River ,'Safe'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
And nobody wanted to say to "Michael" that it's OK make a personal attack on James Cameron, but not on Allyson, because James Cameron's not a poster on this board?
But that of course brings up the question -- what should we do if he wants to sign up?
Oh, and is two months set in stone? Does that seem too long to anyone?
What Allyson & PM said.
t tongue enters cheek
But that of course brings up the question -- what should we do if he wants to sign up?
I say we disallow him. We don't need his type 'round here.
t /tounge-in-cheek.
what should we do if he wants to sign up?
Don't activate that fucker's account is what we do.
He'd probably just blame us for killing Dark Angel and get himself banned for trolling anyway. ;)
"Dear James Cameron:
Your login name is very similar to that of a person who directed Terminator, Aliens, and True Lies, and who said a lot of nasty things about Kate Winslet. If you are not this James Cameron, please choose another login name, as we wish to avoid confusion. If you are James Cameron, we will require some proof, and suggest that you don a flame-proof suit.
Sincerely,
The Buffistas"
t cleans screen
t heads for COMM
If it is, then I don't think we can do so fairly without the person having the opportunity to mount a defence.
I'm with Allyson on this - every post you make on this board is an opportunity to mount a defense, and especially so after you've received an official warning. I also think that someone who genuinely wanted to resolve a problem would either a) figure out from the FAQ etc that this is a likely place to discuss this sort of issue, or b) ask someone what they could do to resolve misunderstandings and find out that way.
In the situation we've just been through, it was clear as it developed that there was no interest whatsoever on the part of the poster in resolving or even understanding what the objections of the community were. Inviting him over here wouldn't have changed that. How far backward do we need to bend? Shouldn't some of the the responsibility for clearing up your mess be your own at this point?
(FTR, I'm not saying the discussion should be hidden or kept on the QT in any way. If it comes up, it comes up. But I don't think we should feel bad that a specific invitation to start calling people hypocrites in this thread too wasn't issued. Or that we need to make a point of doing so in the future.)
deny him on the basis of crimes against humanity - same for Jerry Brukeheimer (or however you spell it).
also? I know big things and important things and many different things are being discussed and talked through, but the volume in this thread has become a bit much. In NO WAY am I suggesting people hold in their thoughts, can we just try not to post with me too and it's been said before.
That said:
1) we have a warning, suspension & banning policy. We agreed to it beforethis board was opened. We debated it slightly as we just went through excercising it - let's leave it be.
2) letting people know that this thread is where discussions of not nice behaviour get discussed - no new thoughts - Maybe someone can Nilly the bigger points and do a summary..
3) Music&Movies - there's a counter for votes, Nilly posted a link to the beginning of the discussion in Press, I'm pretty sure the pros and cons as seen by the various sides have all been posted.
4) I'm still the nicest.