The end of Lurker66?

[ignerntbend]

Some apparently know exactly where the edge of the envelope is and some don't. So, SlugSlinger started a thread to 'boast' (my words) about Lurker66 being banned by saying "good riddance" (his words this time). He (SS) violated 3 out of the top 4 rules, depending on what point of view you take with it. Then to take it further, he posts a Simpsons vid laughing about it? Seems like being a (#1) dick and (#2) carrying things too far and (#4) being nasty. Maybe the 3rd time is a charm for being put into timeout. I mean...damn.

and then Lurker got busted by violating most of the rules above on post #31. so I get it. a private area on OSA and this thread would never have been this heated/created.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but damn, damn.

Good summary of the thread.

 

[JB Books]

Good summary of the thread.

I didn't see that exchange. It will be corrected in due course.

 

[SMS]

Some apparently know exactly where the edge of the envelope is and some don't. So, SlugSlinger started a thread to 'boast' (my words) about Lurker66 being banned by saying "good riddance" (his words this time). He (SS) violated 3 out of the top 4 rules, depending on what point of view you take with it. Then to take it further, he posts a Simpsons vid laughing about it? Seems like being a (#1) dick and (#2) carrying things too far and (#4) being nasty. Maybe the 3rd time is a charm for being put into timeout. I mean...damn.

and then Lurker got busted by violating most of the rules above on post #31. so I get it. a private area on OSA and this thread would never have been this heated/created.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but damn, damn.

That about sums up the perceived inconsistency for me as well.

Not my house, so not my rules but at least keep it even.

 

[Wizard]

I too like the idea of a private, invite to established adult members only area. Aka open forum that's private from casual browsers.

 

[JD8]

I'm not 100% opposed to that, but it still would have to have some rules (although substantially more lax than our already lax rules).

I think the overwhelming opinion is just that. Seems a majority agreed that we aren't asking for anything crazy..... just basically a forum where people can talk freely within reason. Free of the opinions and possible egos of mods, until a member gives them no choice. Again, if you give an area for the kids to play, probably will have less trouble. JMHO.

 

[JB Books]

We'll start working on it.

 

[TedKennedy]

I think the overwhelming opinion is just that. Seems a majority agreed that we aren't asking for anything crazy..... just basically a forum where people can talk freely within reason. Free of the opinions and possible egos of mods, until a member gives them no choice. Again, if you give an area for the kids to play, probably will have less trouble. JMHO.

Mods have egos? No way.

 

[Wizard]

We'll start working on it.

Yay clap

 

[RidgeHunter]

That's the problem with heavy handed moderation. Consistency is impossible. Lurker is permabanned for being a dick and carrying things too far, but it's kosher for the OP of this thread to be a dick to him and carry things too far?

Simplest thing to do, that works on countless other forums, is to lighten the fawk up. Ban people who are degrading the quality/readability of the board. Other than that, lay off it.

Correlation does equal causation sometimes. Why the rise in dissent lately?

 

[ignerntbend]

From my own point of view, the op attacked a banned guy who couldn't defend himself. When the ban came undone the unbanned guy made a joke. The joke was more profane but less mean-spirited than the op. No big deal. I LAWLD [if that's how you spell that.]