| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alex Polimeni wrote:
| |
Well, Hop-Frog, we may be enemys on the .Castle front, but--
Wow. Incredible speach. Bravo, thrice over!
|
Hop Frog cannot answer you because he has been banned.
BTW, about the ban... what I would have suggested is a blanket ban with a
definite time frame. He obviously posted knowing full well he was in
violation of the TOS so a ban is in order. But having all these ridiculous
stipulations as conditions of his return is... well, ridiculous. The ones
suggested by Larry were arbitrary and capricious
|
I would vigorously dispute that. In fact I already have, and the person I
disputed them with was satisfied that what I was getting at was that Richard
acknowledge that he erred, acknowledge that he doesn’t get a pass because he’s
an Angry Young Man or because he’s “one of the more colorful characters” or
whatever and acknowledge that if he does it again he has no one to blame but
himself if he gets permanently banned.
And that person agreed they were reasonable conditions.
But the point is moot as it’s not for me to say, it’s for Todd. Further, Richard
has already rejected, more than once, any acknowledgement that he erred, he
stuck to the “swear words don’t matter” defense, if you’ll recall. It doesn’t
matter whether they matter. It matters that the owner of this private property
has established rules and Richard flaunted them, knowingly and with malice
aforethought.
(“I don’t care about Jon or this matter, so therefore I’m going to swear at him
repeatedly to show I don’t care much about this matter”.. give me a break...
Richard was rabble rousing, as is his wont)
| |
-- Lar, you may as well have
asked him to wipe your behind for you.
|
I find that characterisation offensive, not because of the image, but because of
the lack of understanding of my intent that it evinces. But then you have a
history of lack of understanding when it comes to Richard, you posted on his
behalf while he was on temporary administrative suspension for bad behaviour
over on BrickLink, after all, and that posting led in part to his getting away
with rabble rousing there, to the permanent detriment of that community.
| |
Frankly I don’t see how he could
possibly have met your conditions and remained an honest person.
|
I do not agree. It would be challenging, it would require admitting he was wrong
(in a way other than “so what”) and it would require a change in his future
behaviour, but it certainly would be possible. He’d have to WANT to change his
ways, yes. But if he doesn’t want to conform to the rules, then he has made his
choice, hasn’t he?
| |
If he had
done it, not only would he have gotten away with deliberate TOS violations
with no consequences, but he would have been rewarded for lying.
|
Again I disagree. Admitting he is wrong is something he’s not very good at in my
view, and something that would be personally embarassing, and therefore is a
pretty serious consequence in and of itself. Not “arbitrary”, not “capricious”
but serious. Punishments are meant to be embarassing.
Read up on how to treat juvenile delinquents, which after all, is what this
episode is, delinquency by a juvenile.
| |
(Lar, you
know him well enough to know he could never have agreed to those conditions
without compromising his own integrity. Perhaps that is why you suggested
them?)
|
Nope.
| |
Anyway, my belief is that such a flagrant violation of the TOS deserves a
ban. And that is without any way to grovel/weasel/tush-kiss your way back on.
|
I’d agree, but then, no groveling was being asked for by me.
| |
But I would argue against a permanent ban, at least at this point. After a
set period of time I think he should have another chance.
|
Why? If he doesn’t acknowledge that the rules apply to him, and won’t remove his
patently offensive and flagrantly in violation post, they why should he? If I
were Todd, he could have another chance 1 minute after he convinced me that he
understands he was wrong, understands that rules apply to him, understands that
he offended a lot of people, atones for that, and understands that he can’t do
it again.
That’s not a permanent ban. It’s merely indefinite.
| |
If it were up to
me it would be a three month ban, and then say around the end of February
allow him back on. And let him know that if he lets loose with obscenities
like that again in a post the ban will be permanent. I only lurk in
ot.debate, but even to me it sure seems dead without him.
|
Yes, you’re right, we seem to be having a lot more civil discourse without
Richard constantly calling people names...
| |
And he is one of
the more colorful people on Lugnet.
|
So what?
What exactly does that mean? If you’re colorful you can get away with stuff?
I’d characterise that justification as (getting) “away with deliberate TOS
violations with no consequences”... wouldn’t you?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
