The Locking of the Avril Thread

Dan: The Meows thing I just read (some FAQ somewhere) was a little too 'sheep and goats' for my liking. 'They're not entirely worthless' says some Moderator, 'they do fight spam and make some acceptable posts'. There's a line between moderating and judging someone as a person. And what's disturbed me most on this thread has been Ned saying 'It's no one individual instance, it's my decision that this is a bad person'.

I actually agree with you about the vindictiveness shown towards Calum; I would much prefer to wait to lock his threads until something kicks off (whether it's instigated by him or someone else; I had been punititively locking his threads when people showed up and started being dicks on them, mostly in an attempt to get people to look at how THEY were contributing to the problem, but then I remembered that attempting to get the average person to be introspective is about as likely as trying to get a cat to shoot chocolate milk out of its ass).

You are missing something that Sundar happened to note a long time back -- namely that in between those two phrases is the important 'it's because of this *cumulative* collection of instances which can be traced over time, and that in turn etc.' Sundar didn't fully agree with my decision still but has made more of an allowance than you have for that cumulative activity being demonstrable and having an effect. I most certainly did not think of gunning for Calum the first minute he started posting.

As Dan has just noted, there are different opinions among the moderators on how to address this, and it is precisely because of this difference that I'd like the policies considered and addressed more consistently -- and like I've said, it's in Dan's and Tom's hands and ultimately I am more than willing to abide by what they decide. But I value Dan's opinion more than yours on the matter, Momus, not because he is a fellow mod but because he has much more and better experience dealing with this kind of thing than you say you have, or are willing to admit to, or are willing to try out doing yourself.

Ta

P.S. No one is ever really anti-censorship. Otherwise we'd have animal pron and kiddie stuff on sale and we don't want that. nor do many of us want bullfighting/ fox hunting etc (oh how we laughed when the Tory government who approved two private members bills to outlaw such "threats" to our society as uncut videotapes of "Driller Killer" complained about a ban on foxhunting being an attack on personal freedom). I'm certainly not anti-censorship. No one is.

http://www.lally69.blogger.com.br/25.eminem.jpg

After a barrage of insults and grandstanding and general obnoxiousness on his part, yes. And personal attacks. VERY personal attacks, and not against me, he didn't really start those until late last year.

May I remind folks that at one point we did have the board set up as best we could so that for a good number of users we wouldn't and didn't have to see his messages? And how so very very enjoyable that silence was. Unfortunately it couldn't be maintained but even though he didn't cotton onto that for months, he DID NOT GO AWAY -- even though he was effectively and thoroughly ignored by the best means possible at the time.

Well that's easily explained Ned... It wasn't until late last year that you joined the ranks of those people who refused to meet him over a beer.

I guess you're right. When Calum posts to other threads than his own, it's mostly threads like this which are about him. We're stroking his ego much more than he deserves, especially considering how long this all has been going on.

I'm not going to post anything to any Calum-related debate anymore, perhaps everyone else should try the same.

(x-post)

Until the newer board members join in...and wonder what's going on...and more arguments break out...and those with longer memories say one thing or another and there's more debate...

Right after I finish photoshopping his head onto this picture of a penis.

If I may, please refer to John's quite lovely metaphor up above regarding broken windows and wanting to break arms. Which I find far more applicable to this situation than a stack of Milton quotes.

Really, what was there to debate about this person, EVER? I suppose it's near impossible to lock someone out of the site completely (is it?), but locking/deleting/ignoring their obvious threads is a no-brainer. Me thinks some of you have too much time on your hands and no idea of what to do with it....

When he did ever offer to repair a broken one?

Really, what was there to debate about this person, EVER?

Ask Momus, he seems to adore the little darling.

Like Jsoulja says, there is NO debate here about the person. That much is apparent. Do I need to restate my point up above again about what grates?

That might not be important to him in this discourse. I don't claim Nick to be a close friend or even a friend as such, that would be a ridiculous assertion -- we are acquaintances who have had a few meetings along the way. But even a slight acknowledging from him that we're all not positioning ourselves as objects of figurative rhetoric on the board would be nice. I'm not asking him to change his ways, oddly enough, but it'd be something if he realized that it'd pretty damned strange to expect us all to change to his.

They're not mutually exclusive at all, and the fact that Momus replies to your Do I need to restate my point up above again about what grates? with his comment about Berners Lee designing the web to control what people say just seems to me to be a refusal on his part to admit that he understands what you're talking about. Hence, he's acting like a wall.

(Momus, I do believe you to be an intelligent fellow, so I take for granted that you do hear what Ned's saying. I don't think I'm putting you behind any walls as a result of my opinion.)

A) Read my threads
B) Post on them

I don't see why on every thread I put up you come in with some smarmy comment. I find it confusing and really quite sad. Don't you have any girls to speak to?