Regarding permabanned members

[PhilFish]

I'm guessing there is more to it than that. Some folks here have a history, and this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Just my hunch.

I think if we leave the ad hominem stuff out we'll be better off for it.

Well to answer the prior guys question no nobody should be banned for making a comment about buying a gun. But given the number of times that that poster has taken a jab at me or my kid.. in a vulgar way, or with a vulgar insinuation.. then no that person should stay banned.

And in case that other poster is slow on the uptake, that former poster was put out for drawing a parallel between my child and some deranged person that just shot up a school and killed people.

So anybody that has an opinion on that that differs from what she actually said can go [Unwelcome language removed] themselves.

 

[PhilFish]

I'm guessing there is more to it than that. Some folks here have a history, and this may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Just my hunch.

I think if we leave the ad hominem stuff out we'll be better off for it.

Best approach in my opinion is to stay away from people's family members, in particular minor children that have absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of this site.

The other best approach in my opinion is to stop making insinuations that don't exist, in particular those that are vulgar and predicated upon the insulting person's inability to make a rational argument and support their point

 

[PNWest]

If I remember correctly, Mick.. has been in and out several times keeps making promises and then screwing everybody over by not adhering to what was agreed to... Namely not being a total tool to the mods. I vote no

I'm with you on this one. Against you on the other.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Mick

 

[PNWest]

Well to answer the prior guys question no nobody should be banned for making a comment about buying a gun. But given the number of times that that poster has taken a jab at me or my kid.. in a vulgar way, or with a vulgar insinuation.. then no that person should stay banned.

And in case that other poster is slow on the uptake, that former poster was put out for drawing a parallel between my child and some deranged person that just shot up a school and killed people.

So anybody that has an opinion on that that differs from what she actually said can go [Unwelcome language removed] themselves.

Your words:

Republican Gov Abbott.

I'm curious, what kind of gun will you buy for your son for this 18th birthday?

when the ban lifts.... note: the next time you reference my child with such a vulgar insinuation your account is forfeit.

EDIT> nevermind. your account is forfeit. such a slovenly and personal insult. what a [Unwelcome language removed] pig.
pig.

@SW48 ; @bdtex

FYI: i'll not suffer another vulgarity like that from her. the context she alludes to is abhorent.

 

[ObamacareForever]

I like that dude. Make a case

He was capable of debate topics, not attacking posters.
We all get down in the muck sometimes. He was there far less than posters than aren't perma-shadow banned.

 

[PhilFish]

Your words:

Yes

 

[Zam-Zam]

Well to answer the prior guys question no nobody should be banned for making a comment about buying a gun. But given the number of times that that poster has taken a jab at me or my kid.. in a vulgar way, or with a vulgar insinuation.. then no that person should stay banned.

And in case that other poster is slow on the uptake, that former poster was put out for drawing a parallel between my child and some deranged person that just shot up a school and killed people.

So anybody that has an opinion on that that differs from what she actually said can go [Unwelcome language removed] themselves.

I certainly agree that talking about other people's children is beyond the pale, and that you can only warn a person so many times before you are forced by their conduct to lower the hammer.

A lot is dumped at the doorstep of the mods here, and it really shouldn't have to be that way. If we want a better forum, it's up to us to be better posters, and to moderate our own conduct. I do understand that sometimes things get heated and emotional, but that doesn't excuse boorish behavior. Time for us to grow up.

Again, just my two cents.

 

[PhilFish]

He was capable of debate topics, not attacking posters.
We all get down in the muck sometimes. He was there far less than posters than aren't perma-shadow banned.

I took the time to research and refresh my memory. His issue was constantly attacking the owner of this site. Tell him to write the ownerps..no such thing as a shadow ban. You won't get anywhere making shit up.

 

[PhilFish]

I certainly agree that talking about other people's children is beyond the pale, and that you can only warn a person so many times before you are forced by their conduct to lower the hammer.

A lot is dumped at the doorstep of the mods here, and it really shouldn't have to be that way. If we want a better forum, it's up to us to be better posters, and to moderate our own conduct. I do understand that sometimes things get heated and emotional, but that doesn't excuse boorish behavior. Time for us to grow up.

Again, just my two cents.

Not my problem. The poster referred to a child by equating them to an insane person who just slaughtered a room full of people.


As such...said poster can gft.

 

[PhilFish]

Does PJ have any specific M.O. for possible redemption re: permabanned members?
I'm just curious if all the PJ rules are set in stone. Asking for the repubs and the dems.
Thanks

Anyway. To your point

I think the more the merrier.

However ... personal attacks and vulgarities levied at children.... No. That'll take some work.


Meanwhile...others.... Make your suggestions.. I'm sure they'll need to be discussed....but you've always been fair. Go for it

 

[ObamacareForever]

I took the time to research and refresh my memory. His issue was constantly attacking the owner of this site. Tell him to write the ownerps..no such thing as a shadow ban. You won't get anywhere making shit up.

Shadow ban, perma-ban, perma-shadow ban. Same diff.

 

[PhilFish]

Shadow ban, perma-ban, perma-shadow ban. Same diff.

Nah. Banned...not banned

 

[PNWest]

A victim of a crime doesn't get to sit on the jury passing judgement on the accused. Much less do they get to be the judge.

In cases where a moderator is the alleged victim of some bannable offense it should be a different moderator that makes the call not the alleged victim, particularly if there has been bad blood between them.

 

[PhilFish]

A victim of a crime doesn't get to sit on the jury passing judgement on the accused. Much less do they get to be the judge.

In cases where a moderator is the alleged victim of some bannable offense it should be a different moderator that makes the call not the alleged victim, particularly if there has been bad blood between them.

The moderator is not the alleged victim. The moderators child was the victim, who in no way was party to any conversation on this site in any way shape or form. Yet for some reason the band poster chose to attack a minor child with what was determined, by a moderator, to be a most vulgar and heinous insult and attack.

PS.. what do you care? Do you favor personal attacks on posters children with insinuations most vile?

 

[PNWest]

The moderator is not the alleged victim. The moderators child was the victim, who in no way was party to any conversation on this site in any way shape or form. Yet for some reason the band poster chose to attack a minor child with what was determined, by a moderator, to be a most vulgar and heinous insult and attack.

PS.. what do you care? Do you favor personal attacks on posters children with insinuations most vile?

>The moderator is not the alleged victim. The moderators child was the victim...

Forgive me - Let me rephrase - A parent of the victim of a crime doesn't get to sit on the jury passing judgement on the accused. Much less do they get to be the judge.

Why do I care? I don't think that you were in a position to make a fair decision on the matter. I think that this was an abuse of power and should be reversed.

 

[bdtex]

I vote no

Same here.

 

[bdtex]

His issue was constantly attacking the owner of this site.

His issue also was constantly posting memes and other images depicting graphic violence and nudity which set off Google Adsense alarms.

 

[TBLee]

Personally, I believe if you are warned and make the decision to continue the behavior to which you received a warning for and it causes you to be banned, it should be forever.

 

[PhilFish]

>The moderator is not the alleged victim. The moderators child was the victim...

Forgive me - Let me rephrase - A parent of the victim of a crime doesn't get to sit on the jury passing judgement on the accused. Much less do they get to be the judge.

Why do I care? I don't think that you were in a position to make a fair decision on the matter. I think that this was an abuse of power and should be reversed.

This isnt a jury situation.. it's a poli site. Too bad.

Abuse of power? Odd. No. Vulgar insults...and excessive personal attacks are against our rules...when they become too much/many the remedy is applied.