"I want this person gone!" threads

[HungDavid]

Originally Posted by Gillette

Chat - report it to a mod with screep capture- we can't just take your word for it. I did that once and it was a mistake.

PM - report/forward to a mod, preferably with screen capture

While I am in favour of the name and shame for things that would otherwise remain hidden this instance wasn't hidden.

When it happens in a thread it should be discussed in that thread.

Three hours prior to the start of the removed thread the OP was informed that; yes, the reports had reached us and had been merged to consolidate the evidence and objections, yes, I was making my own recommendation as we spoke, and yes, I would be leaving a comment to the objectionable poster in the original thread itself, which I did.

Three hour prior.
It wasn't started due to lack of moderator involvement or attention.

Apparently the actions visible didn't sit close enough to her desire for a quick kill so she started a thread dedicated to having him banned.

Four hours later I saw it and it's whopping two supporting posts and removed it.

Repeating my original post.
It's harassment. Don't do it.

Can you tell me the names of that threads or they have been removed ?

[Gillette]

Originally Posted by HungDavid

Can you tell me the names of that threads or they have been removed ?

Someone will PM you with it I'm sure.

The topic of this thread is the practice of starting threads to attack or oust someone and why not to do so.

I'd like to stick with that topic.

[kadtxgrl]

Deleted

[faceking]

Originally Posted by Nick4444

now I'm really confused

can't find anything even closely resembling ....

ah, well! back to real life

It's probably best we're aren't recapped... my guesses;

1. Personal/direct threat (laughable on an internet forum)
2. Outright racism/sexism/etc...
3. Commercial spamming
4. Posted nude picture of Charles Nelson Reilly

[Monster]

Originally Posted by kadtxgrl

I know yesterday or last night when all the action was going on with the Marriage gone South post ......I was on the who's on the site function trying to find a moderator......(I didn't know about the post alert button) Poor Moderators probably got p.m.'d to death.

I have been on this site a long time and I have never seen anything like what I saw last night. That 20 year old college student with an anger problem is a legal risk to the site owner. That is my gut instinct. If the OP show's her husband that guys statements there could be problems.

I think the guy should be forced to make a public apology to the OP or banned. What he did was not acceptable.

What see said ^^^

[Drifterwood]

Originally Posted by Gillette

Creating an additional thread with the prior knowledge of the above is deliberately holding a single person up for public censure. That's harassment.

I have read your last thread as well, but the above is what it boils down to.

I don't believe that it is harassment, it is what you also said, public censure. We only allow minors to hide behind or be protected by anonymity.

You will say that he can be publicly censured in the original thread where his unacceptable comments were made, but I will say that more public censure is part of the freedom of speech imperative. If your logic was correct, then you need to remove all posts that censure any human being, Hillary, Obama, Phelps, Coulter, George W, Mugabe, the Chinese etc etc. Membership does not give you special rights.

He is supposedly an adult. If you don't want to be publicly censured, then don't go wishing someone's sick child to die.

[ZOS23xy]

Wasn't there a posting that was allowed to go on and on about "Ignore Pronatalist", or some such clown I generally ignored anyway?

It wasn't hostile or anything, just that he was boring and usless.

[Gillette]

Originally Posted by Drifterwood

I have read your last thread as well, but the above is what it boils down to.

I don't believe that it is harassment, it is what you also said, public censure. We only allow minors to hide behind or be protected by anonymity.

You will say that he can be publicly censured in the original thread where his unacceptable comments were made, but I will say that more public censure is part of the freedom of speech imperative.

He is supposedly an adult. If you don't want to be publicly censured, then don't go wishing someone's sick child to die.

Fair enough. What I should have said is wider public censure. Or in the case of the removed thread, public action. Pointless as the site does not ban by majority vote.

Singling someone out more than they have done themselves so that a wider audience can take a kick at them is still harassment.

[Gillette]

Originally Posted by ZOS23xy

Wasn't there a posting that was allowed to go on and on about "Ignore Pronatalist", or some such clown I generally ignored anyway?

It wasn't hostile or anything, just that he was boring and usless.

Quite right. Oversight corrected.

[Drifterwood]

Originally Posted by Gillette

Singling someone out more than they have done themselves so that a wider audience can take a kick at them is still harassment.

Some though would call it a public service, a justified outing for unacceptable behaviour.

Anyway, the irony is that this thread has given him and the issue just as much exposure.

I hope he sincerely apologises, or gets the messaage and moves on.

[penisuer]

If you want the whole scoop just check out in the WOmens Issues Forum my post 'marriage in trouble due to bad sex'.

To make a long story short, I have a baby whose 1, and who almost passed away this last Thanksgiving. Apparantely my OP struck a nerve with him and when all was said and done, he was name calling me and my baby and wishing death on her in various posts.

[Monster]

I read that thread and his comments were unacceptable, I sinecerly hope,

!. your child is ok

2, he finds the guts to apologize to you

Originally Posted by penisuer

If you want the whole scoop just check out in the WOmens Issues Forum my post 'marriage in trouble due to bad sex'.

To make a long story short, I have a baby whose 1, and who almost passed away this last Thanksgiving. Apparantely my OP struck a nerve with him and when all was said and done, he was name calling me and my baby and wishing death on her in various posts.

[Gillette]

Originally Posted by Drifterwood

Some though would call it a public service, a justified outing for unacceptable behaviour.

Anyway, the irony is that this thread has given him and the issue just as much exposure.

Thanks to some clever hijacking. Don't be shocked if this thread goes the same way as the other.

Next time I'll just make it a closed thread.

As for the public service. Where exactly should we draw the line on what unacceptable behaviour is worthy of exposure vs. when is the exposure harassment? In my opinion, opening that up at all will create more grey areas for dispute and subsequent inconsistency, so I think it's best that the policy is "Don't do it".

Something from an earlier post of yours in this thread. The sticky I created in the Women's Issues forum specifies that no names be given for this very reason. Someone may recognise a PM they sent but the board at large isn't given fresh meat to revile.

[Drifterwood]

Originally Posted by Gillette

As for the public service. Where exactly should we draw the line on what unacceptable behaviour is worthy of exposure vs. when is the exposure harassment? In my opinion, opening that up at all will create more grey areas for dispute and subsequent inconsistency, so I think it's best that the policy is "Don't do it".

What would happen, I hope, is that we would have some adult discussion. If the accusations were too harsh or wrong, this would come to light. People might disagree, but that is hardly surprising, it's halthy.

Free speech isn't something to be threatened by, imo. He was free to say what he did, we should be free to censure him.

[ZOS23xy]

Originally Posted by Drifterwood

Free speech isn't something to be threatened by, imo. He was free to say what he did, we should be free to censure him.

I sense the feeling of nailing a wrong doer on the spot--in the thread they write out on--would be far more useful than starting a thread of condemnation. In the case under examination I read the two go after one another, trying to type in the last word, and I was wondering how long it would continue. I thought of adding "she's said 'enough!'"

When I saw it later today, I was wondering why someone wishing a child dead had not been banned, solely out of fairness. This website has gone after people suggesting assassinations. This was no different.