Has the time come...

[Daisy]

Given everything that's happened in the last couple of weeks is it time LoCAtek took a substantial break from the board?

I'm thinking 2 months this time.

The co-owner of this board has walked away because of the constant harassment from loCA. This toxic spiral needs nipping in the bud and the ONLY way through it that i can see is a second suspension.

Any other suggestions will be welcome of course - I'm giving this poll 24 hours from 10PM BST

Thanks

Daisy

[Lord Jim]

Any other suggestions will be welcome of course

I would suggest that 24 hours is too short a window. It seems to me it should be something like 48-72 to give more posters a chance to vote, (and to make any arguments pro or con that they would like to make, and to give others a chance to consider those arguments)

ETA:

I'd also like to ask if the poll is set up so that people can change their votes. (It seems to me it should be, in case people's minds are changed based on what others have to say) Thanks.

[Gob]

I agree with Jim that a longer time frame would be an advantage. (Think of the arguments )

But I must stress that it was not just Lo's obsession with Hen which led to Hen taking a break.

[Daisy]

I understand that Gob. But would she have coped with work and all the other stuff of life and NOT felt the need to suspend her own account if it hadn't been for the constant baiting?

I'll extend the poll out to 2 days, carrying it on any longer is pretty pointless. Those who care will vote those who don't won't.

A change of mind is also granted.

[Gob]

Cheers darling!

[Gob]

BTW, has anyone got a running total on the number of threads dedicated to discussing Lo's problem causing here?

I think I may add links to them in this debate, so we can see the extensive history of Lo's willful problem causing.

[Lord Jim]

Thanks Daze....

[Gob]

So, here, from the News section is a smorgasbord of threads on the problems caused here by one member...


Enough is enough, should loCAtek be banned permanently?

Lo's thread about Board Rules

What are the board rules?

Editing, if you will ...?

How to solve a problem like....

Let's give her all the time she needs

Ban her

Not to mention a whole sub forum, opened at her request in which she abused the patience of the whole board, and totally failed to substantiate anything she claimed.

[Econoline]

All of those threads date from months ago and have been inactive since early May, or earlier (except for the one that Gob revived recently), so they don't do anything to argue that this, now, is "the time." (It also doesn't seem fair to count against Lo the threads others have started to attack her.)

[Lord Jim]

I agree with Econo in part, and disagree in part....

I agree that anything that she posted or was posted in reference to her behavior prior to her last suspension shouldn't really be relevant for consideration for her suspension now, since that was already used as the basis for her prior suspension, and she was supposed to be able to start with a "clean slate"....(Obviously she's done a lot of scribbling on that slate since then but for me anyway, that's what would be relevant)

On the other hand, I don't necessarily see threads that were started by other people as threads set up to "attack" her so much as threads set up either to discuss behavior she was engaging in in other threads (and what if anything should be done about it...like the thread asking whether or not it was time for her to banned) or threads that were set up specifically to get derailing posts LoCa was making out of other threads into a single thread (Like "LoCa's Own Attention Thread" and "Lo's Inquisition" .)

[Econoline]

Okay, I agree that was a poor choice of words. Substitute "criticize" or "rebuke" then.

[Gob]

Just to point out that the reason I listed those threads was to remind people that Lo has been for a long time, and continues to be, a persistent and willful detriment o this board, no more, no less.

This is not a new phenomena, Lo has deliberately set out to become a pariah here, and has achieved that.

[Econoline]

Given the timeframe of those threads, it might also indicate (to a mythical unbiased outside observer) that for the last 3 or 4 months she hasn't repeated the behavior that got her suspended before. Just sayin'.

[Crackpot]

She's been edging her way toward it with her "supports domestic violence" crap.

At the moment I don't feel too strongly one way or another her crap seems relatively confined and if she wants her existence to be an example of "what not to do" thats fine with me the world needs cautionary tales.

[Joe Guy]

Other than Hen leaving, this is not anything like the last mess.

In my opinion, unless I've missed it & that's very possible, LoCa has kept her silly baiting troll posts limited to one or two threads.

She doesn't need to be suspended. She needs to be avoided.

I highly doubt anyone here accepts any of her words as having any relation to fact anymore.

She's gone into the quadzone.

Suspension would just allow her to continue to declare herself the victim.

And that's fine as long as people don't continue to react.

[Gob]

Given the timeframe of those threads, it might also indicate (to a mythical unbiased outside observer) that for the last 3 or 4 months she hasn't repeated the behavior that got her suspended before. Just sayin'.

Those threads have been only the ones started directly to address Lo's behaviour. Her abusing of me and Hen and the board has happened continuously since her return in many many many threads.

[Sue U]

As I have said previously, I object to suspensions and bannings as a matter of principle. I think everyone should have the right to post what they want, and others can read it or not, and respond or not. We're all supposedly adults here. I can only conclude that those who participate in these feuds and flame wars must be getting something out of their participation, otherwise they wouldn't do it. If people want to shit all over each other all the time, that's fine with me, and I'm happy to stay out of it since I don't come here for that. However, it becomes a problem for me when the shit flinging spreads to a wider number of active threads, as I am less and less inclined to wade through the accumulating shit to find some nugget of interest.

[Scooter]

Given the timeframe of those threads, it might also indicate (to a mythical unbiased outside observer) that for the last 3 or 4 months she hasn't repeated the behavior that got her suspended before. Just sayin'.

Accusing the admins of condoning criminal behaviour and impugning their professional reputations was part of the ongoing pattern of harassment which led to her suspension, and which she has repeatedly taken up again in the past couple of weeks in direct violation of her probation.

[Lord Jim]

I haven't voted yet in this...

I was all prepared to vote no, because I see this pretty much they way that CP and Joe have expressed it...(as I laid it out in a post in the "Inquisition" thread a couple of days ago)

However I hadn't voted yet, because I'm also fully sympathetic and understanding of those who are just full up with the cumulative effect of this...There's no question that it's quite exasperating....

So because I see the merit in both positions, I was beginning to think that I just wouldn't vote at all...

And that may be where I end up...

However, it seems to me that this strange, cryptic comment of LoCa's from last night has added something new to the mix:

Very well, for the board notice and not addressed to any specific party: this matter is now being reviewed by neutral counsel.

As that stands by itself, it's virtually impossible to tell what it's supposed to mean....

It could be anything from her way of trying to convey that she's finally going to stop dragging this out....(a good thing)

To, all the way at the other end of the spectrum, some sort of veiled threat against the the board itself, and it's owners and/or members...(which Keld has speculated on.)

If anything like that is what she intended, then I strongly believe that the administration of this board would be fully justified in suspending and/or banning her permanently, immediately, without any further discussion.

If I were in the position of the administrators here, I would PM any poster who posted something like that, and insist that they clarify exactly what was meant by the remark.

[Gob]

Very well, for the board notice and not addressed to any specific party: this matter is now being reviewed by neutral counsel.

I have to admit, to be fair to the troll, that my translation of that would read;

"I've got my friend to rad this thread, he's totally independent and unbiased and he told me he'll be impartial, and he's going to tell me that I'm right and you are wrong. (If I give him a free blow job.)