Should we ban him?

[Scarlett]

I have had several PMs requesting the banning of a poster. They have, apparently, been offended by the language this poster has used, and the tone he has taken. One PM said, "People have a constitutional right to be obnoxious and nuts I think, but it is impossible to have any kind of conversation with him in the mix. Is he only trying to get people worked up for fun?"

While several have wanted the poster banned, no questions asked, I have had to keep in my mind that we started this forum due to censorship issues, and I hate to just BAN a poster without "consent" so to speak.

The admid and I have decided to put it to a vote. We would like the majority to make help us with the decision. What do you think?

[cityboy]

I think that particular "poster" has been way, way out of line, over and over again. I doubt other forums would put up with such nonsense ... I vote in favor of banishment ...

[Brian McCall]

I PMed the guy earlier. Here is the conversation:

Me


Do you realize that you just bloviated for 14 paragraphs about how everyone fell into your trap? From the looks of it, you got hoist by your own petard. I see a few scattered responses to you, while you've poured out literally pages of vitriol-laden responses onto this forum.

Does this really mean that much to you? I take a quick look in here when I take a break from work. It's a diversion. You however, invest a hell of a lot of unhealthy emotion in this. You claim you don't like the fact that a clique (that's the proper spelling) is forming over here so you came to break it up. Why? Is your life that devoid of meaning and pleasure? Have you nothing better to do? Get a World of Warcraft subscription or something. Better yet, get a job.

Techman, response #1:


Sorry, but I find it humorous that you think you're talking to a specific person. I'm an actor and a writer who can play a part. The reactions I got were the real vitriol. I can just as easily play the shy kid who apologizes when there is a confrontation.

Oh.. um.. sorry sir... please don't be angry with me... I'm just a kid and I I just play a game... omg it just the web. no need to be harsh. you don't need to be so harsh! you know this is being a cyber bully and ... and I'm going to turn you in! Ha bet that will get you! =P lulz byosc... OMG Naruto is on!

So does the word Click irritate you? I don't like clicks. They are all about being so uppity and all that....

And I can also play a pompous fool who goes on and on. It doesn't matter the part. it's just a part. The more real I make it, the better an actor I feel I am. You don't think Jonney Depp thinks he's a real pirate, do you?

Do you think that is actual air you are breathing? look around you. what is real? is what you see or touch real?

That is a jumbled up quote from Matrix btw.

But it's all pretend.

Then he sent this

Techman, response #2:


14 pages of blah blah blah IS my form of entertainment. Acting like anyone or anything and seeing the responses is entertainment. I can make up any crap and alot of forum people will take the s**t seriously. Watching people talk as if they had a Phd in anything and thinking they can assess someones intellect or psychological status while all I'm doing is putting on an act and responding to a bunch of crap is funny as hell! I'm sure you want to protect whatever it is you want to protect, but it doesn't matter. As you said it is entertainment and I got my entertainment my way. I could care less how it made you feel just like you don't care how you make other people when you go on some long winded tirade about how liberals are going to ruin the world. That to me, sounds like paranoia. You might want to have that checked out.

14 pages of crap is still 14 pages of crap. Why get bent out of shape when it is meaningless and people can just walk on by...

Make sure you're not taking things too seriously before you think others are doing the same. I'd hate to see your reaction if this was a episode of Scare Tactics and I was playing a serial killer going after internet junkies. oooo scary....

So seeing that his purpose here is to just be a troll and not add any value whatsoever, ditch him. The fact that he used the word "lulz" tells me all I need to know. He spends too much time on 4chan learning how to be a dick.

EDIT: as for what to do with this clown, edit his membergroup so that only certain forums are viewable. I like the Nuthouse idea. Admin should have the IPs that he logs in from. Use that to restrict privileges in case he creates new accounts.

[King_of_kings]

Ok, this forum was started because we all wanted to be able to enjoy free speech and debate. That was the purpose of this site being made since the Killeen Daily Herald took pleasure in erasing our postings on their mistake. I have read through this persons postings, and yes while I do find that some of them are questionable( ie: somewhat personal attacks, beyond foul laungage, etc.), I can not find any reason other than he has gotten under the skins of some members to ban him from the site. If we start banning members just because he/she gets under a few peoples skins, then we will become no better then the site we all escaped from.

If, as some people say, he/she is really a "plant" ( someone attached to KDHForums in one way or another,) then Yes by all means ban him/her, but only after you have enough evidence to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that is the case. Other wise, If you dont like what he/she posts, then ignore them!


( ps. and to those who will argue with me on this remember, I was one of the, and sorta still, the biggest fighter in this battle against the KDHForums for denying us our First Amendment rights to free speech, so for me to condone the banning of one member for such a trivial reason would make me a hypocrite)

:ymcowboy:

[Brian McCall]

Ok, this forum was started because we all wanted to be able to enjoy free speech and debate. That was the purpose of this site being made since the Killeen Daily Herald took pleasure in erasing our postings on their mistake. I have read through this persons postings, and yes while I do find that some of them are questionable( ie: somewhat personal attacks, beyond foul laungage, etc.), I can not find any reason other than he has gotten under the skins of some members to ban him from the site. If we start banning members just because he/she gets under a few peoples skins, then we will become no better then the site we all escaped from.

If, as some people say, he/she is really a "plant" ( someone attached to KDHForums in one way or another,) then Yes by all means ban him/her, but only after you have enough evidence to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that is the case. Other wise, If you dont like what he/she posts, then ignore them!


( ps. and to those who will argue with me on this remember, I was one of the, and sorta still, the biggest fighter in this battle against the KDHForums for denying us our First Amendment rights to free speech, so for me to condone the banning of one member for such a trivial reason would make me a hypocrite)

:ymcowboy:

Free speech and debate are great. But what this guy does is neither. Free speech: he tells people they can't disagree with him, argue with him, or even raise their voice in his general direction because then he'll take it as an attack and launch into a multi-page tirade. Debate: there's nothing he ever debates. The patterns always goes like this: he makes some vaguely insulting remark. Someone objects or disagrees. And then he carries on whining and moaning about people on internet forums. I just don't see what value is added.

I'm sure the founders were all for free speech, but if some clown arrived at the Constitutional Conventions doing nothing but howling and shrieking like a monkey and throwing feces, they probably would have shown him the door.

Also keep in mind that his most offensive stuff was edited out.

[xzochye]

I was against banning him until I read the emails Brian posted. If he is here to just fight and call names then we don't need him around. There is a difference between passionate debating and just causing problems.

[Scarlett]

I was thinking the same thing xzochye. Those emails got me off of the fence.

[King_of_kings]

After reading your posting on this, and re-reading the postings that this person posted ( granted that what I read was the edited version), I must have to appoligize to my fellow forum users. I admit that I was taken aback that people would be looking to ban someone after only one week of the site being up, and thought this was the same old fight against someone expressing themselves. However this time I took a more objective view and now see that, yes this person is starting fights and making personal attacks. In my opinion, First Amendment considered, this person SHOULD be banned, or have some form of action taken on him/her by the site admins and moderators.

The King bows down in humble apology to my fellow users.

:ymcowboy:

[mainer]

There is and never has been the right to unlimited freedom of speech.

He's been at this throughout a number of personalities and reincarnations. His MO is manipulation, along with threats -- both overt and through intimations such as letting you know that he knows who you are and where you live, most often in private messages. I guess he thinks that's scary. Yeah, right.

I have never known a nutcase who thought he was a nutcase; most of the time they think that it's everyone else who has the problem...they believe they are perfectly sane. In fact, they think they are in control. That's what they want and crave. Making up for some deficiency perhaps? Those emails also convinced me that he needs to be gone....at the very least relegated to the Nuthouse section where posters can read his blather if they want to (don't know why they would).

Personally, I think participation in a forum has some level of good faith assumption on the part of members. He has no good faith attached to his membership.

[Rick]

It is one thing to call someone a name in the heat of a discussion, but it is quite another to come here with the obvious intention of disrupting the forum while trying to settle a grudge with someone from another forum. He was hostile to everybody who commented to him.

Scarlett has done a good job bringing people who never joined the other forum to join here. I would like them to stay and be able to voice their opinions without the fear of someone threatening them or making vulgar references about them or their families.

If he truly suffers from PTSD, that does not mean that people coming to a discussion forum have to be verbally abused. We will be glad to assist him in finding a counselor to provide him the help he needs.

As long as he is hostile to everyone, I say we have fun with him by putting him in the nuthouse and letting everyone watch him. But I am mean like that.

[HappyKilleenite]

Frankly, I think that all the dialog he has generated is precisely his goal: he desires attention and controversy. I say let him stay and then frustrate the heck out of him by doing absolutely nothing! No replies, no responses.....he'll die on the vine like all bad fruit eventually does. If he reappears under another identity it will be as the same bad apple and he'll rot away sooner or later......the sooner....the better.

[Texas Immigrant]

I was thinking the same thing HappyKilleenite. Do you think it would work to simply ignore him/her? If people are maybe warned about this type of user when they receive the welcome email from the forum, can't people just scan over and ignore all posts? Won't he get bored?

[FieryPrincess]

I also think it is related to a psychological need for something. I can click "add as a foe" and never see another post.

Better than the delete button and it stops feeding any troll posts while preserving our original stated goal of not censoring. I really think this outrageousness is some sort of test on that.

[Army Sarge]

Don't allow emotionally charged words like "censorship" to dissuade the purpose for this topic post, as well as what might be deemed necessary action in order to maintain a forum that serves its actual intended purpose- the free exchange of ideas and the open intellectual debate thereof.

Trolls come in many forms and survive on attention alone- nothing else. Negative attention is better, as it generally resultts in more responses as well as the pleasure a troll feels in getting someone spun up over an invented personality. The only way, and I mean the ONLY way, to make a troll go away is to completely ignore them. Don't mention their name, don't speak of them in the third person, and never, under any circumstances, reply to ANY of their posts, even ones that seem innocuous or positive. That said....

Some folks will make reference to why this forum was started and say something like "Do we really want to start censoring people? That's why we left that other forum at the KDH and came here instead." I think that is a failed argument for a couple of reasons.

(1) The KDH was selectively removing posts that criticized it for running that bogus story on the front page for 2 days. While they own the forums and I could understand not wanting to keep posts that they might find patently offensive, I don't think that honest critique of the paper is sufficient grounds for removing posts that they simply find embarrassing because it was their staff that got duped. They may have a legal right to do it, but that doesn't make it good practice. (And the 1st Amendment does not apply in this regard by the way. That is a privately owned and operated bulletin board, and the owners do in fact have the ability to permit or deny what it deems OK on its own board. The first amendment was written to protect individuals and the press from Government opression in their expression of opinions, even if they are critical of that government. It was never intended to enable those whose sole purpose was to cause dissent under the cloak of authority of speaking under the pretense of "Freedom of speech".)

(2) everyone who signs up for the forum does so in the good faith that the other users of the forum are also doing so with the intent of expressing ideas and opinons while encouraging healthy debate, even disagreement, in a civil manner, or in some cases, it may occasionally become a little less civil when the issue being discussed is very emotional for some people. However, to enter into the user agreement and agree to the terms while at the outset having the intent to undermine them is disingenuous and, IMHO, violates the terms of use. They are therefore setting the conditions which cause them to be banned from using the product for violation of the terms of its use. Banning a user who violates the spirit and intent of the agreement is not censorship. Selectively removing topics one simply disagress with is.


If any banned user feels like they were treated unfairly, then tell them to get a full and complete refund of their membership fees and join elsewhere.

My 2 cents.

[Scarlett]

I also think it is related to a psychological need for something. I can click "add as a foe" and never see another post.

Better than the delete button and it stops feeding any troll posts while preserving our original stated goal of not censoring. I really think this outrageousness is some sort of test on that.

A good point! Anyone who has been offended by him should simply do that. I truly believe in ignoring bad behavior to make it go away. It is no different than raising a child or teaching school...to a kid...ANY attention is better than NO attention. I used to teach nothing but kids who were classified as having severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Once I taught myself THAT, and learned to give them attention for GOOD stuff and simply respond in NO way to the crap, the crap stopped.

(Ok, I DID respond to the desk flying at my head once...but...ya know....)

[Night Owl]

He is a troll and brings nothing to the discussion.

[SunDevil]

I was going to suggest just putting him on your ignore list. After everyone ignores him, he won't have anyone to pester anymore and lose interest.

[Dagobert II]

He doesn't bother me. I don't even need an ignore button to ignore posts that have no thread content. It's not like I have to inhale anyone's posts. On the other hand, if offensive posts drive content driven posters off the board there won't be anyone left to discuss the issues.

[Admin]

For everyone's information, two warnings were sent that night.

Whatever decide will be done to all who act in the same abusive manner. But I know that I will not be sitting here editing posts. I have better things to do.

[Army Sarge]

From the user control panel:
"Foes are users which will be ignored by default. Posts by these users will not be fully visible. Personal messages from foes are still permitted"

Personally, I don't care to even have to make the effort to assign a "Foe" moniker to a troll, especially when their posts are still partially visible (still giving them hope and therefore encouraging more of the same drivel from them) and further that personal messages cannot be blocked from them.

If you want to encourage membership from folks who actually have something to contribute to the debates being presented by the members of the forums, then demonstrate that by banning people whose sole purpose is clearly not debate or the expression of opinion, but to cause dissention and disruption. If you don't think that's the case, just take a look at any thread from any forum board that starts out as a good debate, even if the topic is controversial, and see what happens to the threads and participation when some knucklehead troll gets on the board and begins spewing their multi-page dementia for no purpose other than to take up space and hopefully generate frustration on the part of the other users.

As the admin said, he/she has better things to do than edit posts...I concur...and I have better things to do than to have to scroll through page after page of some vitriolic diatribe just to identify who I want to assign the "Foe" label to, only to have to see that they still have posts there and can send PMs to anybody and fill up their respective boxes with more of the same tripe. PLUS, not banning a troll and instead telling members to simply put them on ignore only encourages trolls to obtain additional user names via registration through proxy servers using multiple web-based e-mail accounts so they can continue their ramblings under an assumed name. In fact, you can even occasionally catch them talking to themselves via one of their assumed monikers to the other.

I guess that makes 4 cents. Sorry about that...

[skipster]

I also agree he should be banned. Adding him to the foe list will work with members but if someone is checking out the forum as a guest and see the way he responds to others it might make them uncomfortable about joining. Since he has admitted his sole purpose is stirring up trouble then he adds nothing to this forum.

[Charles Grubb]

Just let him/her/it be. Everyone can choose to engage or debate him/her/it. Remember, stimulus = response. If the alleged offender bothers you with its/her/his response, the organism's bothersome behavior will extinguish itself. After all, if it is as some assert; all this thing wishes is your response. Ignore it, and it will either go away, or conform.

[Army Sarge]

OK, I apologize in advance for tossing in more pennies, but I promise this will be my last contribution to this particular topic.

I was reluctant to bring it up before, but I guess now is as good a time as any.

There is another post currently active in the forum discussing the financial viability of sustaining a forum such as this.
I for one would be willing to make donations or even pay a small subscription fee to help sustain a forum such as this one. I will not, however, contribute even a single penny to any venture that would allow the type of behavior described to continue and not ban the offending member, nor to any enterprise over which I could not control who contacted me personally and had the ability to fill my inbox without my permission.

'nuff said.

[Scarlett]

The vote seems to be agreeing with you, Sarge.

[Charles Grubb]

How about this? Ask him to behave and give him one more chance. Most people honor their commitments when given second chances.
Then again, that means a few don't.

[Admin]

How about this? Ask him to behave and give him one more chance. Most people honor their commitments when given second chances.
Then again, that means a few don't.
This seems to be where I am at this point. If it happens again, then I get to have some fun.

Locking the topic for a few days, then it will disappear. Thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion.