[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
You’re not unliked. There are just a bunch of dildoes here.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but they’re the ones that like her.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Time and time again, he has started threads with titles and OPs written to stir people up and then ignored the ensuing discussion.
[/QUOTE]
How do you know that?
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Whether or not you believe his intent is good or to troll, the effect is the same and it’s bad for the board.
[/QUOTE]
Disagree. It would be worse for the board if he replied to every comment that baited him. Now you want him to, in effect, fan the flames. A prediction: this will probably be considered more trollish when it plays out.
I’d like to see the “don’t be a jerk” rule applied to the respondents in his threads.
I’d like to thank the posters who have participated in this thread.
[QUOTE=lobstermobster]
Personally I only start threads every now and then so I don’t forget they are there. I am pretty scattered though and could see myself and would have no way to remember to come back if I forgot. I don’t like the rules getting more complicated.
[/QUOTE]
For 99% of the posters on this board, the rules aren’t any more complicated today than the day they registered. It’s only for the “special” ones that we have to step in and explain things from time to time.
There’s also CarnalK’s ruling on ‘no more bondage threads’ for a while. Er. That was CarnalK, right?
The rules aren’t getting more complicated. This is a one-person rule intended to clarify to VCO3 what is unacceptable about his posting here. This is after receiving several warnings and a suspension from posting, and due to his personal history. As far as I’m concerned, it’s to keep VCO3 from continuing his trollish, or perhaps “troll-like”, behavior.
In the past, we’ve forbade people from posting on certain topics. Again, while the rule might be executed differently for different posters, such one-off rulings are in order to enforce the rules (“Do not post…excessive number of threads on any topic within a limited period of time” and “The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. We reserve the right to ask you to limit postings on a particular topic, or to refrain from posting on such topics altogether”).
We don’t make new rules for “unliked” people; it’s people violating the rules (or spirit of the rules) that are in question. This isn’t done lightly or arbitrarily. VCO3 in particular has a history of posting contentious Pit threads and then never returning. This board is for discussion, not setting up drama and retreating. We don’t want to enforce the rules meaninglessly, but I think any honest reading of VCO3’s thread history, and what’s more warning history, shows that this was the right decision.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
There’s also CarnalK’s ruling on ‘no more bondage threads’ for a while. Er. That was CarnalK, right?
[/QUOTE]
No, 'twas Evil Captor.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I wasn’t aware of that, but THIS one doesn’t upset me. I think it’s deserved. But I’m just curious how twickster could interpret it as anything other than a rule promulgated for a single individual.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not actually arguing that it isn’t – I’m just saying that the fact that it is doesn’t bother me, because apparently VCO3, like Handy and Reeder before him, needs to have it spelled out specifically what he’s doing that is unacceptable.
[QUOTE=Southern Yankee]
Not defending VCO3, but I do think it depends on the forum. I would think it bad form not to return to a GD or even a GQ thread you start. But the Pit is used to vent. You get something off your chest. It doesn’t always need to be a conversation.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, actually. Starting a pit thread and running off is bad form, IMHO, but doesn’t really bother me.
He does it in GD too though, since he’s been back he’s started 5 GD threads, all on “hot-button” issues (racial issues, if mormons are crazy, are transexuals mentally ill, hate crimes) and only replied to one of them. I can understand sometimes you don’t have time to return to a thread, or loose interest, but 4 in the space of a few days is trolling, IMHO.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
And, in this situation, the word “rule” is perhaps misleading. How about calling it “terms of probation”? That seem more fair, more individualized, more case-specific?
[/QUOTE]
Had the word “rule” not been employed by Giraffe and a threat of suspension or banning given the history instead, I confess that this pit thread would not have seen the light of day.
Hey, how did BoyoJim get the “Best of the Worst” title? I’m just a “Charter Member.”
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
Hey, how did BoyoJim get the “Best of the Worst” title? I’m just a “Charter Member.”
[/QUOTE]
It was close, but it was decided that you were slightly less worst then he was, and so the title went to him.
I don’t know why some people appear so outraged or even surprised at this, it’s not anything new. History has shown that many members in the past have had to have certain and stricter specfic rules applied to them. handy and medical advice (he was told he couldn’t post in any medical related topic anymore–next time he did so he was banned), Reeder wasn’t allowed to have more than one topic in the Pit about Bush at any given time (again, broke it and was banned, as far as I know–or maybe it was after a long history of warnings and public outcry), Mike Masterson/Silo used to talk about what a huge penis he had and I seem to remember reading the mods asking him to quit refraining to it after about the millionth time, Evil Captor was asked to stop making so many bondage threads or posting in them for awhile.
When one in a group is behaving badly, you don’t punish the whole group, you take aside the instigator and you talk with them privately and, if need be, set up rules personalized only to them if they show a pattern of disruptive behavior.
I even seem to remember reading members like december and Collunsbury having minor specific rules they had to follow.
I agree VOC3 is interesting and makes stuff not so dull and really, I don’t mind if he’s around either way, but like I said, I don’t get why some in here are puzzled over the “member specific” rules. It’s been around for a long time.
[QUOTE=ParentalAdvisory]
The link was a cached search ID. Apparently it gets deleted after some time, there were several threads to be seen.
Here is a pic of what you should have seen.
[/QUOTE]
That must be photoshopped; the last one says “elmwood” instead of “VCO3”.
[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
I don’t know why some people appear so outraged or even surprised at this
[/QUOTE]
The mods did something - a degree of outrage was inevitable. The only random element is the source.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Yeah, but they’re the ones that like her.
[/QUOTE]
Spoken like a genuine prick.
[QUOTE=fisha]
Spoken like a genuine prick.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said.
I guess it’s worth mentioning that most legal systems work on the concept of dealing with a particular defendant based on the general law and on the particular situation and circumstances of each individual case.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
I guess it’s worth mentioning that most legal systems work on the concept of dealing with a particular defendant based on the general law and on the particular situation and circumstances of each individual case.
[/QUOTE]
The laws(rules) apply to everyone, but sentencing usually depends on the particular situation and circumstances of each individual case.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
The laws(rules) apply to everyone, but sentencing usually depends on the particular situation and circumstances of each individual case.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why VCO3 has been sentenced to the equivalent of house arrest with close supervision. He broke the “jerk” law, and has been given an appropriate punishment.