And most of the posts in that thread were directed toward him, rather than the banned sockage. Why close the thread, just because you banned a sock-puppeting, but rather peripheral, participant?
Seriously, why?
and since when are we required to be ‘kind’ in the pit? even more so when the ‘kindness’ was deserved toward the puppet and his sock.
You’re right. That was the Pit. Wiskey Tango Fox, JC?
Well, color me blush-red. I misread who was being mocked there. The thread is reopened.
On the other hand, I’d still say that bashing someone - who couldn’t bash back because they’re banned or suspended - would still be something I’d want to put a stop to.
You’ve just become my favorite mod.
[sub]Marley, eat your heart out.[/sub]
In most contexts I would agree - when it comes to the actions of the sock and his puppeteer in that thread - it was well deserved and helps point out to the casual observer the two faced nature of that specific poster.
PARENTHETICAL ASIDE: Generally speaking, we don’t want major discussions of persons who are no longer able to post. THere are two main rasons for this:
(1) Those persons can’t come back to defend themselves. It seems… well, unfair.
(2) In the case of deliberate trolls, they’re out for as much attention as they can get: good or bad. They get their jollies from being discussed and being a center of attention. Thus, “do not feed the trolls” is a common internet motif; we prefer that, once banned, they be treated with absolute indifference.
I understand that’s not the situation here. I just want to remind everyone, especially newcomers who may not unnerstan.
Saturday, October 19, 2013. A day that will live in Dopelore for years to come. Our first glimpse at the frail human nature of a poor mod whose mind numbing task of reading piles and piles of claptrap on a daily basis caught up with him. I forgive you JC.
Wait, don’t they get cyborg implants to help with that? What the heck am I paying $7.49 a year for, then?
Hamster chow and goat shearing.
I’m told coffee mugs…
Wait, Unnerstan? Didn’t the Soviet Union conquer them way back in the '80s? I guess that’s why newcomers wouldn’t remember the place.
Why? It’s not and has never been a formal rule. It was just some whiny bullshit that Liberal(tarian) spouted for years until a couple of mods apparently got sucked into Liberal’s idiotic drama about it and just accepted it. There’s never been discussion about it, a formal announcement about it or even a hint of mod agreement about it.
If someone’s banned, they’re no longer a member of the community and as open to bashing as any other non-member.
Unless this is now an official rule, in which case, please add it to the rules thread rather than just hoping people will just kinda sorta know that this rule exists, howsabout we leave it up to individual’s own tastes as to whether it’s ok or “unseemly to bash people who have been banned”*.
ETA: Just saw Dex’s note. I’m only speaking about part 1. I understand this board’s philosophy on trolls.
*To use Liberal’s argument
Can we still make Buckeye quips?
The difference is that any other non-banned member can sign up to respond to any attacks made, while the banned ex-member cannot.
Don’t be an idiot.
I’d love to see you document this claim.
We have been prohibiting posters from attacking banned posters since before I became a Mod in 2004. So, if Liberal got the policy “changed” after “years” of whining, it has still been in place for nearly a decade–well over half the life of the board–without anyone seriously challenging it.
(I am also curious why you put the blame on Liberal when the staff members whom I saw first enforce it rarely had any interaction with him.)
You have not been “prohibiting” it. There’ve been mods/admins who’ve used the phrasing Dex did “We don’t want…” which isn’t a prohibition, it’s a statement of preference. And usually that’s how it’s phrased “We prefer…” or “We don’t want…” not “It’s against the rules”. And to the best of my knowledge, there haven’t been any warning or mod notes about it, only about ignoring mod instructions regarding this preference.
Feel free to look through the rules or etiquette threads and show me the formal rule that says you can’t. The fact that Dex and some others don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s a rule.
What in the world does it matter if it’s an official rule or not? The point is, the general practice of this board is to close threads primarily about banned users, for the reasons Dex gave. Official rule or not, such threads have been closed and will be closed, as Dex, Jonathan Chance, and now even tomndebb have said.
Plus, the mods wouldn’t be able to Warn you for not listening if it was just them stating their personal preferences. If you can be punished for not following something, it is an order, not a preference.
And if you thought it was just a preference, then you had no reason to get upset at Jonathan Chance, as all he did was state his preference, the exact same way that Dex did.