Why was KO2 banned?

[sharkman]

And now Jazz has joined the 'goodbye cruel world' act, although he'll have quite a time of it to match figleaf's act of a fatally wounded man stumbling back and forth in death throes ad nauseum as the audience starts to wish he would finally keel over. To them, kuzzad and all the other whiners, here's a tip you never hear in liberal circles: Life. Ain't. Fair.

Edited July 27, 2007 by sharkman

[betsy]

And now Jazz has jointed the 'goodbye cruel world' act, although he'll have quite a time of it to match figleaf's act of a fatally wounded man stumbling back and forth in death throes ad nauseum as the audience starts to wish he would finally keel over. To them, kuzzad and all the other whiners, here's a tip you never hear in liberal circles: Life. Ain't. Fair.

What are the chances they'll be back. Under a different name. Then we go through all the motion again.

[Moxie]

This thread has turned into the snot and bawlers' flouncing thread, merci sa va. Anyone got some tissue for the cry babies??

[Figleaf]

I won't miss the shear determined arseholery that certain obmoxious people want to put on display hereabouts. Or the 'jerkhoodness', for that matter.

[B. Max]

I won't miss the shear determined arseholery that certain obmoxious people want to put on display hereabouts. Or the 'jerkhoodness', for that matter.

Figleaf. if you are banned, how are able to post.

[jefferiah]

I won't miss the shear determined arseholery that certain obmoxious people want to put on display hereabouts. Or the 'jerkhoodness', for that matter.

OK Figleaf, look, you are un-banned now. It's over. You are not the first person to get banned, but you have done the best job dragging it out. So if you want to go, leave, stop whining. But if you want to stay, stay. No one here is overly mad at you, but all this self-pity over being banned from a little website is getting a little much. Is this worth it? I've been banned from places before. Whooopp deeeeee dooo! It's not like they sent you to Siberia to do hard labour and live on bread and water. Do you have anything else to talk about other than the horrible injustice you suffered? If not, then take a hike, for real this time. Or suck it up, get over it, and get back in the business of posting over some issue that is not Figleaf.

[sharkman]

Fig never was banned. No one banned Fig. Fig banned this forum. All this nonsense was from a suspension. There have been many suspensions before, but this one is undoubtedly the whiniest.

[jbg]

Greg and Charles are doing a good job. It's not an easy job to moderate.We know when we crossed the lines....and try to get right back on the right track asap.

On balance, I tend to agree, though I have seen some cases where some sexually explicit screen names have remained flying for a long time.

I have some empathy though; I am generally a responsible poster and have been banned without warning by two left-wing forums and one right-wing forum. the left-wing DailyKos (link to thread atop offending comments and CanadianLatitude (link to main board) have permitted posters to post personal insults (link on DailyKos) and similar statements on CanadianLatitude (link) that would normally not be tolerated on a board.

Having said that, applause for Greg and Charles!!!

[buffycat]

Hey jbg, I'd be happy with being banned from Daily Kos... my opinion of them has hitter the crapper lately.

WRT banning without any notice - that's exactly what happened to me. I am still waiting for an explanation after three emails to Admin.

Having also moderated a board or two myself - I have to say it took an awful lot for my recommendation to ban anyone - unless there was actual harrassment (overt sexual trolling or leaking of personal info) I don't agree with any kind of ban.

Hey - but that's just me.

How is your summer btw jbg?

[jbg]

In the time I've been here (going on 2 years and 2000 posts), I've received maybe three warnings. You mean you've NEVER received ONE warning EVER? Really? With your mouth, and 3300 posts, I don't believe that.

I received a warning for mis-spelling the name of the "natural ruling party of Canada", and was told that using a name that was the title of an Economist article about Canada's PM between December 12, 2003 and February 6, 2006 would result in a warning.

[jbg]

Bye, Dancer, I won't miss you.

I think he was saying goodbye to you, not the Board.

Also, once Dancer explained what a "pillock" was and I just can't remember. Perhaps he can favor (favour???) us or me with a repeat.

[Charles Anthony]

and was told that using a name that was the title of an Economist article about Canada's PM between December 12, 2003 and February 6, 2006 would result in a warning.

The intention of this forum is not to sell newspapers or advertizing space.

[Greg]

I received a warning for mis-spelling the name of the "natural ruling party of Canada", and was told that using a name that was the title of an Economist article about Canada's PM between December 12, 2003 and February 6, 2006 would result in a warning.

To be fair - I warned all members who used the term 'Mr. Dithers' to only use the term in relation to the Economist article. Just because the Economist coined the term Mr. Dithers in one of their article, wasn't a good reason to use the term to insult the Prime Minister of Canada. The same goes for any misspelling of names that isn't respectful - Harpo, LIEberals, etc.

[M.Dancer]

Only took four days......bye again....... til the next time you say bye.

You sdidn't expect her to keep her word did ya?

She will be back, as she was in the past under a different persona, a different figleaf to cover her shame.

[M.Dancer]

I won't miss the shear determined arseholery that certain obmoxious people want to put on display hereabouts. Or the 'jerkhoodness', for that matter.

I tell you it pays sometimes to look at old threads that got boring....jesus on a trike....how many times must you threaten to leave before you do?

[M.Dancer]

Bye, Dancer, I won't miss you.

I think he was saying goodbye to you, not the Board.

Also, once Dancer explained what a "pillock" was and I just can't remember. Perhaps he can favor (favour???) us or me with a repeat.

It's like a prat or a plonker, only more so.

To quote the English to American dictionary..........

pillock n. Idiot. You could almost decide having read this dictionary that any unknown British word is most likely to mean "idiot". And you could almost be right. We have so many because different ones sound better in different sentences. On the subject of the word in hand, I am told by a contributor that it's a contraction of the 16th century word "pillicock" (describing the male member) and by another (who admits to not being completely sure) that this may be a male animal with one lone testicle and derived from "bullock". It's funny, even if it's not true...

[sharkman]

You sdidn't expect her to keep her word did ya?

She will be back, as she was in the past under a different persona, a different figleaf to cover her shame.

LOL! I often find myself laughing to your sharp wit and this one about the figleaf was just perfect.

[jbg]

To be fair - I warned all members who used the term 'Mr. Dithers' to only use the term in relation to the Economist article. Just because the Economist coined the term Mr. Dithers in one of their article, wasn't a good reason to use the term to insult the Prime Minister of Canada. The same goes for any misspelling of names that isn't respectful - Harpo, LIEberals, etc.

That is fair, and I was also new to the Board at the time.

I had come from another board which was rife with all of the above mis-spellings. This Board had constituents that dislike Harper and Martin equally.

[Argus]

One more general recommendation:

To maintain civilized discussion and debate, if a member violates a forum rule, report it and leave it to a moderator to handle the violation. Do not take it upon yourself to feed any flames.

The problem is that such reports are usually not acknowledged, and whatever action, if any, is taken, is private. This tends to leave people with the impression nothing has been done, and so they respond in kind to provocation.

[betsy]

The problem is that such reports are usually not acknowledged, and whatever action, if any, is taken, is private. This tends to leave people with the impression nothing has been done, and so they respond in kind to provocation.

Yes, I remember a time when several people were voicing their frustration, and the ensuing arguments escalated in that particular thread (can't remember which one), ending up getting locked.

Charles, is there a possibility that a "notice" thread be in place so you can post which poster(s) was warned, suspended, or banned for what particular statement or incident?

This will also make these mistakes serve as real samples as to what is not allowed on the board.

Edited August 4, 2007 by betsy

[Charles Anthony]

This tends to leave people with the impression nothing has been done,

Tough luck.

---

It is nobody's place but that of the Moderators to discuss or inform anybody about how violations are addressed. I have said this before and I will say it again: if you believe a rule is broken, report and ignore it.

and so they respond in kind to provocation.

Do not feed the flames or you will be treated in kind.

Charles, is there a possibility that a "notice" thread be in place so you can post which poster(s) was warned, suspended, or banned for what particular statement or incident?

Yes that is possible but that is for Greg, the Forum Administrator, to decide -- not me.

Personally, I do not like the idea at all because that invariably leads to a personal attack nag-a-thon thread. Just take a look at any other online forum that has such a sub-forum.

If such a thread were to be instituted, I would quit moderating. That is how much I disagree with it.

This will also make these mistakes serve as real samples as to what is not allowed on the board.

Follow the forum rules -- which are quite simple and clear, I might add -- and you will be fine. Edited August 4, 2007 by Charles Anthony

[Melanie_]

I agree, Charles, that there shouldn't be a thread about warnings, suspensions, etc, unless it was a read-only thread for everyone but the moderators. Even then, it would probably just spillover into other threads.

[Electric Monk]

One of the other forums I frequent has a very open moderating style where instead of only privately messaging a rule breaker, they also post the warning in the thread itself, right after the offensive post. This serves a number of purposes. First, it embarrasses the offender, which hopefully leads to greater future compliance with the rules. Second, it provides others with a re-enforcing example of consequences for rule breaking. Third, it shows that rules are being enforced, and why the punishment is occurring.

A downside to this is that it possibly requires more work on the part of the moderators, and thus more moderators, but in my opinion it is a far superior method of handling conflicts. I much prefer an open and accountable government to one that is secret and unaccountable.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Electric Monk

[ScottSA]

The less moderating the better.

[Michael Bluth]

Follow the forum rules -- which are quite simple and clear, I might add -- and you will be fine.

I don't know if the rules are as clear and simple as you make them sound.

The first rule in the list is be polite and respect others.

If a warning is necessary for the behaviour of a poster shouldn't it be given in a polite and respectful manner?