Question Threads on banned members (answered)

[blipper]

re: discussion of banned members - I understand and agree with the relaxing of rules when it's pertinent to props/board history, I don't understand though why a "congrats" thread to a member who was rightfully banned is still active. What exactly is it's purpose if the banned member ostensibly can't read it?

 

[defstartrooper]

Re: Threads on banned members

I don't believe there is a stipulation that discussion of banned members be prop related, i may be wrong but i don't see it anywhere.
As far as i know the only rules are that the discussion stay within the bounds of the existing rules that also apply to active members, e.g baiting, trolling, spamming etc.

There are a thousand pointless threads in the OT i don't believe pointless is good enough reason to stop a discussion is it ? the forum would be pretty bare if that were the case.

The staff requested people not start a discussion as to why the member was banned that's their only request.

 

[blipper]

Re: Threads on banned members

I'd argue that "life updates" on banned members is pretty contentious to those who saw the banned members exit as a welcome one and none too soon.

 

[defstartrooper]

Re: Threads on banned members

How about if the thread were titled Congrats Danica ? still object ?

I can understand you personally didn't like the bloke and that's cool but come on man it's just a thread congratulating someone on becoming a parent, is it really a big deal to you that the thread exists ?
You still don't have to have any contact or anything with the guy, he has no voice here, it's not like he even asked anyone to post on his behalf or anything.

 

[Art Andrews]

Re: Threads on banned members

re: discussion of banned members - I understand and agree with the relaxing of rules when it's pertinent to props/board history, I don't understand though why a "congrats" thread to a member who was rightfully banned is still active. What exactly is it's purpose if the banned member ostensibly can't read it?

blipper,

I understand where you are coming from but for the most part, we, as a staff, are trying to take as much of a hands off approach as possible. The OP didn't know Mike was no longer a member... so should we have closed the thread immediately? Some would take that as a further slight or "proof" of the staff holding ill will towards Mike (although logically it wouldn't be since he is no longer a member). And while Mike shouldn't be able to see the thread... he has... so hopefully he is enjoying the congrats regarding his child and reveling in his continued infamy.

In regard to the larger issue of allowing members to discuss banned members, we really don't want to put any more stipulations on a rule than necessary as we don't want to become too legalistic and require each rule to have a myriad of subpoints and subsubpoints, where you are allowed to post about issue x, except on Wednesdays, and expect when there is a blue shirt involved... but if a blue shirt IS involved you can talk about it if there was also a horse... We just don't want to do that. It is hard enough getting members to remember the current rules, as simplified as they are! We still have members reporting posts where banned members are being mentioned, quoting the now defunct rule regarding no discussion of banned members!

 

[stapleton13]

Re: Threads on banned members

blipper,

I understand where you are coming from but for the most part, we, as a staff, are trying to take as much of a hands off approach as possible. The OP didn't know Mike was no longer a member... so should we have closed the thread immediately? Some would take that as a further slight or "proof" of the staff holding ill will towards Mike (although logically it wouldn't be since he is no longer a member). And while Mike shouldn't be able to see the thread... he has... so hopefully he is enjoying the congrats regarding his child and reveling in his continued infamy.

In regard to the larger issue of allowing members to discuss banned members, we really don't want to put any more stipulations on a rule than necessary as we don't want to become too legalistic and require each rule to have a myriad of subpoints and subsubpoints, where you are allowed to post about issue x, except on Wednesdays, and expect when there is a blue shirt involved... but if a blue shirt IS involved you can talk about it if there was also a horse... We just don't want to do that. It is hard enough getting members to remember the current rules, as simplified as they are! We still have members reporting posts where banned members are being mentioned, quoting the now defunct rule regarding no discussion of banned members!

Most of us appreciate the way you guys run this place.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Threads on banned members

OT point of interest... what is OP?

 

[defstartrooper]

Re: Threads on banned members

Original Poster = OP

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Threads on banned members

Ah... thanks a bunch. I kept wracking my brain with that... :cheers

 

[blipper]

Re: Threads on banned members

Thanks for the considered reply, Art. I appreciate your reasoning even if I feel unsure of the outcome and where it might lead.

 

[Art Andrews]

Re: Threads on banned members

Thanks for the considered reply, Art. I appreciate your reasoning even if I feel unsure of the outcome and where it might lead.

Trust me... I am unsure of the outcome and where it might lead as well.

One thing I can assure you though, we aren't so arrogant to believe that some of the things we are trying might not turn out to be mistakes and if a time comes where we see that a decision or rule change we have made is not working in the greater interest of the site as we had hoped, we are more than willing to change the rule until it works.

I feel like a broken record, but I also feel that I need to mention that there are a small handful of rabble-rousers who seem to take pleasure in exploiting the technical loopholes in the rules and all I can say is, those individuals will either stop or they will no longer be welcome here. No set of rules will ever be perfect or all encompassing but the rules are in place in an effort to maintain as much civility as possible and to keep the site focused on its purpose; talking about props, costumes, and models. Those who are simply here to incite discord, needle the staff, and in general make a nuisance of themselves... well, they may have been given a pass in the past, but those days are quickly drawing to a close.

 

[Lear60man]

Re: Threads on banned members

"Those who are simply here to incite discord, needle the staff, and in general make a nuisance of themselves... well, they may have been given a pass in the past, but those days are quickly drawing to a close." Posted By Art Andrews.

Good for you. Easing up on the not talking about banned members rule was long over due. The guy had/has a few vocal members but the majority welcomed his ban. We come here to be creative, unwind and not have to play mental gymnastics. People who continue to harass people here should be let free. Oh and I hope their child grown up to be an Astronaut. (no more manned missions to space joke)

 

[defstartrooper]

Re: Threads on banned members

So lets get it straight, there's no problem talking trash about a banned member but congratulating them on becoming a parent is out of order ?
It really grinds my gears this place because one person doesn't share the same view as someone else or a staff member then anything they disagree with is labelled as baiting or trolling when in 99% of cases it's neither, it's just an opposing view.
Life would be wonderful if everyone agreed and drank a coke or pepsi ( lets not exclude anyone ) and held hands and sang happy songs about pretty birds and cute fluffy baby rabbits, but that's not the real world, in the real world people have opposing views on things, to try and make this place any different is a futile mission because this place is made up by real people.
If you just want a forum where everyone's everyone elses buddy and you all see eye to eye on everything good luck with that, i don't see it ever happening but go ahead and try.

The staff here put their own personal opinions before objectivity and that's fine it's their forum they pay for but why try dress it up as being objective and looking out for everyone ?

I'm sure i'll get another " baiting " ( good coverall blanket statement that one ) warning on my profile for this opinion too.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Threads on banned members

Def... don't get banned... then I don't have anyone to spar against... WAAAAAH :cry

And now we are on the subject... some people are simply cry-babies... reporting people and threads for no reason other than them not sharing their own POV. Don't give the cry-babies power.

 

[blipper]

Re: Threads on banned members

excuse me?

 

[blipper]

Re: Threads on banned members

Care to expand in a more respectful and constructive manner, Garlic? Because where I'm standing it appears your only contribution so far is to insult those who don't share your POV.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Threads on banned members

General statement about why some threads gets locked/deleted. If I don't like a thread, I don't keep reading it to keep getting offended, but I guess some can't help themselves and when things aren't going their way, they report the thread or user to the staff.

And yes, I'm an insulting a-hole.

 

[blipper]

Re: Threads on banned members

So you're basically saying that if someone is bothered by something they should ignore it. Why aren't you following your own advice then?
Seriously Garlic, I'd love to know your reasoning here. Is it that you're saying it's valid for you to comment on something that bothers you, but not for me to comment on something that bothers me?

And yes, I'm an insulting a-hole.

And there's the crux, the very vocal "personalities" on the RPF that feel compelled to weigh in on any issue and show obvious contempt toward those who don't share their point of view.
Fortunately I've come to find over the years that there's a far classier, very talented and less vocal type of member that largely comprises the RPF and keeps it a place worth dropping by.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Re: Threads on banned members

So you're basically saying that if someone is bothered by something they should ignore it. Why aren't you following your own advice then?
Seriously Garlic, I'd love to know your reasoning here. Is it that you're saying it's valid for you to comment on something that bothers you, but not for me to comment on something that bothers me?

You can comment all you like. If you feel compelled to do so. I wasn't directing my reply at you, but it was a continuation of what Def was saying. Apparently you felt it was aimed at you, to which I can only say it wasn't.

And I'm an a-hole because I'm so abso-freaking-lutely good looking, but since I wasn't on your case... what's your issue with me?

So where does that leave us? Absolutely nowhere. Now. We can go round and round, scowl and growl at each other over something that is basically a misunderstanding of the intent behind my post or we could call it a day, chill out and have fun instead of pulling each other down over absolutely nothing.

 

[defstartrooper]

Re: Threads on banned members

And there's the crux, the very vocal "personalities" on the RPF that feel compelled to weigh in on any issue and show obvious contempt toward those who don't share their point of view.

That's an interesting statement because you could interpret the following as contempt toward someone who doesn't share your view also.

those who saw the banned members exit as a welcome one and none too soon

Now i'm not saying it was your intent to show contempt toward Mike but i'm sure if you look at it you'll agree it could possibly be read as such when coupled with an objection at what really is a harmless thread congratulating a friend on what is a lifechanging and happy event in their life.

I don't recall seeing Mike ever call anyone specific names or threaten anyone or harrass any individual, at least not publically on the forum, he may well of but i don't recall seeing it personally.
He vocalised his opinion on a number of subjects and those opinions may have clashed with others opinions but i don't believe he ever made it personal.

Do you really expect everyone to agree with everyone else on every subject ?
I know i don't, but that doesn't mean i label everyone with an opposing view as baiting, trolling or harrassment.
And really should having a view on a subject be a banworthy crime even if those opinions happen to be in the minority or against the opinions of the person with the banhammer ?

Some might call that self serving censorship.