| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron wrote:
| |
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)
|
I completely agree he was rabble rousing and fully aware of it. Also arguably
as egregious with its “in your face” attitude was his flaunting the fact that he
was posting with a dead email address and not providing a good one. But I saw
no point to making him comply with the laundry list of conditions you
enumerated. It’s like forcing a nonbeliever to say Jesus is Lord.
And you’re right, he shouldn’t get a pass for being an Angry Young Man or
because I think he livens things up here a bit. Which is why I would have
favored a blanket ban period-- no amount of saying “I have erred” or “Jesus is
Lord” would do it. It’s just that because that is a bit drastic I wouldn’t make
it permanent and I would give him one more chance. Then that’s it.
| |
| |
-- 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.
|
To this day I will stand by my opinion that he did nothing wrong there-- he made
a lighthearted jibe IIRC (and even followed with a smiley AIIRC). It’s a shame
BL doesn’t keep posts over six months old, to me it was as plain as day. I do
not know what was eating some of the other parties involved, and by the
incongruencies I noticed in all the lines of private correspondence going on, I
don’t think I had the entire picture. But his remark was completely
misinterpreted (I am not the only one who thought so if you will recall).
| |
| |
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?
|
Okay, he broke a law of Lugnet knowingly and willfully, that much is obvious.
But this admission of being wrong. I detect a difference there and I object
much in the way I object to those who try to legislate morality.
| |
| |
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.
|
The way I see it you want him to face a consequence that is personally
embarrasssing, and I cannot help thinking it may have something to do with
whatever animosity there has at times been between you. I did not realize
punishments were supposed to embarrass-- I have only heard of the revenge versus
rehabilitaion arguments. But I suppose embarrassment could fall in the revenge
category.
| |
| |
(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.
|
I can see requiring that he have the post in question removed without any of
that “I leave it up to you Todd” garbage. Beyond that I think you are being
unreasonable, and if I were a sharper person I could explain exactly what it is
that bothers me about it. What do you want him to say, “I was Wrong, O Lar” ?
And atoning? Like “Forgive me O Jon, for I have erred”? Come on.
If I were Todd he’d get the ban for a significant but finite period, and by
accepting his posting reinstatement privileges he would be agreeing that he
cannot violate the TOS again or else face a permanent ban. All of your
requirements that he understands he broke the rules and cannot do it again would
implicitly apply.
| |
| |
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?
|
Nope. That, my sweet patootie, was merely an opinion.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
