we want to give him is not ‘go away, we don’t like you’, ‘It’s you have upset this community, we ask you to respect the peace of this place and go quietly’. It’s clear no one wants him.

    Then again, we have asked him to go, which is my problem. On principal I don’t think banning him will solve anything, then again I can’t think of a highly affective way of dealing with him.

    On the business of 3 chances, I think it should be written in the guidelines and given as a rule but is more of a warning to respect what others on the board say and if they suggest stopping for a good reason then it should, obviously, happen. I’m still not 100% convinced on banning people however. I think it will merely make any situation worse, including Jauntys.
  47. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    That's just it, isnt it? He seems intent on NOT understanding.

    Last time I looked over at the harper collins site, he wasn't exactly FRIENDLY with the trolls, but he's just going to have to make friends where he can.

    One of those "trolls" seemed to be giving a fair assessment of us, actually. Predicting that we're going to be edgy and paranoid about problem posters for a bit. I'd be happy to agree and thank them for the fair view, if not for the fact that these wankers, or their spiritual confederates, are the ones that encoruraged my own paranoia and the general shell-shocked approach to dealing with newbies that we've suffered for so long
  48. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    ah, whoops, crossposted.

    well, Fairyliquid those are some VERY valid concerns, but they're not any new ones.

    we've had, for years of our history, a concerned effort by some wankers to KEEP us jumpy and untrusting. the thing is, while that has undoubtedly burned some innocent newbies, it's also burned some "innocent" newbies who were still very much jerks and problem posters.

    IF jaunty comes back AND can behave properly and not piss us off, then we never know. Excepting of course, such people ALWAYS invariably give themselves away. They have to make sure we know how they proved us wrong. And, if they could have fit in all along, why didn't they? The deception is one thing, but it's a separate issue altogether considering that they CHOSE to be annoying in the first place. So, if anyone does that, they get baned. If jaunty does it, and we find out, we ban him.

    If anyone claims to be jaunty just "as a joke", we ban them. It's not funny. it's not even a joke.

    And you know what? It won't be a game for long. We won't get angry, we won't lose our tempers, we'll just ban him and be done with it.

    Having the ability to throw someone out means you don't have to get upset anymore. You CAN throw them out. eventually he'll stay thrown.
  49. fairyliquid New Member

    I'm still not entirely happy about banning people but i understand the decision and know when I'm outnumbered.
  50. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Fairy Liquid, maybe could you offer an alternative solution that we could consider as aposed to banning?
  51. fairyliquid New Member

    How about establishing communication. I realise this is about banning him but it concerns no one more than it does him. Possibly sending him an email (there is one in his profile) and just attempting some rational thoughts from him and maybe trying to discover his reasons behind acting the way he does, and continuing.

    It may not work but where is the harm? I just feel it's unfair not to let him have a say in all of this. I just feel there has to be more to it. He doesn't strike me as exactly the same as all of the trolls and while letting him on the boards may not be an option it may be a good idea to hear his opinion.
  52. Roman_K New Member

    My vote was to ban him. Trying to reason with Jaunty is an endless circle, in which you [i:b4765ec6ab]always[/i:b4765ec6ab] end up where you started, only angrier than you were before. Now, I don't think that circle is good for anyone, be it Jaunty or us. Truth to be told, I can't say I rightly care about Jaunty, his mental health, or his acceptance in society in general, but if he doesn't get slapped in the face from time to time he's never going to grow up.

    His argument of being young is, as was already said, irrelevant. I've met fourteen year-olds who sounded more like thirty year-old depressed poets on the Internet than anything else, and thirty year-olds who never really left kindergarten, in heart.

    After a certain point, physical age gives few indications of the mental one.

    Also, as Grace rightly noted, Jaunty practices a rather vile form of emotional blackmail. I've had enough of his ooh-cuddle-me-co's-I'm-young'nstuff kind of wailing, and wish him gone from here. True, banning IP's is not always effective, but if the IP is consistent for a certain time, it's definitely not a dynamic one. He's young, probably lives with his parents, and won't change his ISP just to thrawt us. Young'uns don't have the household power or funds for that sort of thing.

    Goodbye and good riddance, I say.
  53. Roman_K New Member

    Regarding Fairyliquid's suggestion, hasn't someone tried this already?
  54. fairyliquid New Member

    I dont think he is smart enough for emotional blackmail, if he was he wouldn't be trying. I dont want anyone to forgive him but i also dont like not giving someone, even an immature prat, a say. They can sometimes surprise you.

    No doubt he will be banned anyway but if he leaves on good terms he may stay away

    edit: if no one has tried i would be happy to give it a go. I feel it would be better if someone he doesn't have much against and hasn't actually spoken out against him infront of his face (screen) does the typing.
  55. Roman_K New Member

    Regarding emotional blackmail, I agree that he is not smart enough to plan on doing so.

    It just comes naturally to him. He does it because it probably worked on his parents for several years now. Little kids do it on a regular basis. We've already commented on this at least once, I think it was Rinso calling his behaviour Passive-Agressive at one time, and he said he did no such thing.

    And then proceeded on the same beaten, circular track.

    Let's face it, Fairyliquid, there's no intelligent life behind that account.
  56. fairyliquid New Member

    I don't know, People can act differently on the boards. If we tried aproaching him in a more private way, not on open boards, we may get some sense. Even jerks have some weakness. Personally i think the best way to make him understand what he did is force him to feel guilty about it. Otherwise there isn't any point in banning him. He will laugh it off and it will be a story he brags about to his friends later on. How he 'ruined' the community. What I mean to say is manning wont have any effect. We need to *make* him mature so he realises what he is missing out on. Its a long shot but if done correctly, could work.
  57. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Your idea has been suggested. I remember 15going5 posted a number of polite advice to Juanty saying that he was in a similar stitution to him and that he should do x,y,z. These posts where either completely ignored or, If i remmeber correctly, where quite rudely dissmissed.

    I have a problem with us making an effort for some one who isn't willing to make an effort for us. For example (the one i've used loads) his avatar on the old board, people complained staying they found it very anoying and, more importantly, messed with there connection speed. Now, why after being told this would you pick it for a new site. He'd already been told it effected us, so he can't claim ignorance. He just didn't think. Which also means he couldn't be *bothered* to think. I think thats very inconsiderate. He couldn'y be bothered to not do something that he *knew* would anoy us.

    Here are some post from the other board, one roman mentioned about passive aggressiveness:


    [b:3a5f7aa047]quote:Originally posted by Jaunty Angle:
    i'm not a bad person [/b:3a5f7aa047]

    [b:3a5f7aa047]quote rincewind:
    Me:'Hello Mr Passive Aggression, Whats your job'

    Mr Passive Aggression: 'Hello KIDS! It's my job to make you feel SORRY for Jaunty Angle, and an the same time make rinso look MEAN.'

    Me: 'oh, Really? how does that work?'

    Mr Passive Aggression: 'well, My JA posting 'i'm not a bad person' it makes it look like he's TRYING to be NICE. despite the fact that every other thing he's posted has pretty much been thoughless, demanding and rude. Now people will read that post will feel sorry for now MEAN you've been to him, and want to give him a big welcoming HUG!, Do you feel bad Captian meanie?'

    Me: 'Well, I sure do Mr Passive Aggression! I'm so glad you're around to manpitulate me into needless pity'

    Mr Passive Aggression: 'And are you going to give him a big WELCOMING HUG!'

    Me: ' You BET I AM!'[/b:3a5f7aa047]

    Ok, It's not a massive point, but my reply was good.

    Now for danes advice:

    [b:3a5f7aa047]quote 15goingon5

    I beg to differ. You claim to be 16, I'm 15 and yet I'm seem to have a hell of a lot more sense than you. I’d shut up and lurk for a wile if I were you. Just get to know everyone, without posting anything. Oo and I'll give you the same advice I was given

    When you’re posting. Think about it, put it through word then preview it. Just some advice [/b:3a5f7aa047]

    [b:3a5f7aa047] quote jaunty
    oh don't bother with the teach me bull****, look i started off badly, that's all. Anyway, i'm in a bad mmod today, not enough sleep.[/b:3a5f7aa047]


    15- Dane gave him good advice and his response was less than open or acepting, do you wnat that to be part of the community.

    It's just another example of him pretending nothings wrong. "I don't need your advice-however good it is! I haven't done anything wrong, i just had a bad start"

    It didn't acknowledge that following 15/danes advice would stop him having a bad middle and end.
  58. fairyliquid New Member

    Okay, we have established the fact that he is not going to become a lovely member of society and love all people and be happy and make daisy chains in the afternoon…(interesting picture mind you, imagine the scowl) and that 15/dane did attempt at a civilized approach.

    I still think it would be better to make a connection with him outside the boards where he may be less inclined to put on a lazy teenage persona. I have learnt from experience that close and private communication has a much better effect and I think that sending an email to him and just getting him to realise the reality of his situation would either guilt him into leaving for good or scare him so much he wouldn’t want to. Show him that just because he is on-line doesn’t mean he can let down all the wonderful manners his parents probably spent hours teaching him and become an ignorant git. He is the type who thinks that all people on line act like jerks and so he has the right to also. Unfortunately he stumbled upon us, if we could get him to listen to us he may leave and stay away.
  59. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I personally, dislike the private method. If someone can be ok in private but a jerk in public, I think it's pretty immature. I want to speak to people who act the same to matter the stituation. People who, when faced with a reasonable arguement (ie Dales) act reasonably. Not people you'll put on a show in public but be reasonable in private. There not people I want hang around with. Things should be said in the light. But thats only my personal opinion. I can see how sometimes quiet word can help smooth problems.
  60. fairyliquid New Member

    Im not saying he will mature and im not saying youmhave to accept him here. I just think he will be more accepting of the ban if someone takes the time to explain it and, as you said, smooth it over. It may stop him from comming back and causing more unrest

Share This Page