Unban Rumraket

[he_who_is_nobody]

Un-ban Rumraket. He was cussing at a troll.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Un-ban Rumraket. He was cussing at a troll.

I second this

 

[SpecialFrog]

It's worth noting that while Rumraket was more sweary, Bernhard's discourse is hardly free from rudeness or insults.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

It's worth noting that while Rumraket was more sweary, Bernhard's discourse is hardly free from rudeness or insults.

Yeah, he made it a point to make a list of insults towards me, and calling me an idiot

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'm disappointed that both hackenslash, and now Rumraket, have been banned for their failure to keep a civil tongue in their respective heads.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think it does any good to swear at others online - if the recipient is trolling or just trying to elicit an angry response, they've succeeded, and possibly get the swearer banned.

For myself, remaining calm so that others viewing the discussions can see that another person in a discussion is either ignorant (lacking knowledge) or bearing false witness (through being deliberately obtuse) is sufficient: the first can be educated - the latter, hoist by his own petard for all to see for what he is.

Perhaps if either petitions to be allowed back, I would second their return - and hope that they won't allow themselves to be led into the same trap.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Hmm, I don't think I've seen too many instances of Rumraket breaking the rules.

Anyone got any examples?

hack's ban is a lot less surprising. That had a long time coming.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hmm, I don't think I've seen too many instances of Rumraket breaking the rules.

Anyone got any examples?

hack's ban is a lot less surprising. That had a long time coming.

Rumraket's last post in that thread was rather ... salty.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

Hmm, I don't think I've seen too many instances of Rumraket breaking the rules.

Anyone got any examples?

hack's ban is a lot less surprising. That had a long time coming.

Rumraket's last post in that thread was rather ... salty.

Kindest regards,

James

Honestly, who does not get salty when dealing with a troll? You are the nicest person I have ever seen post on a forum, and even you commented on how dealing with this troll left you a little "punchy" after dealing with it. Getting under one's skin is the only point to a troll's existence. I do not think this forum should incentivize the troll by allowing their tactics to lead to the banning of members.

 

[Prolescum]

Rumraket wasn't banned for their final post but ignoring a string of warnings over that last few months, including a week-long ban and further warnings in-thread afterwards. Are we supposed to continually accept poor behaviour simply because we like and respect the person in all other circumstances? Why do we have rules in the first place? They are in place to allow conversations to progress, not to hinder them.

The last thing I want to do is remove otherwise excellent contributors, but there's a point where I believe we have to defend the principles of the site above our preferences.

Am I wrong?


Also Bernard, please learn what an ad hominem is before using the phrase. Your risible arguments aren't being dismissed via character assassination.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have to say that rumarek jumped straight to offensive insult quite often, hackenslash not so much, and I am surprised to find out about this.
We have to acknowledge that insulting other people isn't the best way to engage people. The level of engagement here is abysmally small, now most interchanges now a days consists of poor sod being lured into to the board and once in here a million spiders pounce on them, shred them to pieces an use their internal stupid juices to melt their faces. And we are sure let them know how stupid they are and what a sick and disgusting human beings they are. this does not make for good conversation, neither does it act as a good motivator for other people to come here and participate in our board.
And let's admit it, I'm guilty of that as well, I really can not say that I had an exemplary behavior, I'm not proud of it, I acknowledge that I have been a bit extreme.
Hell, everybody has. And if you think you, Yes YOU, YOU that you are reading this, if you think you are not guilty of this, you are in denial!
I can not say that I like the state this board has come too. I had disappeared from this board for about 1 year and only came back recently a couple of months ago. I had been gone, because I was really really disinterested in the all thing, and now that I come back it depresses me. Everything is still the same, there is only less people in it. I just get depressed and makes me lose faith in humanity, it just makes me angry. I'm tiered of all the stupid people and their stupid ideas, of people who sabotage conversations, who don't understand discourse. I get nothing from this board anymore, I don't need all this negativity in my life, and had plan to leave this for good.
I don't know if LOR had given rumarek and hackenslash a favor rather than a penalty.
This is not for me anymore, other people shall shape its faith now.

Now having said that. I do not agree that rumarek and hackenslash were banned. I remember the time were "not banning people on this board" was a thing. Sure you could still ban the random guy selling Viagra or people pretending to be someone else they were not, but people were free to tell whatever they wanted and to make an ass out of themselves however they wanted. To be honest, the premise of this board is far from being controversial, hot interchanges was expected, and that runs against its longevity.
The only thing it had going for it was that nobody was silenced, that ship has sailed along time ago.
I have watched in contempt as other people that I didn't necessarily agreed with were banned, I'm not saying that their behavior didn't warrant a ban were they on any other boards, and I even stated my disagreement and always stressed that we shouldn't ban people in specific topics where other users had specifically called for a ban. But I never made to much fuss when they were actually banned, and it would sound a bit hypocritical of me to ask for this particular users to be unbanned without asking for everybody else to be unbanned as well (the penis elargement guy and the 100 TF clones should stay banned). And I hate that now I have been put into this position, which we wouldn't have to, had we not broken our own rules.
On a personal level I still think that banning hackenslash went too far. And on all instances I think that the ban hammer is over used, while others tools such as warnings and suspensions are rarely employed. We have to recognize that "moderation" hasn't always been employed with the right "moderation", and I don't blame the moderators, they can only do the best they know.

If you may allow a suggestion, I think the forum could use a little "forum constitution". People selling vicadin, spam bots and impersonators can still be banned immediately. But other users should be submitted to a vote before banning. This can be divided into the regular user vote and the administrative vote. Users can vote other people to be banned, but even if it passes the user vote, the vote maybe impeached by the administrative body. The administrative body may elect to ban a user, but it must pass the user vote in order for the ban to go into effect. If there is a clear violation of the rules, a user may be suspended while its case is in appreciation, but not without receiving 2 or 3 warnings first. And even if a ban passes the administrative and user vote, the banned user may appeal the ban, and if he or she can show that they did not violate the rules, they can have their accounts reinstated.
The rules of the board can be voted on.
There should be specific topics giving advice on how to stay cool in the face of pessimism.
But that is not for me to decide, other people should. I no longer have a stake in it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Rumraket wasn't banned for their final post but ignoring a string of warnings over that last few months, including a week-long ban and further warnings in-thread afterwards. Are we supposed to continually accept poor behaviour simply because we like and respect the person in all other circumstances? Why do we have rules in the first place? They are in place to allow conversations to progress, not to hinder them.

The last thing I want to do is remove otherwise excellent contributors, but there's a point where I believe we have to defend the principles of the site above our preferences.

Am I wrong?

According to the rules, “Generally being excessively crude, irritating or attempting to troll for lulz may get you banned at the discretion of the moderators.” If Bernhard.visscher does not fall under crude and irritating (which he obviously does), give me a minute and I can find the comment wherein he admits that he was trolling. I honestly believed that the rules were being lax as of late. Why else allow the likes of Bernhard.visscher or the plagiarist Elshamah to linger for so long? If the rules are lax enough for them to stick around, the rules should be lax enough for insulting them.

To be clear, I am not advocating for banning anyone. I just do not see how someone can obviously bend the rules for so long, while others acting to the first rule bender also bend those rules, yet become penalized.

If you may allow a suggestion, I think the forum could use a little "forum constitution". People selling vicadin, spam bots and impersonators can still be banned immediately. But other users should be submitted to a vote before banning. This can be divided into the regular user vote and the administrative vote. Users can vote other people to be banned, but even if it passes the user vote, the vote maybe impeached by the administrative body. The administrative body may elect to ban a user, but it must pass the user vote in order for the ban to go into effect. If there is a clear violation of the rules, a user may be suspended while its case is in appreciation, but not without receiving 2 or 3 warnings first. And even if a ban passes the administrative and user vote, the banned user may appeal the ban, and if he or she can show that they did not violate the rules, they can have their accounts reinstated.
The rules of the board can be voted on.

A similar thought has crossed my mind once or twice before.

 

[Inferno]

I think the point is this: Both Hackenslash and Rumraket received warnings prior to this incident. I distinctly remember hack had a 1? 2? week ban just a few weeks/months ago, not too long anyway. Apparently, Rumraket had one as well.

That being said, I'm all in favour of short term bans as a "cooling off" period, but perma-bans should only go to serious offenders. Both Hack and Rum are serious and excellent contributors.

 

[tuxbox]

I think the point is this: Both Hackenslash and Rumraket received warnings prior to this incident. I distinctly remember hack had a 1? 2? week ban just a few weeks/months ago, not too long anyway. Apparently, Rumraket had one as well.

That being said, I'm all in favour of short term bans as a "cooling off" period, but perma-bans should only go to serious offenders. Both Hack and Rum are serious and excellent contributors.

I agree 100%!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Agreed.

Temporary bans - of progressively longer periods - would be best: either the individual eventually learns their lesson or they move on.

This is not to denigrate any of the Mods for taking such action as they have - it's a difficult position to be in where posters ignore warnings and short-term bans. I can understand that Mods may feel that a permanent ban is the only option left to maintain some form of order and/or discipline.

Nevertheless, I do wish we returned to the original policy - no permanent bans, suspensions only.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[red]

Having once been a forum moderator (nothing this sophisticated at the time) I understand that there is a point where the standards of the forum are more important than a few of its contributors.
That said, I agree there is a place for permanent bans (spammers and the like), and suspensions.
Unless there are legal reasons for banning bona fide contributors, then meaningful suspensions are the way to go. By all means scale these to the offence, or persistency, of transgressions.
This can be done in conjunction with limiting posts, or placing posts in a queue, so that reversion to type is avoided on screen.

 

[surreptitious57]

Both Hack and Rum are serious and excellent contributors

That is very true but hack has since left the internet and no longer posts on any rational site
Whether this be temporary or permanent only time will tell but he shall be missed either way
On the plus side though it might mean that he will actually finish the book which he is writing

 

[Prolescum]

Well I can see the consensus is against me here, so I'll talk with the rest of the staff and rumraket and report back regarding the main topic.

With regards to a quorum on permabans, we'd need to have a good think about how to apply it fairly and whether we can maintain it adequately given the current and future staff and contributors levels. I'm not against the idea in principle.

 

[tuxbox]

Both Hack and Rum are serious and excellent contributors

That is very true but hack has since left the internet and no longer posts on any rational site
Whether this be temporary or permanent only time will tell but he shall be missed either way
On the plus side though it might mean that he will actually finish the book which he is writing

Indeed!

 

[tuxbox]

hack's ban is a lot less surprising. That had a long time coming.

At least his insults were funny half the time. I thought so anyway.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well I can see the consensus is against me here, so I'll talk with the rest of the staff and rumraket and report back regarding the main topic.

With regards to a quorum on permabans, we'd need to have a good think about how to apply it fairly and whether we can maintain it adequately given the current and future staff and contributors levels. I'm not against the idea in principle.

Nothing personal, Prolescum, we still love you! :mrgreen:

I can see the need for actual bans where someone does something that's against the law or deliberately impersonating another poster - or spamming. Personally, I'd prefer suspensions of ever longer duration for swearing, etc, - ie, social engineering

Kindest regards,

James