Banning disruptive trolls (poll)

[Winston]

Typical of MarcosKrapola for wantingto ban the good posters...But a known racist in Cornball gets a pass from you?? Trust me, he dont like your kind either moron....

You've already received 3 warnings, including one from zboy, about your uncivil behavior in insulting others. Now you've called Marcos a "moron" which is unprovoked. Therefore, you will now be banned for one week. Next time it will probably be permanent.

[Jester]

Why don't you just put him on ignore? Add him to your foes list. Then you won't see his posts.

I don't like putting people on ignore, it messes up discussions especially with others quoting them. And your reply is off-topic, as you do not go into his actual behavior and posting history. I know this is a free speech forum, but when did free speech become a thing for trolls?

Nice one Zeitola!

+1

I hate that "ignore" argument

Its like complaining about a fly in the soup, and being told to just use your spoon to scoop around it

[Jester]

I had it with Paloatoguy and his BS. He used to be confined to his own threads but lately he's shitting up other threads too with his copy-paste messages and images, gibberish and yelling. He adds literally ZERO to any discussions. I'm all in favor of banning him, rather then waiting for him to disappear. This forum is supposed to be all about freedom of speech but a good gardeners knows when to cut the rotten apples off. No reason to run it like it's some f***ing nanny state. So I made a poll on whether or not to ban him, like we did with Cornfed before. People like PAG or Anatroll make me appreciate Cornfed more, because Cornfed at least made a few decent and insightful posts about modern culture. Even a broken clock hits the right time twice a day, but allowing a disruptive troll to mess up a forum has nothing to do with "free speech".

I am pretty confident the poll results will show that very few people consider this man a valuable addition to these forums. A toddler can copy and paste shit too, throw tantrums and cry, but sometimes toddlers have to be disciplined and this person is NOT a good addition to the forums at all. Getting rid of him would probably improve posting quality, if only just a little bit. He's had his time, he's had his laugh, but the entertainment value has gone away and he just gets on people's nerves now.

There's a thing to be said for allowing controversial views such as racism, and allowing opposing views. I get that. But deliberate trolling, derailing of discussions and messing around should not be allowed to freely happen without consequences. It may be funny for a while, but the novelty wears off and shit gets old. I say we end this and be done with it.

Zeitola +1 you are right on in content and wellwritten too.

I had both Anatol and PaloAltoGuy on "ignore" before the forum change, not sure if it still applies, but I still see multiple threads that PAG starts as I scan through topics. In the case of PAG, IMO he is just a loose cannon (loose ego). In the case of Anatol, I think he is a classic troll, a provocateur who is actually paid some pittance by some intel agency to try to provoke stupid responses. He fails, but that is no reason to keep him around.

Winston, when guys like Zeitola take their time to patiently break this stuff down for you, you need to listen. They care about YOUR website. If I were you I would listen - and be thankful.

[Cornfed]

Winston, when guys like Zeitola take their time to patiently break this stuff down for you, you need to listen. They care about YOUR website. If I were you I would listen - and be thankful.

But if Winston listens to his, lets say, correct advice to pan a poster, what is to stop infiltrators from giving Winston incorrect advice to ban other posters?

[Jester]

Winston, when guys like Zeitola take their time to patiently break this stuff down for you, you need to listen. They care about YOUR website. If I were you I would listen - and be thankful.

But if Winston listens to his, lets say, correct advice to pan a poster, what is to stop infiltrators from giving Winston incorrect advice to ban other posters?

You have to read, and discern who is telling the truth.

As someone once said, God is in the details.

[Winston]

How about we make Jester a moderator here so he can decide on such things? I think he is a man full of wisdom, common sense, and rationality. So I trust his judgment.

I can't follow every thread and poster here to see what they are about. And posters who are plain weird, I just ignore them.

[starchild5]

How about we make Jester a moderator here so he can decide on such things? I think he is a man full of wisdom, common sense, and rationality. So I trust his judgment.

+1 I agree...

[Jester]

How about we make Jester a moderator here so he can decide on such things? I think he is a man full of wisdom, common sense, and rationality. So I trust his judgment.

+1 I agree...

Very flattered. Thanks guys.

[fschmidt]

I just want to point out that Paloaltoguy left on his own, so this is one case where free speech worked.

Also, I also support Jester as a moderator.

[Winston]

Here's another possibility:

How about we form a committee or a review board, to decide on issues such as banning? Kind of like the equivalent of a Congress or Parliament. We would put the wisest, most fair minded and rational members on it. It would be people with a good head on their shoulders who are mentally stable and not prone to outbursts. Such as Rock, Jester, Fschmidt, Mr S, Ladislav, Zboy1, etc.

So rather than voting on every issue, this board or committee would discuss it and then vote on it. That way, it would take the responsibility of decisions off the forum members, and put it in the hands of their "House of Representatives". lol

I mean, there has to be a reason why the Founding Fathers of America didn't just let all the people vote on every issue, but instead let them vote for their representatives, who would then go vote on the issues in Congress for the people who elected them, right? So should we have an elected board too, to make all the decisions?

If so, should I pick the members of this board, or should they be elected by all the members? What do you all think?

[newlifeinphilippines]

Here's another possibility:

How about we form a committee or a review board, to decide on issues such as banning? Kind of like the equivalent of a Congress or Parliament. We would put the wisest, most fair minded and rational members on it. It would be people with a good head on their shoulders who are mentally stable and not prone to outbursts. Such as Rock, Jester, Fschmidt, Mr S, Ladislav, Zboy1, etc.

So rather than voting on every issue, this board or committee would discuss it and then vote on it. That way, it would take the responsibility of decisions off the forum members, and put it in the hands of their "House of Representatives". lol

I mean, there has to be a reason why the Founding Fathers of America didn't just let all the people vote on every issue, but instead let them vote for their representatives, who would then go vote on the issues in Congress for the people who elected them, right? So should we have an elected board too, to make all the decisions?

If so, should I pick the members of this board, or should they be elected by all the members? What do you all think?

thats what flashback does I think its a swedish forum. If you elect the board then that would make you like Beijing. If you believe in the hong kong democracy movement then it should be forum voted

[Jester]

....We would put the wisest, most fair minded and rational members on it....

.....If you elect the board then that would make you like Beijing. If you believe in the hong kong democracy movement then it should be forum voted

I am OK with Winston choosing, or election by poll.

But if appointed, then I think it should be called "The House Of Lords"

Of course if you appoint Ladislav, FSchmidt, and OutWest, then we could call it "The Sanhedrin"

[S_Parc]

....We would put the wisest, most fair minded and rational members on it....

.....If you elect the board then that would make you like Beijing. If you believe in the hong kong democracy movement then it should be forum voted

I am OK with Winston choosing, or election by poll.

But if appointed, then I think it should be called "The House Of Lords"

Of course if you appoint Ladislav, FSchmidt, and OutWest, then we could call it "The Sanhedrin"

Just like in the US Senate, the Vice President has a vote if there's a tie among the 100 senators. I believe you need an antihero, not a troll, as a tiebreaker. And who's the equivalent of a Joe Biden-like antihero for this forum, besides me ?

[fschmidt]

I hate both committees and democracy, but I am unsure how to handle things as a moderator here. I suggest a public "Moderation" forum. Moderators should have nothing to hide. People can post complaints there and moderators can propose action. If a moderator proposes an action and no other moderator objects within 24 hours, then the moderator can go ahead with his action. If there is disagreement between moderators then Winston can make the final decision. As a public forum, anyone can express their opinion but they have no power.

[Winston]

....We would put the wisest, most fair minded and rational members on it....

.....If you elect the board then that would make you like Beijing. If you believe in the hong kong democracy movement then it should be forum voted

I am OK with Winston choosing, or election by poll.

But if appointed, then I think it should be called "The House Of Lords"

Of course if you appoint Ladislav, FSchmidt, and OutWest, then we could call it "The Sanhedrin"

I started a poll about the creation of this Judicial Committee, which Jester wants to call "The House of Lords". Please vote here:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25370