Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here  (Read 42152 times)

UnbiasedObserver

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2009, 07:20:44 PM »

No, I didn't think for a second you were questioning my reasoning. I was saying that the reasoning Sands used in both of those posts was consistent. Worded a bit more harshly in one case than the other, but the same nonetheless.

Ok, cool!

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2009, 07:54:41 PM »
Sands already said it wasn't because of mod sass, but because of complaints about his behavior leading up to that. I don't find that hard to believe.

Quote from: Burning Sands
For the record, the ban was for multiple other complaints against this poster.  This particular comment, while annoying, was not ban worthy in and of itself.

That sounds great outside of context.

But take a look at the posts before Burning Sands made that comment in reaction to complaints:

 "Re: Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?
Reply #120 on: May 21, 2009, 11:36:01 PM    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Sands:

Do you have Law School Discussion Moderator on your resume?  Honest question.  Just curious."

...

Burning Sand's response was then this:

 "Re: Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?
Reply #126 on: May 31, 2009, 01:24:39 PM    

Oh, another smart ass comment?  Nice.  I was willing to skip the few complaints against this poster but since they insist, enjoy being banned."

That to me seems as though Burning Sands let his emotions get in the way of objective judgment.  It wasn't until after the fact that people found it odd that he banned someone that he was clear about his reasoning.

With that being said, again, he does a great job around here.  But in this situation, I think there's a strong chance that emotion, rather than reason, won.   


Absolutely spot-on.  PILOFOLO_REGIL was banned because 1) Miss P and other posters in tight with Burning Sands asked him to ban PILOFOLO and 2) because he made fun of Burning Sands.  It was personal and it was a deliberate exclusion of someone with an unpopular viewpoint, perspective and background. 

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
    • Black Law Students Association
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2009, 08:30:10 PM »
Sands already said it wasn't because of mod sass, but because of complaints about his behavior leading up to that. I don't find that hard to believe.

Quote from: Burning Sands
For the record, the ban was for multiple other complaints against this poster.  This particular comment, while annoying, was not ban worthy in and of itself.

That sounds great outside of context.

But take a look at the posts before Burning Sands made that comment in reaction to complaints:

 "Re: Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?
Reply #120 on: May 21, 2009, 11:36:01 PM    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Sands:

Do you have Law School Discussion Moderator on your resume?  Honest question.  Just curious."

...

Burning Sand's response was then this:

 "Re: Is the LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION board cliquish?
Reply #126 on: May 31, 2009, 01:24:39 PM    

Oh, another smart ass comment?  Nice.  I was willing to skip the few complaints against this poster but since they insist, enjoy being banned."

That to me seems as though Burning Sands let his emotions get in the way of objective judgment.  It wasn't until after the fact that people found it odd that he banned someone that he was clear about his reasoning.

With that being said, again, he does a great job around here.  But in this situation, I think there's a strong chance that emotion, rather than reason, won.   


Absolutely spot-on.  PILOFOLO_REGIL was banned because 1) Miss P and other posters in tight with Burning Sands asked him to ban PILOFOLO and 2) because he made fun of Burning Sands.  It was personal and it was a deliberate exclusion of someone with an unpopular viewpoint, perspective and background. 


You keep sticking with this unpopular viewpoint theory.  What, exactly, was PILFOLO's viewpoint?  I am being serious b/c I honestly do not know what you are talking about.  All I know about this poster is that he/she kept showing up in my email inbox whenever somebody hit a report to mod button to report yet another complaint on this poster.

If we lift the ban on this poster, how many seconds do you think it will be before they continue the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?


Speaking of banning folks, Earl Cat and I have talked it over and we agree we need some more mods around here. So I'll start another thread for nominations.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2009, 08:50:33 PM »
"What, exactly, was PILFOLO's viewpoint?"

He called Miss P on her saying that I had "no standing" to disagree with her.  He pointed out that she was really saying that I'm not sufficiently in the good graces of people like you and other followers to have the option to disagree with her.  PILOFOLO also pointed out that P demonstrated that she didn't even understand the legal vocabulary she was using in one of her botched arguments.   

But the real question is:  what was "the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?"  So far, all you've said was that he 1) had the audacity to disagree with Miss P and 2) was not popular with other posters.  That's really it?

Earlier, I invited you to post PILOFOLO's offensive material so we could all understnd what gets you banned here.  Why didn't you take me up on that?

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
    • Black Law Students Association
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #44 on: June 11, 2009, 09:52:09 PM »
"What, exactly, was PILFOLO's viewpoint?"

He called Miss P on her saying that I had "no standing" to disagree with her.  He pointed out that she was really saying that I'm not sufficiently in the good graces of people like you and other followers to have the option to disagree with her.  PILOFOLO also pointed out that P demonstrated that she didn't even understand the legal vocabulary she was using in one of her botched arguments.   

But the real question is:  what was "the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?"  So far, all you've said was that he 1) had the audacity to disagree with Miss P and 2) was not popular with other posters.  That's really it?

Earlier, I invited you to post PILOFOLO's offensive material so we could all understnd what gets you banned here.  Why didn't you take me up on that?

A few points of clarification:

1. I have never said or implied that any poster was banned for disagreeing with any other poster nor has any poster, to my knowledge, ever been banned in the history of this website for such a weak reason.

2. With regard to this particular poster, you stated that "He called Miss P on her saying that I had "no standing" to disagree with her." Clearly, I must have missed this conversation b/c I don't recall seeing any of that. (don't doubt it may have happened, but my attn was not drawn to it)   

3. That's a fair request to ask what this poster in question did to avoid bans in the future.  I don't have the time to go back and dig through my trash file to find the complaint links but suffice it to say, as a general rule, (i) spam, (ii) personal harassment and (iii) blatantly "shock the conscience" posts (ie. Porn, racial junk, etc.) are 3 sure fire ways to get banned.  As I recall, this guy fell into category II.

4. After receiving a few complaints re this poster and a few others involved in the same argument, I remember putting out a general warning to everybody.  Something along the lines of "play nice" or words to that effect.  I didn't take this poster's response personally as he/she doesn't know me and I certainly don't know them.  I took this poster's response to indicate that they were not only going to completely disregard my warning, but that they had no respect for any future warnings as well.  Once I see that a poster has no respect for the mods' requests to keep the peace, there's really no need to beat around the bush anymore after that.  I'd just as soon ban the poster now as opposed to 20 complaints from now.

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

sheltron5000

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
  • All weather operation. Batteries not included.
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2009, 03:32:56 AM »
I'm going to voice an unpopular viewpoint now. There are a few posters, namely isuckatthis and jake_mondatta, who seem to exist only to make wild accusations that have no basis in reality or logic. They are very good at getting people heated beyond reason (THIS IS THE INTERNET PEOPLE) through personal attacks (they're doing it to you, burningsands). Every thread I have ever seen them involved in runs on with pages and pages of the same garbage, and frankly, I and many other posters are sick of it.

That being said, I don't think they deserve banning necessarily, although they are skirting the edge. They come very close to personal harrassment, but I think the other posters here are grown up enough to shrug it off. I DO think, however, that if the moderators are getting enough complaints, and such posters don't stop, then it is ban worthy.

jm2c.
LSN

I'd love to join this LGBT club.  It's the Legos, Gobots, Barbies, and other Toys group, right?  I'll show up with an armful of toys.

Scentless Apprentice

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
  • My ego isnt LSD strong but I still want to play.
    • View Profile
    • LSN
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2009, 03:43:41 AM »
This place is usually so quiet...we should be trying to recruit people. Or..maybe it's good the way it is?
Birds of a feather flock together.

LSN

sheltron5000

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
  • All weather operation. Batteries not included.
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2009, 03:51:28 AM »
I think more and faster posts is the key to getting more posters, and the key to that is keeping every thread from devolving, .... more moderation ;)
LSN

I'd love to join this LGBT club.  It's the Legos, Gobots, Barbies, and other Toys group, right?  I'll show up with an armful of toys.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
    • Black Law Students Association
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2009, 07:55:08 AM »
I'm going to voice an unpopular viewpoint now. There are a few posters, namely isuckatthis and jake_mondatta, who seem to exist only to make wild accusations that have no basis in reality or logic. They are very good at getting people heated beyond reason (THIS IS THE INTERNET PEOPLE) through personal attacks (they're doing it to you, burningsands). Every thread I have ever seen them involved in runs on with pages and pages of the same garbage, and frankly, I and many other posters are sick of it.

That being said, I don't think they deserve banning necessarily, although they are skirting the edge. They come very close to personal harrassment, but I think the other posters here are grown up enough to shrug it off. I DO think, however, that if the moderators are getting enough complaints, and such posters don't stop, then it is ban worthy.

jm2c.


Duly noted although, to be clear, I wouldn't classify ISUCKATHIS's questions toward me as personal harassment. I thought it was a fair question to ask moderators about the rules. 

That being said, as mods, we are aware that we may be unpopular or with become targets to the anti-authority types.  Comes with the territory.  No big deal.

However, if there are posters that constantly and consistently prevent others from using this website for its primary purpose (namely to gain information about law school and to talk to others in the process) then Earl Cat and I have no problem showing them the door.

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2009, 08:46:27 AM »
I'm going to voice an unpopular viewpoint now. There are a few posters, namely isuckatthis and jake_mondatta, who seem to exist only to make wild accusations that have no basis in reality or logic. They are very good at getting people heated beyond reason (THIS IS THE INTERNET PEOPLE) through personal attacks (they're doing it to you, burningsands). Every thread I have ever seen them involved in runs on with pages and pages of the same garbage, and frankly, I and many other posters are sick of it.

That being said, I don't think they deserve banning necessarily, although they are skirting the edge. They come very close to personal harrassment, but I think the other posters here are grown up enough to shrug it off. I DO think, however, that if the moderators are getting enough complaints, and such posters don't stop, then it is ban worthy.

jm2c.

I agree.  I suspect that they are all alts of the same person.  They all use caps in their names heavily, and they sound the same (and stick up for each other).  I'm pretty sure PILOFOLO and ISUCKATTHIS are the same poster. 
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.