Discussion in 'Communications' started by Senator Dzrekpo Amegnran, Sep 25, 2000.
Yes, thank you S&V. Exactly.
Exactly, s&v. Exactly.
Trollers....let my people go!
Exactly S&V, exactly. This board is supposed to be one of the premier and more respected SW boards out there. And if we are reduced to the profanity and vulgarity out there, then we set our standards lower than needed. Not a good way to go.
The high moral standards of this board have nothing to do with it. No board would stand for the things Kerry has done here. None.
Well, now that we are all in agreement regarding Kerry's nemesis status, what to do about PB and LC?
Is anything going to come from all of this?
I hope so.
Not in a million years.
First off, let me congratulate all of you for taking an internet message board a bit (and by "a bit," I mean much) too seriously.
Yes, Legal has gone over the line, I do not doubt that, nor do I doubt that his prior actions have warranted him a very extended banning (The word "permanent" is a bit too permanent for me). However, I do not think this warrants the treatment you guys have given to PB as of late.
PB has been one of our most consitent and reliable admins. To mark him for matters that are mostly out of his control is perhaps the most inane thing I have heard at the JC. PB is in a unique situation here, he loves his girlfriend, and his girlfriend is friends with legal. Now, they happen to live some distance apart, all three of them, so any interaction they have is limited to either internet chatting, or brief periods of personal interaction. This is a very difficult situation, and is why I don't really advocate internet relationships (other than the fact that I believe they are mostly frivolous and convoluted).
Preacherboy and Legal are anything but friends. I have talked to both of them offline, and I'm sure they know this, there is much badmouthing on both sides. PB's alleged friendship with legal is just that - alleged. There is no factual basis behind it, and it did not weigh on PB's actions at all.
Now, let me address the whole dopple_ganger password "conspiracy theory/scandal/whatever you overdramatic twits want to call it," I sincerely doubt there is any. Even if what the accusers are saying is true - that LC voluntarily gave legal her password, so what? Wow, she was warned by the admins, but really, how many of you have been warned by the admins and have continued to do exactly what they chastised you for. I have, we all have.
Please, let this issue die, it is of no importance to any of our lives, nor is it of any importance to how or why, or even how much fun we have posting here. SDA, I am truly shocked that you would create a thread like this. I thoughtyou were above this extremely low-level political crap.
Ooh, having left this place since this thread first started on Page 1... I thought I'd drop by and utter a simple, "Have I missed the battle?"
("IronParrot, you have missed the war.")
1.) Something I find very interesting. PB and LC used to ban Legal's names ALL THE TIME... he was banned on sight... this was as far back as July, I believe. Then came the "LC crisis" as some of you might refer to it... where the "Froggy" name supported them like hell... still made infractions here and there but guess what? It wasn't banned! However, after the whole LC thing, PB started banning Kerry regularly again.
Could be a coincidence.
2.) PB HAS been taking time off from the JC for the past month. He's become a "Sushi" of sorts for sure - handling internal things amongst the admins, the e-mail discussions, et cetera.
As for the banned-on-sight policy - I wrote it on the board in that "there can only be so many second chances" thread. I did not clear it through the admin e-mails first. Besides, in that thread, I explicitly stated that at the time of its writing, it was a PROPOSED policy and not set yet - though when most of the other admins agreed to it, we carried it out. Thus, PB may have missed the whole thing.
So why, some of you ask, has he still been banning Kerry "regularly"?
Well, actually, it's only in the major situations here and there... my GUESS is that perhaps someone else might have dropped him a little message over ICQ or whatever saying, "Please take a look at this thread."
Example: I don't frequent Community very much. I'm not totally aware of its policies, and whenever I see something borderline, I usually inform another admin or wait for multiple complaints before I touch it, or just monitor things carefully until they are CLEARLY out of hand. However, whenever someone drops me a message about a problem in Community, I go and check it out, even if I'm not totally aware of the established policy already at hand.
Have I received complaints about this? Well, yes I have... I vaguely remember a little incident about sigs or something that resulted in Dark Helmet receiving a temp ban about two weeks ago...
3.) How IWMIL got the Dopple_Ganger password, and PB's role in it:
I don't know. So I won't comment.
Or was it better not to even mention this point at all?
I noticed a few more spelling mistakes. Par exemple, it's "Ockham's Razor", I believe, not "Occam".
"PB has been one of our most consitent and reliable admins"
--I stopped reading after that, too funny. I don't think the postings of aliases should be recognized anyway.
Padme, stop being silly. There is fact, and there is what you would like to be fact.
Let your opinions of the person rest for a second, and look at their actions before you make silly comments.
And read the rest of my post, would I have picked such an obvious alias if I had any desire to hide my identity???
Which was a bad decision on your part, because violating a ban without admin approval (and you don't have any, to my knowledge) results in... guess what... ANOTHER BAN!
This has nothing to do with what I would or wouldn't like to be fact. It's unfolding on its own, I am nothing more than an amused observer. Given the history of the parties involved I found your comment funny, that's all. Now it appears that you've been banned again so you can direct any reply to my personal email.
You should not have returned, Helmet...
In all seriousness: I agree with IP that it's entirely possible that PB might have not acted on Kerry's alias for any number of reasons. It's clear to me that they're not exactly best of friends, so I don't think it was anything intentional. Could have just been a mistake. I don't know.
P4DM3 8R4- c4N 1 53nD y0U phUn74571C 3M41|5? 0H w3 w0u|d H4V3 50 mUCh phUn, y0U 4nD 1 4z 8UdD135! 1 w4N7 70 P|4y W17h Y0u, p|4YD473!
No kidding, Kylenn. All these kids that think they're "l33t h4x0rs" just because they downloaded a mIRC script....
Shutup. I programmed this in ASP and PHP!
One prog, two progs
Red box, blue box...
I have always been a firm believer in open dialogue, including even (and perhaps especially) the unpopular opinions. If there is one place on the entire JC where one should be allowed to defend oneself openly, it would be within this kind of thread. Banning on sight within the one thread appraising the situation -- and then deleting the posts -- would seem to be somewhat counterproductive.
(Banning on sight when sighted posting within other threads -- _very_ trackable using Snowboard's View Latest/All Posts option -- would be another thing again.)
This is rapidly becoming, not justice, but a witchhunt.
PB, is the novelty of your new found toy going to wear off any time soon? I was just wondering. It's not like we all can't read it and uh, I don't go that way.
Kida I see what you're saying about banning people on sight but what you have to understand is that they tried to IP ban him and for certain reasons it didn't work. So for all intents and purposes, the guy's IP banned. Therefore, yes, he should be deleted and banned on sight whenever he returns whether he breaks the rules or not. He was allowed a few posts to tell his side of the story but then after that it quickly degenerated as it always does.
I appreciate your insight, Padme Bra. Clearly I had not been following these discussions at all.
Kida, if you had read the things that IWMIL had posted in relation to my brother and as threats to others, you would understand why it's necessary to ban him every time he posts, as soon as he posts. He is not only a troll, but a worthless human being. If I could post some of the things he's written in other forums, I would. However, given the content and deep offensiveness, that isn't possible. You'll just have to trust me on that.
PreacherBoy: "You all need to stop taking things so seriously. If you're unable to do that because you're stuck in a cycle, I recommend calling Dr. Robert and getting a 'prescription.'"
PreacherBoy, if you, Lord Chewy and IWMIL didn't give us things to "take seriously", threads like this one would not persist. Given the many inconsistencies, half-truths and outright lies revealed in this and other threads, we have reason to discuss and debate this issue. No one here is above scrutiny; not you, not me, and certainly not Lord Chewy.
PreacherBoy: "'IWMIL's status on the JC just slipped my mind.'
'IWMIL's le mode sur le JC a juste glissÃ© mon esprit.'
'IWMIL's status auf dem JC glitt gerade meinen Verstand.'
'IWMIL's la condizione sul JC ha slittato appena la mia mente.'
'IWMIL's o status no JC deslizou apenas minha mente.'
'IWMIL's el estatus en el JC acaba de deslizar mi mente.'"
PreacherBoy, just because you can write the same exact thing in several languages doesn't mean that you're an effective communicator. In fact, you're not.
(By the way, your French is severely flawed.)
Chyren: "I also saw her abusing the rules of the JC the other day by posting obscenities, which went unedited by PB, who was posting at the same time. LC laughed it off, but she also tried to preach to others about ethics at the JC. Hypocrisy...why is LC permitted to get away with things that lead to banning, or at the very least, deletion of posts, for other members?"
I question this double-standard as well. If it was anyone but Lord Chewy, rest assured that they would have been long gone. Let's not make exceptions: a troll is a troll is a troll. Lord Chewy's behavior of late constitutes her as such.
PreacherBoy: "Because Lord Chewy wouldn't want to hurt her reputation, and get banned like this."
It's too late for that, PreacherBoy. Even though she's the girlfriend of an Administrator, she's just a member of this board, and doesn't have any more rights, priveleges, or chances than the rest of us. At least she shouldn't.
Hard as it might be, it's time to stop making excuses for her and protecting her. It may be difficult to do, but, as an Administrator, it's your job to be objective. You haven't shown us that you can do this.
Violate the rules of membership on this board, suffer the consequences. It's long past time for Lord Chewy to own up, for PreacherBoy to step aside, and for consequences to be doled out appropriately.
Farraday: "...maybe it's time for you to step back and re-evaluate what you want from the JC..."
That's exactly what we're doing here...taking some time and effort to evaluate what we want and expect from this board. This is an important exercise in self-honesty and check and balances. Apple butter!
PreacherBoy: "Juliet is still innocent here. She had no idea he would do this."
Excuse me if I have a lot of trouble believing this. She's the same person who, soon after Dark Helmet commandeered Wattowatta's EZBoard, started a thread in said EZBoard entitled "Dark Helmet Rules".
Innocent? I think that word needs to be re-evaluated.
Kyle Katarn: "Kerry is just misunderstood. A lot of you guys need to lighten up and quit taking things so frickin seriously."
Kyle, perhaps you haven't been clued in to the full extent of Kerry's latest wave of attacks. If you'd like, I'll send you examples of such. Just let me know.
If you think that he's just "misunderstood" after reading through those foul diatribes, perhaps you have some issues that need examining.
Enter_The_Helmet: "Please, let this issue die, it is of no importance to a