Can we ban quad?

[The Hen]

quad for many years has given me the shits.

Can we ban him?

He adds nothing but faecal matter and that makes my enjoyment of this Board less.

I would enjoy it here a lot more if he couldn't post.

This is not a question of ignoring him, this is a question of wanting his nick to be killed and for him to not have posting access here.

Is it really so bad?

[Sean]

Well if there was ever a candidate for banning it's him.

AFAIK this board does not make the same promise as the old CSB. If the powers that be banned him I don't think there would be any outrage.
A poll may be the way to go but only if it gets enough votes to represent the true majority.

Personally I'm happy to go with Admin's decision. We are lucky enough to have Admin that isn't corrupted by power.

Yet...

[SisterMaryFellatio]

EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE

[The Hen]

Argh. I feel better now.



It's amazing was a good head wash will do for you (well, me.)

[Lord Jim]

My initial reaction was to think, "sure why not?"

These comments:

He adds nothing but faecal matter

Well if there was ever a candidate for banning it's him.

Are certainly true; (and those are his good points)

But on further reflection, I'm having some second thoughts...

Not because banning Quad in and of itself would represent any sort of loss to the board; indeed, I'm sure it would represent an improvement. As I've said before, the guy has made clear that he's only here because he despises the place and the people who participate here. He unquestionably represents a toxic and odious presence.

No, my concern is certainly not for Quad; but rather for the precedent it would set, and because of the fact that once this line is crossed in one case, it could become easier to do it to others.

If Quad is to be banned, I personally would prefer that it be for some specific reason or set of reasons rather than what really amounts to the fact that he is widely disliked. There are other posters who wouldn't win popularity contests, and posters who could be held to be guilty of general assholeism...I'd really like to see a more specific criteria than that.

One that occurs to me is this idea of his that he has perfect right to post whatever personal information about anyone he chooses here, if he's able to somehow dig it up somewhere else on the net. There is one and only one reason for doing this; to try and bully and intimidate for the purpose of bullying and intimidating.

He obviously has no such right, and there's no reason this needs to be tolerated. Nor is there any reason that the folks who run the place should have to chase after him like the viagra spammers, deleting it when he does it.

If the criteria is established that any person who engages in that behavior is subject to being banned, (or perhaps a system of graduated discipline; first offense a warning, second a suspension, third time banning, for example) I would certainly have no problem with it.

Of course commonsense needs to be applied. If somebody references another person's spouse, and that person has already revealed on this board that they have a spouse, that may be rude, but it's not the same thing as posting somebody's real life name here who hasn't posted it on this board. (Which seems to be the silly equivalence that Andrew is trying to draw.)

And it's certainly not the same me thing as going out on the net and somehow digging up the spouses (or the poster's for that matter) full name, where they work, where live, their email address etc. and posting it here (to cite an extreme hypothetical example)

If the principle is to be established that just because you can find personal details about a poster on the net doesn't give the right to post them here, and that doing so will make you subject to progressive discipline, up to and including banning, I would certainly have no objection to such a policy.

[Scooter]

I am VERY uneasy about the notion of banning him, or anyone else (mine is the only "no" vote so far, although on reflection that might have been hasty; I probably should have reserved judgment until I read some more opinions). My thinking about this lines up pretty much with Jim's - no one should be banned just because we can garner a sufficiently strong majority of people who do not like him/her. I also agree with Jim that this notion of quad's, that just because personal information can be found somewhere on the net, by fair means or foul, means that it is ok to post it here, is complete bullshit (particularly since he and perhaps another poster appear to have taken full advantage of the unwitting public disclosure of profile info that occurred at CSB Reboot). But banning someone because of it, hmmm, don't think I'm there yet... I would be much more comfortable with such breaches of common human decency being visibly redacted out of their posts so that their spinelessness is visible in perpetuity for all to see. I don't think, in the end, that it is going to happen all that frequently that it will require a huge amount of work on the part of the admins (probably not more than if banned posters begin creating new nicks to begin posting again, at any rate).

So let the assholes continue to demonstrate their assholery to the world at large. If, as they claim, they have swarms of their "friends" observing what is going on here, so much the better.

[Sean]

Good points Jim and Scoot.

I agree that offences punishable by banning should be clearly posted. I'll bet that if they are, Quad will immediately break all of the rules as I strongly suspect that he wants to be banned. I believe that he wants to set himself up as the poster boy for the trio of fuckwits we left behind on the CSB. I'm not sure about the warnings, suspensions etc though... after all, we're not schoolkids (although it's hard to tell sometimes).

With Quad it's a lot more than the personal info he is posting. He has made it very clear that he has nothing but venom to bring here and we don't need that shite.

[@meric@nwom@n]

If there is any banning done would rather see Andrew banned. In my opinion he has brought a lot more grief with what he has posted and his personal attacks to the board than Quaddrivel has.

Everyone has a beef that bothers them the most I suppose. Quaddrivel participates in far fewer threads than Andrew does so it's easier to overlook.

[quaddriver]

I voted yes. You most certainly CAN. You also CAN read and post the PMs.

As much as it pains me to agree with LJ and scooter, their reasoning is correct, and not because it answers your poll no. Save their responses as an example of CORRECT behaviour cuz lord knows you need them.

Returning to an argument prolly 2 years ago, when you wanted to share control of the CSB with Gwen, I said she needed to remain in charge for no other reason than her unwavering ethical stance. I also stated with no ambiguity that if you (hen) or Gob would be given control, something like this would happen. Way to prove me right.

and note: In the other thread where you challenged me to prove you posted your names such that a person using google could find you, I did just that and you erased it. Did you erase the challenge itself? you should - it makes you look bad, but since it is a neutral event to have you look bad, I have preserved the exact wording of the challenge and the response - forever.

And note to scooter: again, repeating stuff that is said to you in a public forum is a far cry different than diggin on the net. I dont have to dig on the net to find things. I can simply ask. And when people make threats, I can ask with the force of law. your intentional blurring of that distinction is why you also occupy the DB moniker.

[Sue U]

I am highly opposed to banning anyone. We are all supposedly adults here and presumably have the maturity to understand the concept of "sticks and stones." There are precious few among us who have not engaged in assholery at some time. (That's why they invented the interwebs, apparently.) If you don't like what a particular poster is saying, no one is forcing you to read him/her or to respond. We have all been posting together long enough to have a pretty good idea of who and what can be taken seriously and who and what should be ignored. If you think someone is full of shit you are free to tell him/her. Or not. We can all develop our own opinions about the worth of someone's posting and what, if anything, we want to say about it. Everyone who posts here, simply by posting here, brings something of value to this board. By making the effort to express ourselves, we contribute to the conversation, whether anyone agrees with a particular perspective or not.

I think both Quad and Andrew have raised a good point about our supposed anonymity. Neither of them has ever made it difficult to find their RL identities, and from what each of us has posted and shared over the years it's certainly not hard to find any of us, either. I remember an exercise we conducted at CSB where in less than three minutes I found Big RR (complete with photograph and professional history). AndyH never made any secret of who is. By this point in the history of our series of tubes, presumably all of us have some sort of on-line presence that discloses our personal lives, and many of us here share those IRL connections. Why do we persist with the sham of anonymity on this board? Really, what is so awful about being who you are here as well as everywhere else on the Web?

[Rick]

NO...

[Sean]

It's a matter of courtesy Sue. If you, I or anybody else posted our own full resume here then fine. But common courtesy dictates that you should not divulge another's details without their permission.

Some people are themselves on the net and others adopt a persona... often somebody they want to be in real life but can't be for one reason or another. Good luck to them I say (as long as they don't stray into Gandalf territory).

Some choose to share their RL identity and some choose not to. That choice should be theirs alone and not made for them by somebody with an axe to grind. Just because the information is out there doesn't mean that it is okay to spread it further afield.

Different people want different levels of anonymity here and we need to respect that. As an example, I haven't actually consulted an atlas but I don't believe that there is a city in the US called Eastern Megalopolis...

[Guinevere]

I agree with Sue, LJ, and Scooter, and what Sean posted most recently. I despise Quad (a word I don't use often) and have since the Cat Talk days, but I don't think he should be banned because of the slippery slope that leads from the consequences of making that determination. I'm fine with the editing out of personal information that was revealed without permission.

Some of us have good reason for not putting our personal information out there, and as adults we should respect those reasons, even if we don't agree with them. Yes, it is pretty simple to find the real world identity of many of us --- but that doesn't mean we want that information posted on a message board where it is even more easily accessible to those who might like to make mischief and cause havoc.

[Lord Jim]

I think both Quad and Andrew have raised a good point about our supposed anonymity.

Here's my thinking on that....

What is the one and only possible motive that a person can have for digging up personal information about a poster, or their family and presenting it here?

I think that's pretty clear; the motive has got to be to try to intimidate, and to have a chilling effect on the posting of the person thus targeted.

The clear intent is to convey this message: "I can find out stuff about you. And if you don't stop saying what I don't want you saying, I will find out more and post it here and anywhere else I please, so you better shut up."

To give an example; a while back, Quad said that he could have a snow blower delivered to my house in three days. Now what is the only possible message that was intended to convey? It was intended to convey: "I know where you live buddy, so you better watch what you say." It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

If anyone can think of another reason for engaging in this behavior, I'd be delighted to hear it....

Obviously this isn't positive, it isn't even neutral. It's of a complete different order of magnitude than hurling insults, or posting conclusions one has reached about another poster's character based on what they have said here or how they have behaved here.

This type of behavior is sort of the cyber equivalent of throwing a rock through your window...It's a lot closer to making physical threats than it is to hurling insults.

If a handful of people are going to be permitted to engage in this sort of behavior, over time it can't possibly do anything but reduce participation overall, and encourage those who are left to start doing it in retaliation.

This is why, (though for reasons I've stated earlier I have a lot of reservations about banning people; even Quad) I have absolutely no problem with the idea of imposing a "restriction" or "standard of conduct" that would prohibit this.

[BoSoxGal]

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of imposing a "restriction" or "standard of conduct" that would prohibit this.

Ditto.

[quaddriver]

Hmmm curious.

To give an example; a while back, Quad said that he could have a snow blower delivered to my house in three days. Now what is the only possible message that was intended to convey? It was intended to convey: "I know where you live buddy, so you better watch what you say." It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

what are the odds Lord Jim is telling the truth? Lettuce examine:

Suffice to say, I can have a snowblower delivered to your supposedly unknown address tomorrow am by 9am sooner than you can correctly guess my salary within 25%, regardless of your previous assertion. and you know it. So who REALLY, is the liar?

I guess the last line of what I wrote is appropriate today eh? But to answer the question: LJ was not telling the truth. Big surprise there.

So apparently, for THIS matter, it does take a genius to figure out from LJs perspective what I said since he stated something polar opposite. but that is ok, we have what 5-6 recent threads (which I did not participate in, even tho Gob accused me of stirring shit up in them) in which he did the same to Andrew.

And the reality is, I would be able to hold up my end of the previously quoted quote simply because LJ TOLD me his address and GAVE me his phone number. I on the other hand did not tell him my salary which he previosuly stated was an amount. Which makes my statement true.

Now let me clarify something I said earlier: while the CORRECt response would be to vote no, I have asserted on another website that freedoms have to be taken away at time to preserve the greater good. I posted and stand by the assertion that the gang of 6 must be denied voice in order to preserve order.

Can you imagine if EVERY couple was as caustic and nasty has the owners here? In real life? Can you imagine if hey all processed reality as LJ does? What would ever be accomplished?

And indeed, the policing of the real world does in fact work. the gang of 6 as I refer to them are in fact banned or unwelcome EVERYWHERE else on the internet planet. this is soley why they are here. Internet dickwad theory at its best.

but the opposite must also be true. Correctness or proper behaviour has no place here, nor do those who practice them. I once had a PM convo with an atty from here/CSB counselling them to perhaps abandon this endeavor as his/her job requires a higher standard. In fact, given how they turn so quickly, its only a matter of time before they turn on that atty and send something to the bosses.

So banning me has no effect on me or anyone. Hen is right, I am looking in on a window....to a cage full of Krippen Virus victims. So is the rest of the world. If Gob was as aware as he likes to say he is, he would be aware that this place has become an example of what not to be. All I did was provide a link and asked 'what do you think of this?' to select people. fine, those select people are all therefore cunts, but they are also the other 7 billion people on the planet. sucks huh.

PS: this does not address the outright dishonesty and hypocrisy of the other thread where gob explicitly directed me to show posts from the CSB where he posted his familys names. and when I did, he accused me of outing his information and attacking his poor wittle daughter sniff sniff. (full exchange posted in other thread and on CSB for when he erases it) He of course is too cowardly to admit he is wrong. In fact I fully expect him to cover up all evidence of what he did.

[@meric@nwom@n]

I have to wonder about the results of the poll. Six yes, 6 no and one maybe, that was me, yet what I read here does not seem to agree with those numbers. Hen, put the dumbass on ignore. I keep loco on ignore and life is so much better.

[quaddriver]

especially since I was one of the yes votes....

[Scooter]

So a majority do NOT want to see quad banned, and therefore that makes us all terrible people.

I'm sure there's a thread of logic in there somewhere...

[The Hen]

You're right @w.

In fact I put him on ignore shortly after starting this thread. like I said in my second post, it was a head wash. it is washed now and I feel much better. I was even thinking of deleting the thread after I had just started.

I really don't know WHY he wants to be here. he is a nasty spiteful waste of skin that surely must have better places to pollute rather than here.

BUT ... With all that being said an done, the Board is a lot nice with an ignore button.

I just object to information from another site ( that was posted once and CANNOT BE removed) being posted here. That just proves to me what a crappy little shit he is.