[GEN] Remember the fallen

People who fake are sick individuals, really sick people with nothing better to do. It's difficult with so many members to know everyone. Pretty much you have to be a constant poster to be recognized on TFN.

 

Darth Hannibal / Corleone / Rascal was permbanned for faking Hannibals death a few years back.

Given the Lumberjedi situation, now this (and at least one other I'm vaguely aware of in the last year), I'm wondering why perpetrators of these pranks are not permbanned as a matter of course. It's the sickest type of trolling imaginable.

And if it's now customary just to slap the person posting the fake info with a soggy noodle, can you please unban Hannibal / Corleone & all his socks.

Thanks.

 

Given the Lumberjedi situation, now this (and at least one other I'm vaguely aware of in the last year), I'm wondering why perpetrators of these pranks are not permbanned as a matter of course. It's the sickest type of trolling imaginable.

The lumberjedi situation was a little different. In that case, the actual prank took place off-site, and could not be proven to trace back to him. Since, as a matter of course, we don't moderate off-site behavior, there was little we could do.

Kimball Kinnison

 

A thread was made here that proclaimed Lumberjedi's death. The thread poster (if I recall correctly) had claimed to have phoned Lumber's parents (or somehow otherwise verified) to confirm the death.


Anyway, forget that particular case. What of this one? Is posting fake-death-notices of JC members still a perm-ban offense? If not, why not?

 

I believe the conclusion we've arrived at in the MS is that a permban is the correct punishment for this sort of behaviour. It has no place on the JC, and in the past incidences we have indeed issued perma-bans for faking your own death.

 

Good.

But it's not just faking your own death, but faking the death of someone else too that needs to carry that weight of punishment (ie. cases similar to the Lumberjedi one, where a 3rd party was involved and the apparently 'dead' member possibly not part of the hoax).

 

But it's not just faking your own death, but faking the death of someone else too that needs to carry that weight of punishment (ie. cases similar to the Lumberjedi one, where a 3rd party was involved and the apparently 'dead' member possibly not part of the hoax).

And what about the case of someone who is tricked, off boards, into believing that another user is dead? If they post the information in good faith, they shouldn't be permbanned.

If we can confirm that it was intentional, we will ban. Otherwise, we aren't going to ban someone for being a victim of a prank themselves. That's hardly fair, even for a serious issue like this.

Kimball Kinnison

 

And what about the case of someone who is tricked, off boards, into believing that another user is dead? If they post the information in good faith, they shouldn't be permbanned.

That's when you look at member histories and usernotes. Given the people involved and the information given to the MS, a hoax was the only reasonable conclusion (which is what it turned out to be).

If details had been more hazy and less information available (which was the case with one of the troll attacks in 2003), it's hard to ban someone and it's better to err on the side of caution.

 

A person ought to get a death verified before taking it upon themselves to announce it to the JC populace. If they cannot verify the death themselves, yet posts the announcement anyway, and it turns out to be a hoax, that person ought to be punished.

If they continue to perpetrate a hoax via their own ignorance, then they should be punished.

Not a perm-ban, but certainly enough of a disincentive to make people think twice before the kneejerk posting of news of other JCers "deaths".

Right now I could announce the death of anyone at the JC, cause a lot of unnecessary grief by my trolling, and use the "someone tricked me" defence and get away with the hoax unpunished.

Anyone fearing a JC member death and who has not been able to verify beyond reasonable doubt it for themselves should bring it to the attention of a mod to investigate, and not post an RIP thread, or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

... in my opinion, of course.


Simple solution. Only mods are allowed to post RIP threads for dead JCers.

 

Simple solution. Only mods are allowed to post RIP threads for dead JCers.

Good call. Or perhaps only with specific moderator/administration approval.

 

Indeed. If my friend died and I had proof and thought it more fitting that I started the RIP thread than some 'generic mod', I could contact an admin with the evidence and have them OK me to start the thread.

If my proof was shaky at this point they can use their mod tools to examine any inconsistencies in the death.

If all looked legitimate to the MS, then I would then note this in the body of the message, or the mod in question could post in the thread or edit the first post to verify it.

Then we would have no more death hoaxes, even by duped JCers.

 

If details had been more hazy and less information available (which was the case with one of the troll attacks in 2003), it's hard to ban someone and it's better to err on the side of caution.


HAHA remember those people who made socks when C_O_R_U_S_C_A_N_T said he was leaving and then got banned for months/perm and he got banned for a weekend when he came back the next day? Remember that? that was funny LOLOL!!