An internet chat room was shut down earlier today after a number of users started what the organizers are calling a ‘reasonable and intelligent debate’ in one of the forums. Although details are sketchy, the outbreak of the sensible discussion was apparently characterized by polite disagreement, constructive criticism, and mild language...
Jen is not the most annoying person here. If he gets banned, at least one or two other people are going with him. ^_~
The only thing that still gets me, other than the whole double standard of the troll vs. the religious threads, is how you could ban someone like The Flamming Geek for being a twat and not contributing anything, and yet ignore the flagrant troll, who is/was also being a twat and not contributing. I mean, if someone's just stupid by nature, you ban them, but if they're actively being stupid, you leave them be? Huh?
Granted, I don't think "twat" status on its own is grounds for bannination; these forums are built on a healthy tradition of erudite twatdom. When someone is both being a twat AND not contributing, though, shouldn't that be grounds for removal?
Source.I don't see "bad grammar and spelling" anywhere in that list.
That's all Rym.
I've never seen a buck passed so quickly in my life, and I work for government.
EDIT: Y'know, doing investigative work for a living, I can't just let someone pass the buck like that. So I'll add to the pile:
Posting possibly offensive content is not what gets people banned. People are banned because they obviously have not contributed anything to the forum, and show no signs of doing so in the future. People who increase the value of the forum will stay, and people who decrease the value will leave.
Really, as far as I can tell, NO user thus far has actually been banned for poor grammar and spelling. At all. The ONE criterion you list as being grounds for banning is the sole criterion that I have yet to see invoked in an actual banning.
I think the contribution that Jen makes is that the annoyance it causes us amuses Scrym. In that respect, it is like the court jester that had free reign to annoy all the courtiers.
So, I suppose Jen is a little like Rigoletto. I wonder if it has a daughter . . .
I think the contribution that Jen makes is that the annoyance it causes us amuses Scrym. In that respect, it is like the court jester that had free reign to annoy all the courtiers.
I think the contribution that Jen makes is that the annoyance it causes us amuses Scrym. In that respect, it is like the court jester that had free reign to annoy all the courtiers.
Source.I don't see "bad grammar and spelling" anywhere in that list.
That's all Rym.
I've never seen a buck passed so quickly in my life, and I work for government.
EDIT: Y'know, doing investigative work for a living, I can't just let someone pass the buck like that. So I'll add to the pile:
Posting possibly offensive content is not what gets people banned. People are banned because they obviously have not contributed anything to the forum, and show no signs of doing so in the future. People who increase the value of the forum will stay, and people who decrease the value will leave.
Really, as far as I can tell, NO user thus far has actually been banned for poor grammar and spelling. At all. The ONE criterion you list as being grounds for banning is the sole criterion that I have yet to see invoked in an actual banning.
Man, you guys are making this really easy on me. Except all your arguments are null and void for one simple reason.
You can't ban Jen for disagreeing with you, and you can't ban Jen for being annoying, because she's actually pretty hilarious. Also because the forums are ruled with an iron fist. Submit to the will of the party!
Comments
Granted, I don't think "twat" status on its own is grounds for bannination; these forums are built on a healthy tradition of erudite twatdom. When someone is both being a twat AND not contributing, though, shouldn't that be grounds for removal?
EDIT: Y'know, doing investigative work for a living, I can't just let someone pass the buck like that. So I'll add to the pile: Source.
Really, as far as I can tell, NO user thus far has actually been banned for poor grammar and spelling. At all. The ONE criterion you list as being grounds for banning is the sole criterion that I have yet to see invoked in an actual banning.
Man, you guys are making this really easy on me.
So, I suppose Jen is a little like Rigoletto. I wonder if it has a daughter . . .
Really, as far as I can tell, NO user thus far has actually been banned for poor grammar and spelling. At all. The ONE criterion you list as being grounds for banning is the sole criterion that I have yet to see invoked in an actual banning.
Man, you guys are making this really easy on me.
Except all your arguments are null and void for one simple reason.