Detention Block AA-23 : The OT.com's Banned Members... — Page 47

Frank your Majesty said:

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

Hal 9000 said:

Well, I’m hopeful for a Frink more similar to the good ol’ days. We ought to be able to let one another know if we have a problem with something another party has said in gentle, civil manner, at least as a first response. Frink has a reputation for gunning it from 0 to 60 and stifles discussion. To be honest, I’ve often refrained from posting in threads, usually posted by the uninitiated, about topics outside of his liking, just to avoid having more BS to put up with.
He’s a fun, endearing gatekeeper, and I like having him around. But he shouldn’t have such free reign to crap all over differing opinions.

If I had the mad scientist capabilities he himself possesses, I’d probably set the Frink-o-meter to about 33%.

Same, I love Frink as well but recently he just became a bit more aggressive towards others who disagreed with him on something as stupid as movies.

EDIT: Wrong wording there. Movies are one of my favorite things but it is stupid to get in heated name calling over them.

Frink didn’t get heated because he disagreed about the movie. It was because of the offensive word used.

I wasn’t talking about that instance. I’m talking about how every time a person ranks ROTS too high for Frink’s liking, he had to berate them for it. I like Frink, but like Hal, think sometimes he goes too far. I am not talking specifically about that situation.

But that’s not a bannable offense, so it shouldn’t play any role in his current ban.

I never said Frink should have been banned. I like him and am awaiting for when he can come back.

Ok, seems like I missed your point, then.

I don’t have any specific thing in mind at all, and certainly not anything against me. (He treats me pretty well.)

darthrush said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

Hal 9000 said:

Well, I’m hopeful for a Frink more similar to the good ol’ days. We ought to be able to let one another know if we have a problem with something another party has said in gentle, civil manner, at least as a first response. Frink has a reputation for gunning it from 0 to 60 and stifles discussion. To be honest, I’ve often refrained from posting in threads, usually posted by the uninitiated, about topics outside of his liking, just to avoid having more BS to put up with.
He’s a fun, endearing gatekeeper, and I like having him around. But he shouldn’t have such free reign to crap all over differing opinions.

If I had the mad scientist capabilities he himself possesses, I’d probably set the Frink-o-meter to about 33%.

Same, I love Frink as well but recently he just became a bit more aggressive towards others who disagreed with him on something as stupid as movies.

EDIT: Wrong wording there. Movies are one of my favorite things but it is stupid to get in heated name calling over them.

Frink didn’t get heated because he disagreed about the movie. It was because of the offensive word used.

I wasn’t talking about that instance. I’m talking about how every time a person ranks ROTS too high for Frink’s liking, he had to berate them for it. I like Frink, but like Hal, think sometimes he goes too far. I am not talking specifically about that situation.

But that’s not a bannable offense, so it shouldn’t play any role in his current ban.

I never said Frink should have been banned.

Well, I will say it. He skirts the rules all the time regarding behavior toward other members, and it’s about time for it to have finally bit him in the ass. Maybe this will encourage him to cool it.

I just don’t see how Frink was the only one who should have been banned in that situation. Either ban all offending parties or noone. So much for equal treatment of every member.

Frank your Majesty said:

I just don’t see how Frink was the only one who should have been banned in that situation. Either ban all offending parties or noone. So much for equal treatment of every member.

Again, you assume that Frink was banned for this singular incident rather than for a pattern of incidents. You attack the idea of it not being equal treatment because you’re only going on the information you have which may not give the whole picture. I imagine other things like constantly harassing JMSW (rather than reporting him and letting the mods decide) and stuff like that to be contibutors to his ban.

I do also not have all the information, and yes, I also am assuming. But I doubt banning Frink shows unequal treatment of every member when he’s been able to get away with quite a lot of nonsense for quite a long time without any repercussions.

I don’t think it’s fair to take his posts, that at the time he made them were not considered to break the rules, and retroactively use them as a justification to ban him over something completely unrelated.

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think it’s fair to take his posts, that at the time he made them were not considered to break the rules, and retroactively use them as a justification to ban him over something completely unrelated.

You don’t think “Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable” and “Do not harass other members, either publicly or via PM. Any unwanted contact after a request to stay away will be considered harassment” have been rules?

Frank your Majesty said:

I just don’t see how Frink was the only one who should have been banned in that situation. Either ban all offending parties or noone. So much for equal treatment of every member.

Agreed.

chyron8472 said:

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think it’s fair to take his posts, that at the time he made them were not considered to break the rules, and retroactively use them as a justification to ban him over something completely unrelated.

You don’t think “Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable” and “Do not harass other members, either publicly or via PM. Any unwanted contact after a request to stay away will be considered harassment” have been rules?

The problem is that Frink was only banned immediately (more or less) after the r-word incident, and neither Jay not his mods clarified it was about the rest of his behavior on that day. In my view, moderators here typically notify users publicly when they’re on thin ice, and that never happened before Frink was banned with his earlier behavior that day.

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

yhwx said:

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

I thought we already discussed that some people may not necessarily consider it a slur when applied abstractly or not directed at a real person.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

I thought we already discussed that some people may not necessarily consider it a slur when applied abstractly or not directed at a real person.

informal, offensive very foolish or stupid: in retrospect, it was a totally retarded idea.

My dictionary, at least, agrees with me.

Regarding JMSW, Frink wasn’t the only one who suspected him to be JMOW, yet noone received even a warning. It was just stated that he’s not a sock and that calling him a sock will no longer be accepted. And I think Frink stopped after that.

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

I thought we already discussed that some people may not necessarily consider it a slur when applied abstractly or not directed at a real person.

So, calling Finn the n-word is fine, as he’s only a character, not a real person?

Handman said:

I think we should wait for Frink to return from his temp-ban before we continue to condemn anyone else or go on endless conjecture.

What’s the problem with “condemning anyone else?” The actions of other people do not involve him, and he does not need to explain their actions.

All I’m saying is that we don’t have enough information to get bent out of shape and assume it was unfair and unequal treatment. There may have been PMs exchanged between Frink and the mods, and regarding more than that incident. Just because the warnings weren’t public doesn’t mean they weren’t given.

But sure, it also could have been a knee-jerk reaction on Jay’s part since Jay was the one who banned him and then bitched about it, when he didn’t have to get involved at all since it was the Spoiler thread.

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

I think we should wait for Frink to return from his temp-ban before we continue to condemn anyone else or go on endless conjecture.

What’s the problem with “condemning anyone else?”

I don’t think that’s very fair to do if they are not here to defend themselves. I’m fairly certain everyone we’re talking about doesn’t visit this section of the forum.

They can if they want to.

Frank your Majesty said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Also, you neglect to mention the fact that someone else broke a rule, which according to Jay’s rules, is punishable by an permanent and immediate ban with no prior warning.

I thought we already discussed that some people may not necessarily consider it a slur when applied abstractly or not directed at a real person.

So, calling Finn the n-word is fine, as he’s only a character, not a real person?

-.-

We already had that discussion. I’m not being dragged into it again.

Not giving warnings in public encourages speculation about the reason for bans, so I don’t think that’s how it should be handled. Also, people need to know what kind of behaviour others get warned for, so that they won’t do the same.

Frank your Majesty said:

Regarding JMSW, Frink wasn’t the only one who suspected him to be JMOW, yet noone received even a warning. It was just stated that he’s not a sock and that calling him a sock will no longer be accepted. And I think Frink stopped after that.

There was also the username thread incident, but then again, Frink was not warned individually, only a vague “you” group.

Handman said:

yhwx said:

Handman said:

I think we should wait for Frink to return from his temp-ban before we continue to condemn anyone else or go on endless conjecture.

What’s the problem with “condemning anyone else?”

I don’t think that’s very fair to do if they are not here to defend themselves. I’m fairly certain everyone we’re talking about doesn’t visit this section of the forum.

That’s their problem. You can send them a PM and direct them here. It’s not like we registered on a different forum to talk about them behind their backs.

Frank your Majesty said:

Not giving warnings in public encourages speculation about the reason for bans, so I don’t think that’s how it should be handled. Also, people need to know what kind of behaviour others get warned for, so that they won’t do the same.

It also doesn’t help how nobody has clarified the situation yet.