The Evil Do-ers thread

[CiB]

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns

So you think public schools should not mention Hitler?

Someone always mentions him eventualy, don't they?

Completly different ball game, teaching people about Hitler, Musolini, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Stalin, Francon, etc, is different than sitting people down and explaining why each individual in the prison just outside town are currently sitting there. The current situation is far nearer to that. And the rules of the forum would serve the same purpose, only less personally.

Basicly, not even the worst spammer has anything like 6 million Jews (conservative estimate, thanks to death camps not really being great at record keeping. The entire Nazi State wasn't keen on it. As you may be able to tell, I was tought about Hitler.), unnumbered Slavs, Gypsies and other non Aryans.

Ricochet- after what you've done with your posts in this thread, it's alittle cheeky to accuse me of not contributing, isn't it? If you don't care, don't post.

To get back on topic: Thanks Double-J for actually adressing the initial issue. We do seem to have a different idea of tolerance- to me a slight step above no tolerance at all is not real tolerance.

[Rocky]

Where is the list of banned people? or am i reading it wrong?

[morshem]

Originally Posted by LBAWinOwns

So you think public schools should not mention Hitler?

OMG, Goodwin!

[CiB]

Originally Posted by morshem

OMG, Goodwin!

Or Godwin even.

Wait- doesn't that mean I win?

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

We do seem to have a different idea of tolerance- to me a slight step above no tolerance at all is not real tolerance.

I suppose we do.

You must consider tolerance to be complete moderator inaction (or an absence of moderation), while I consider tolerance to be moderators who act appropriately and with jurisprudence, but who are also willing to ultimately forgive.

[Medur]

Oh, gays, I just noticed this thread. Don't know if it was posted here, but it's related to the Evil-Doers list.

[Dredg]

Originally Posted by Medur

Oh, gays, I just noticed this thread. Don't know if it was posted here, but it's related to the Evil-Doers list.

I almost overlooked that!
Crafty.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by Medur

Oh, gays

Oh ssstop it, you sssilly goossse!

Watch it, you may have someone leave for homophobia, and I'd have to post another carving.

[Kitarii]

Originally Posted by CiB

Ricochet- after what you've done with your posts in this thread, it's alittle cheeky to accuse me of not contributing, isn't it? If you don't care, don't post.

I don't know what you mean by this, but I stand by what I've said so far.
I contribute a lot more than you, in posting and anything else.
When I said nobody cares, I meant nobody cares about the thread you seem so desperate to protest against.

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Double-J

I suppose we do.

You must consider tolerance to be complete moderator inaction (or an absence of moderation), while I consider tolerance to be moderators who act appropriately and with jurisprudence, but who are also willing to ultimately forgive.

Ah- see I would argue that due to the way the 'not banned anymore' list is being kept (and indeed, to an extent, where) is not forgiving at all.

I would never suggest that moderator tolerance was to do nothing. I think that when someone spams or whatnot the moderators should come down on them like an (imperial) ton of bricks. But when the due punishment has been dealt, the incident should be forgiven and forgotten. Ofcourse, this shouldn't apply all the time, and certainly not to cases where part of the punishment is permament. Baicly, the difference between our opinions seems to be that you believe in "forgive and remember", I believe in "forgive and forget", because remembering minor offences serves no real purpose, but to blow them out of proportion. Do those offences that people were banned for, but have been forgiven for, really warrant a permament "black mark" against people's name? Make no mistake, regardless of intent, thats what they read like.

Ricochet- what I meant is thats obscenly petty of you to bring post count into something like this as if it meant something. What gives an individual a right to participate and suggest changes to any community is not the quantity of there involvement, it's their potential and intelect. Your claim that I have no right to speak on this subject because I don't post a lot is simply wrong on both an intelectual and just level. I'm aware of what you meant when you said that no-one cares, but if that were the case, there'd be less posts in this thread. If no one cared about the evil-dorers thread, no one would be defending or attacking any of it- that is what has been going on for the last four pages of thread. Well, most of it, there are ofcourse, you're 'contributions' as well.

[Kitarii]

Originally Posted by CiB

Ricochet- what I meant is thats obscenly petty of you to bring post count into something like this as if it meant something. What gives an individual a right to participate and suggest changes to any community is not the quantity of there involvement, it's their potential and intelect. Your claim that I have no right to speak on this subject because I don't post a lot is simply wrong on both an intelectual and just level. I'm aware of what you meant when you said that no-one cares, but if that were the case, there'd be less posts in this thread. If no one cared about the evil-dorers thread, no one would be defending or attacking any of it- that is what has been going on for the last four pages of thread. Well, most of it, there are ofcourse, you're 'contributions' as well.

Woah blah blah okay, let's review.
All I was saying is that you hardly post and no one ever sees you which means that you are not a huge part of this community. Nothing about post counts making you less worthy or whatever you said, your elite "potential and intelect".
And you clearly weren't aware of what I meant, because I meant that it wasn't bothering anyone (save you).
I doubt I posted most of this thread either.
And "you're" means you are.
Also, you're making this pretty personal now. There's a thin line between debate and attack.

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

Also, you're making this pretty personal now. There's a thin line between debate and attack.

Damn skippy there is! I've avoided actual personal attacks, you'll notice where I'm "making this pretty personal" Is only in response to you, and only after you used large type and sarcastic tone. I didn't cross that line first. I shouldn't have followed you there, (I was forgetting my Kenobi- obscure Star Wars reference). So don't accuse me of "making this personal" until you're innocent.

Thanks for the grammar lesson, I think I'm allowed a coupole of slips in a body of text. Never have been a careful typist.

Speaking of careful, please make sure your implications are what you mean to imply Ricochet. Some of them so far have come close to pretty close to the point where I'd consider them offensive.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

Do those offences that people were banned for, but have been forgiven for, really warrant a permament "black mark" against people's name? Make no mistake, regardless of intent, thats what they read like.

If no one cared about the evil-dorers thread, no one would be defending or attacking any of it- that is what has been going on for the last four pages of thread.

Inquiry: Are you studying for a legal philosophy class or something, and you need to come up with a debate to present? Because that's what it sounds like.

To your statement about "black marks," explain to me how 'forgive and forget' makes sense when many times, offenders are habitual (especially on the internet). As some have said, small, little things are easily forgotten and not kept in the record.

What is kept in the record? Bans. The ultimate moderator action against perceived rule violations. They aren't handed down often, and when they are, it is (generally) for something obvious (except in a couple of cases we've had where people have defended themselves for a perceived unfair moderation procedure, which happens very infrequently).

Why do criminals have rapsheets? Why do felons have a "three strikes" law in the United States? It is because many offenders are habitual, particularly those of violent crimes, and there must be not only a record of their actions for those who violated the law for their own needs, but for the community who must deal with this person being (eventually) reintegrated into society.

Even if members aren't habitual offenders - to put them in that frame of mind makes this sound more like a prison society than an internet forum - bans are something extremely rare around here (outside of spambots and sockpuppets), so keeping a record of them is valuable not only to provide forum members with a reference record, but also for the simple fact that, to this point, only one member (Obras) has objected to the thread, and only because the information presented there is (admittedly) biased and should be replaced.

[CiB]

No, I'm not studying any form of law or philosophy. I'm a mathematician, if you must know. What I'm currently 'studying' is high order calculus. It's kinda awesome.

Again, I have to pull this back on topic- you don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying or debating against. Permament bans should be on record (in my opinion- they are not 'forgiven', and thus should not be forgotten), the temporary ones that theoretically have been forgiven are anohter matter.

You'll also notice that I'm not against the records being kept for the moderators- they have access to stuff most don't (from what I've read), and this should be there, in my opinion. Yes, the keeping of 'rap sheets' makes perfect sense- but you'll find that the information on rap sheets is not public (to my knowledge), and rightly so. I'm not against the idea of keeping records of offences so that habitual offenders (as you put it) can be dealt with accordingly, I'm against keeping these records in a public and biassed way. 'Rap sheets' are not a record for the public.

Plus, most of the people on the 'not banned anymore' list are no longer 'habitual offenders' in any way.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by CiB

You'll also notice that I'm not against the records being kept for the moderators- they have access to stuff most don't (from what I've read), and this should be there, in my opinion. Yes, the keeping of 'rap sheets' makes perfect sense- but you'll find that the information on rap sheets is not public (to my knowledge), and rightly so. I'm not against the idea of keeping records of offences so that habitual offenders (as you put it) can be dealt with accordingly, I'm against keeping these records in a public and biassed way. 'Rap sheets' are not a record for the public.

Some states do not allow you to see criminal records (or make it conditional upon your reason for accessing them), but many in fact make them part of the public record.

Again, I have to pull this back on topic- you don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying or debating against.

Quite the contrary. I just don't think you've made any good argument for why the records shouldn't be made public, other than for privacy reasons; you are the only one concerned with this, all other members who responded to this thread have no problem with the records being public.

Unless you can give me some other fundamental reason (other than privacy) that these records should not be made public, I see no reason to change the system.

[Medur]

This thread is awesome.

[Double-J]

Originally Posted by Medur

This thread is awesome.

I concur. The only way to preserve its awesomeness for eternity is to close it.

[CiB]

Originally Posted by Double-J

I concur. The only way to preserve its awesomeness for eternity is to close it.

Starting to agree myself.

I just don't believe it is right to keep the records of bans in a public way. Clearly most disagree, and thus, while I still believe that I'm right (and you're all wrong- na na nana na ) neither side of this disagreement is going to convince the other that they're right.

Double-J- you've seen no reason why anything (but the biased nature of some of the recording) should be changed, and I've seen no reason why it should be kept. I think at this point we should probably just agree to disagree, as no one's position is changing, and Godwin came into effect a while back. I.e. I'll give in gracefully.

But what I've not seen any disagreement on is my point that, at least, the biased, personal and in some cases insulting reporting shouldn't be on. Everyone who said anything on that point, agreed. It's somewhat ironic that a thread devoted to keeping record of those Evil Do-ers who have flamed (as well as others) should contain flames of it's own. I'd be interested to see what the moderators think on this point though.

[Double-J]

If anything, I do think that the "Evil Doer's" thread probably should change its name to something a little less damning (maybe the "Moderation History" thread would be a better title) and, of course, the offensive or biased reports should be changed.

In the future, I think the best method would be to simply report the ban/action in that thread, with a brief description of the forum rule broken, the corresponding punishment (if any), and the duration.

[morshem]

As Atresica is the creator, I'd love to hear her opinion on the whole thing.

[Medur]

It'd probably be something like AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHRRARASD(&*(Q*@&36187 if she's a sensible human being.

[Battler]

- FireBall2K: What relevance does that post of mine, that you linked to, have to this thread?

[Streg]

but obras is right. Ukrainian prostitutes don't work in Ukraine. They prefer to work in places more warm and with more rich people to get payed by, like where I live.

But this doesn't changes there are Ukrainian prostitutes

[Aule]

A, slut, does not, have to, be a ,prostitute,!

[Homeless]

Aule is correct. Let me clarify that for you.