Ban-a-thon

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Zapmeister

How does banning even work? If it's just based on the name, then its a trivial matter to re-register under a different one.

If its based on IP, most people don't have a static one. And if whole ranges of IPs are blocked, you're potentially banning innocents that use the same ISP.

That's why I'm convinced that Norfleet is still lurking around here somewhere ...

Shrapnel uses an IP block. Apparently it is not very hard to get around the block at all, should one so choose. No one banned has registered a new name so far as I'm aware, though, so I wouldn't go looking for any of them to be making any new posts.

[chrispedersen]

Rdonj...

You are right - neither you nor I know whether sombre was offered a chance to return; whether he chose to ignore it or not.
So we really have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

As for peter, Ver, etc. they were mocked far before they responded. Remember the

no

no

no

yes, you don't get it post? Even well past that post they were trying to respond helpfully. It may be your opinion that this is perfectly acceptable behavior. It isn't mine.

[rdonj]

Chrisp - it is my opinion that verjigorm and PE's behavior was much more unacceptable in that thread than maerlande's ever was. Other people may have descended to the same level.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Chrisp - it is my opinion that verjigorm and PE's behavior was much more unacceptable in that thread than maerlande's ever was. Other people may have descended to the same level.

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything. Remember, that just because you wanted to feel a certain way about what I posted doesn't mean that I felt that way when I wrote it. Emotional context does not exist in text, and I always tell people not to mix their own feelings into things other people say online. Not that you care.

If you know I started it, why don't you repost quotes from the thread that you saved as evidence?

Bah... I shouldn't be typing or responding. You're just trying to suck me into another troll thread.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything. Remember, that just because you wanted to feel a certain way about what I posted doesn't mean that I felt that way when I wrote it. Emotional context does not exist in text, and I always tell people not to mix their own feelings into things other people say online. Not that you care.

If you know I started it, why don't you repost quotes from the thread that you saved as evidence?

Bah... I shouldn't be typing or responding. You're just trying to suck me into another troll thread.

Maerlande was only able to save the last 2 pages of the thread, which don't really interest me. Also he has been too lazy to put them up yet, so I'm afraid I can't

Anyway I actually have no intention of turning this into another troll thread. I just wanted to post in response to what I felt were unfair and untrue claims about another poster. Anyway I don't really feel like there's anything else I need to respond to here right now. I've said my peace.

[Tim Brooks]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I truly wish that thread had not been deleted... Now it can be used to justify any opinion. With it gone, people can say that I said anything.

Hi Verjigorm:

What was the thread title? We never delete anything on purpose. The thread still exists. It was just moved to a private area.

Regards,

[rdonj]

Mr Brooks - it was the thread about communions. I can't remember the exact name. But started by maerlande.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Tim Brooks

Hi Verjigorm:

What was the thread title? We never delete anything on purpose. The thread still exists. It was just moved to a private area.

Regards,

It was called communion something... It was a thread that looked like requests for strategy assistance.

Restoration of the thread, even if it was locked, would be appreciated as it would at least allow people to make their own judgments rather than relying on hearsay.

[Tim Brooks]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

It was called communion something... It was a thread that looked like requests for strategy assistance.

Restoration of the thread, even if it was locked, would be appreciated as it would at least allow people to make their own judgments rather than relying on hearsay.

Fair enough Verjigorm. I will have it moved back but it will be locked, as it was just a form of spam. The thread title is "Managing Communions - the sombre challenge". The thread is here.

Best regards,

[Rookierookie]

Maerlande - did not make mods, had a grudge against septimius and said some things about him in the past, definitely a troll, but the vast majority of this was of a subtle and/or harmless type. With regards to the deleted thread in question, I once again refute accusations of baiting people into arguments. I saw that thread, I posted in it, and you and peter ebesson were being just as abusive of him there as sombre ever has been, I am not kidding at all when I say this. The two of you got the already hostile IRC crowd riled up, and that's what got you hit. Sorry, but it was your own fault. *shrug*

As an observer to the thread, I think the Sombre-supporting crowd was the primary instigator of abuse in that thread. Verjigorm and P.E. were being perfectly helpful until certain members incessantly taunted them. I think there are some double-standards being applied here, where some people are allowed to be blunt or harsh or sarcastic or abusive, while others aren't, and the latter group isn't even allowed to respond with the same tone. Either that, or there has been some kind of memory lapse.

The final post made by Annette in the latest thread implied that Sombre was not completely candid. Of course there are several people who, having already labelled her as a liar, would obviously consider that a lie to and would not bother to listen; this rather adds to the list of lies as far as they are concerned.

For me, I don't particularly care. However, given the conflict with their stories, I have no reason to believe either side unconditionally, though it doesn't help Shrapnel that they have no provision for open information, such as an openly viewable "administrative board" that some forums have. My stance is always that if I feel that I don't want to be in this forum anymore, I don't have to. And I don't have to spew a bunch of profanities or spam in order to get banned.

I will add that I never actually thought that Sombre was very obnoxious as far as what I saw on the forums. Impatient and occasionally not always thinking enough before posting, but never truly obnoxious. I don't know what goes on elsewhere. The same cannot be said for some members of the group who came to his defence after the banning, who preferred to resort to the least effective method of argument possible, and more importantly were indiscriminate in their attacks. I think they did a lot of the things they accused Shrapnel of, and sometimes reminded me of the Chinese Red Guard insofar that anybody who did not support them unconditionally were demonized too. Sometimes I wonder if the people who rebel against authority do it for self-righteousness rather than righteousness.

As for IP blocks, they mean exactly nothing. I know. Don't look at me like that, I was twelve at that time!