Subject:
|
Re: Block user X from replying to a message by user Y
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 20:59:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3404 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > So you're saying it's OK to bait people all that you want, but anyone rising
> > > to it is potentially at risk?
Sounds like about the only plausible solution to me... Perhaps in a perfect
world Suz could spend time punishing baiters, but it sounds like that's not
gonna happen.
> Is it OK to bait people as long as they don't rise to the bait? Most of the
> time when Scott baits me, I don't rise it it. I'm pretty proud of my record
> (no one is perfect of course) lately, I've ignored 95+% of his baiting.
I dunno if I'd be so proud if that were my record. If cars crashed only 5%
of the time, I'd feel pretty unsafe in a car. My record for ignoring Scott
is far better than yours. So are most peoples'. You've got one of the worst
track records on that front-- hence the so deemed "Scott & Larry Show"
(don't ask why he gets front billing-- I wouldn't know). Your record should
be 100%. Or maybe 99.99%.
> But I don't think it *should* be OK to keep baiting and baiting and baiting
> the way he does.
My personal thought is one reason he does it is BECAUSE he knows people will
take the bait. Stop responding. It'll probably help because he won't get
responses. Maybe not. And if not? The problem STILL diminishes.
> And I don't think he (or anyone) should be able to get away with it over and
> over and over just because most people ignore it most of the time.
"Should"? No. But again, plausibility. Bait posts are MUCH harder to track.
Raging fury flamefests are much easier to locate. *Should* he get away with
it? No. And it's not fair. But tough. Until we have a viable solution, it
ain't happening.
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
