| Saint Jiub 09.07.2004 17:58 |
and ignore the bastards, but document the abuses to support arguments for banning. Repeated harrassment and e-mail spamming seem like good reasons for banning. Inane topics (unless they displace other topics) are not a good reason for banning. |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:00 |
Huh. It seems our Jake's posts have disappeared...once again! Spooky. |
| Josuè 09.07.2004 18:03 |
I'm getting scared... We need a moderator. |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:21 |
Richard and Barbara won't stand to allow a moderator.
I asked Richard Orchard to remove Baer yesterday, and this is what I got for a reply:
You know Richard's concept of freedom of speech. If every poster who annoys other posters would be removed, the board would be pretty empty YourValentineIt seems this is not a democratic board at all, because most people want something, and Richard won't grant our wishes, because of the minority of posters who stand for freedom of speech (including himself). I'm not going as far as to call it a totalitarian board, because Richard DOES take suggestions sometimes - on the other hand, QOL is a totalitarian-ruled board with lesser freedoms. |
| Josuè 09.07.2004 18:24 |
Maybe we could play with the freedom of speech but with rules like laws... and if someone breaks them then banned. But I still think that one thing is freedom of speech, another thing is freedom of fucking speech, as baer's one. For god's sake... |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:29 |
Exactly. Here's a little interesting trivia about Canada: It is illegal to swear on Parliament Hill (where the Prime Minister's office is, among other things), which is located in the capital of Canada, Ottawa. |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:32 |
Oh! And the other reason why Richard/Barbara won't allow a moderator: So many people are biased towards the idea of having a moderator, what with the current situation of the dicator-ruled board that is QueenOnline. I actually myself wrote an argumentative essay about why Queenzone needs a moderator, and what rules a moderator should follow...but I don't know if I still have it anymore. |
| YourValentine 09.07.2004 18:37 |
One thing is sure: if you publish my emails, you won't get any answers again. |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:40 |
Sorry Barbara. I guess I should have asked you permission. I just didn't think it was that sensitive. |
| Saint Jiub 09.07.2004 18:42 |
Is repeated e-mail harassment escalating from QZ grounds for banning? |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:42 |
But Josue is right. We need a form of moderation, Barbara, and it is time you and Richard started listening to the majority of the people. If people like Jake and Baer are going to keep on spamming us, are you just going to sit back and let us take the piss? I certainly hope not. |
| Saint Jiub 09.07.2004 18:46 |
Surely some of this e-mail spamming is actually criminal and easily grounds for banning. |
| Saint Jiub 09.07.2004 18:46 |
But no moderation please |
| Bob The Shrek 09.07.2004 18:49 |
How many times do certain posters need to be reminded not to respond to particular threads? You are your own worst enemy. The majority seem capable of ignoring him, so it's tough shit on those that respond - your posts keep him here. That was a repeat broadcast on behalf of the Can't Leave It Alone Party |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 18:54 |
Just one question: If Jake made himself disappear, how the fuck did he do so?! I just created a new account just to do some testing in the testing forum, and I can't even access the Profile page!! Surely, Jake must know something we don't if he's made himself disappear. And what more, he's done it twice, or probably more than twice! I've seen this from him in the past, and I believe Richard Orchard has even taken steps to make sure no-one else did this again. And despite that, it has! Btw. if some of yas want to spam Jake, and normally I don't advocate spamming, I found his e-mail from a previous one I got long time ago from him, and it's jdbritt@nhvt.net |
| YourValentine 09.07.2004 19:16 |
Apparently this discussion has to happen every few months. First of all, it's Richard's board and not mine. He decides and as yet he does not seem to be bothered by C.B. The board is not moderated and I don't see that it ever will be (hopefully) but 2 persons are banned and when they re-register with a new username - which cannot be helped - they are deleted as soon they are identified. Users cannot delete themselves from the notice board. Personally I think spamming is the safest way to get banned from Queenzone - if a user makes the board unusable for the rest and harrasses other users beyond a certain point, a ban is possible. Of course, Bob is perfectly right: ignoring is the best way to get rid of idiots who use the board to give their sorry existence some questionable meaning. When they are ignored they will give up sooner or later. |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 19:17 |
OIC. So it was you who removed Jake, was it? If so, thanks for taking care of him for us. |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 19:18 |
Btw. who is this other 2nd person that's banned? I can't see Baer being it because his posts are still up for the moment... |
| Pluto 09.07.2004 19:23 |
hang on jake is back ive been gone to long |
| inu-liger 09.07.2004 19:31 |
No, Pluto, he's gone again. You just missed him. |
| iron eagle 09.07.2004 22:40 |
*****How many times do certain posters need to be reminded not to respond to particular threads? You are your own worst enemy*********** AMEN- |
| Lisser 10.07.2004 00:04 |
Barbara is COMPLETELY right with out a doubt. Ignore him and others that bother you. If you don't fuel the fire, it dies out. By all means, if there is an honest debate at hand, go for it...but i hardly see the debate in vagina, poo, ah yeah, etc. |
| Penis - Vagina 10.07.2004 01:17 |
I think Baer is actually the creation of Richard Orchard. Something he does out of boredom. I can't think of any other reason why such sickening, disrespectful topics continue to be allowed. |
| Brandon 10.07.2004 02:00 |
Who ever said this was a "democratic board," Dark? This is Richard's board to do with as he sees fit. Here's a solution: Instead of fueling the fire and calling for CB and whomever else to be banned, why don't you place a "personal ban" on him and simply ignore all he posts? |
| Bob The Shrek 10.07.2004 03:18 |
*thud thud thud thud* The sound of wise words falling on deaf ears......... |
| iGSM 10.07.2004 06:47 |
Phew, that's what that is. I thought it was my transmission or something. |
| inu-liger 10.07.2004 10:57 |
Mr. Roboto wrote: I think Baer is actually the creation of Richard Orchard. Something he does out of boredom. I can't think of any other reason why such sickening, disrespectful topics continue to be allowed.One would wonder... |
| Brandon 10.07.2004 11:53 |
Only about you, Dark. |
| Catgoddess 10.07.2004 12:45 |
I can never make my mind up on this topic so I don't really know why I'm posting this......... |
| the oppositionist 11.07.2004 19:05 |
the problem being that like with bullies at school, sometimes ignoring them doesnt work and wow, it doesnt seem to be working here and it didnt work with jake either |