Are Forum Rules Being Abused?
Then (whenever you feel like it) you could review a complaint. I'm trying not to add unnecessarily to the forum workload for you. People can wait around for a judgement, as long as it takes. If you decide to review one atl all (like the Supreme Court, you could just dismiss it altogether, and not bother)
Quote: rxwineActually, it might be better if only you or JB had access to such an archive.
Then (whenever you feel like it) you could review a complaint. I'm trying not to add unnecessarily to the forum workload for you. People can wait around for a judgement, as long as it takes. If you decide to review one atl all (like the Supreme Court, you could just dismiss it altogether, and not bother)
I can't imagine they don't have access to see flagged posts already.
Quote: rxwine...and actually, if you had all of Aluts relevant current posts in one place, perhaps you would already be seeing him off to the Twilight Zone.
You mean the Wiz can't see them? It was JL without a shadow of a doubt. He had 100 posts in like, a week. And he was an expert on Singer and thought we all underestimated him. Who else talks like that?
Quote: JimMorrisonI can't imagine they don't have access to see flagged posts already.
Oh, well, if so, nevermind.
Yep, and the stuff about the car was a direct Logan quote, among other things.Quote: EvenBobI admit I flagged 2 Altut posts last night because he was so obviously JL. He was bragging about how great Singer was and I had no idea his posts would disappear when I flagged them. I thought it would just be brought to the attention of a mod. My bad...
I would prefer to block/ignore him, but he's just so disruptive and annoying. It's not fair to let him keep hanging around.
See directly above for example of what I mean. Trying to restrain myself from flagging...
Quote: AltutLook who's talking: 60 posts a week for just over 8 months. You're fixated on my being someone based on this or that. Get over it. I read Singer too and I like his style. So what. And it doesn't help that he just challenged people here who kept criticizing him and calling him a fraud, but when he turned up the heat all the critics ran out of the kitchen. I imagine that's hard to swallow if you don't like him.
Pretty sure you said in a previous post that you hadn't known who Singer was before. You can't even keep your story straight Jerry/Singer
Quote: JimMorrisonAnd it looks like Altut is history. I think I'm gonna go have a few drinks to celebrate!
There's always helicious to look forward to.
Quote: teddysAltut has been suspended for a personal insult he posted in a comment here.
According to the Wizard's list, that's only a 3-day suspension. Why wasn't he suspended permanently for violating forum rule #11 (no multi-accounting)?
We're not quite sure what the standard is for proof of multi-accounting. Apparently, it might be beyond a reasonable doubt, which is more than multi-accounters deserve.Quote: MathExtremistQuote: teddysAltut has been suspended for a personal insult he posted in a comment here.
According to the Wizard's list, that's only a 3-day suspension. Why wasn't he suspended permanently for violating forum rule #11 (no multi-accounting)?
In my opinion, it should be preponderance of the evidence, which Altut/Logan/Singer certainly meets.
I really don't think a case needs to be made when it's this painfully obvious, however.
Quote: teddysWe're not quite sure what the standard is for proof of multi-accounting. Apparently, it might be beyond a reasonable doubt, which is more than multi-accounters deserve.
It is. I know that tends to protect the guilty, but I'd rather do that than punish the innocent.
Quote: WizardIt is. I know that tends to protect the guilty, but I'd rather do that than punish the innocent.
But "reasonable doubt" only needs to be from one person's perspective -- yours. You have access to IP logs, browser caps, and other technical details. Are you suggesting that JerryLogan, JL2, helicious, and Altut all used separate computers on different IP hosting accounts? Jerry *admitted* he was JL2 and helicious, after all.
It's your party, but letting Jerry change his screen name and keep posting (about the same tired old accusations, no less) seems contrary to both rules 11 and 12 of your own rules.
Quote: MathExtremistBut "reasonable doubt" only needs to be from one person's perspective -- yours. You have access to IP logs, browser caps, and other technical details. Are you suggesting that JerryLogan, JL2, helicious, and Altut all used separate computers on different IP hosting accounts? Jerry *admitted* he was JL2 and helicious, after all.
It's your party, but letting Jerry change his screen name and keep posting (about the same tired old accusations, no less) seems contrary to both rules 11 and 12 of your own rules.
The USA is supposed to be the land of the free. This means that everyone gets to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I think the Wiz is doing a remarkable job in being fair to everyone on this site.
I also think that 2 flags is not enough to remove a post. If we want to take our lead from common law everyone has the right to be judged by 12 of his peers.
Quote: kenarman
I also think that 2 flags is not enough to remove a post. If we want to take our lead from common law everyone has the right to be judged by 12 of his peers.
...And what if those "12" peers are all the same guy? To me, the problem is a little different when the issue at hand is that the same person is using multiple accounts to troll the board and insult people.
Quote: rdw4potus...And what if those "12" peers are all the same guy? To me, the problem is a little different when the issue at hand is that the same person is using multiple accounts to troll the board and insult people.
I have no problem being one of 12 and flagging an unacceptable post(s) but I don't think that immediately flagging everything a specific member has posted regardless of content is the way to go.
Quote: kenarmanI have no problem being one of 12 and flagging an unacceptable post(s) but I don't think that immediately flagging everything a specific member has posted regardless of content is the way to go.
Even if that person has already been banned 3 times for being an asshat?
Quote: kenarmanThe USA is supposed to be the land of the free. This means that everyone gets to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I think the Wiz is doing a remarkable job in being fair to everyone on this site.
The Internet is not "the USA" and this is not a court of law. If the Wizard wants to ban someone "just because", he gets to. It's his website. But that's beside the point, which is that the Wizard already did ban JerryLogan. He returned anyway, multiple times, using different screen names. At this point, it's a question of technology, not of policy. The forum rules are very clear on this point -- signing up under multiple accounts is grounds for immediate expulsion. Given that Jerry (a) was banned for life, (b) admitted to signing up under multiple accounts, and (c) in spite of those points is still being allowed to post here, I'm simply questioning the technology backend which seems to be hampering the Wizard's implementation of his own rules.
Quote: MathExtremistThe Internet is not "the USA" and this is not a court of law. If the Wizard wants to ban someone "just because", he gets to. It's his website. But that's beside the point, which is that the Wizard already did ban JerryLogan. He returned anyway, multiple times, using different screen names. At this point, it's a question of technology, not of policy. The forum rules are very clear on this point -- signing up under multiple accounts is grounds for immediate expulsion. Given that Jerry (a) was banned for life, (b) admitted to signing up under multiple accounts, and (c) in spite of those points is still being allowed to post here, I'm simply questioning the technology backend which seems to be hampering the Wizard's implementation of his own rules.
I have no problem with the Wiz being God. It is his site and he can set the rules. Us mere mortals can always find another God to follow if we don't agree. It is the fact that everyone else is set up as a Demi-God and I feel abusing their power.
Quote: MathExtremistThe Internet is not "the USA" and this is not a court of law. If the Wizard wants to ban someone "just because", he gets to. It's his website. But that's beside the point, which is that the Wizard already did ban JerryLogan. He returned anyway, multiple times, using different screen names. At this point, it's a question of technology, not of policy. The forum rules are very clear on this point -- signing up under multiple accounts is grounds for immediate expulsion. Given that Jerry (a) was banned for life, (b) admitted to signing up under multiple accounts, and (c) in spite of those points is still being allowed to post here, I'm simply questioning the technology backend which seems to be hampering the Wizard's implementation of his own rules.
No, it's not a court of law but the Wizard, in his fairness, seems to be thinking along the lines of beyond a reasonable doubt when he states "I know that tends to protect the guilty but I'd rather do that than punish the innocent." It is indeed his site and he can and should do whatever he sees fit. I agree that anyone that continuously disrupts this forum should be banned. No one should take the time to compose a post only to be insulted and ridiculed by some jerk.
The sticking point is the amount of power wielded by each and every member and the great potential for abuse which we have already seen. Nowhere in the rules does it say to flag a poster based on who it is or might be.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Blackstone's formulation
In the words of Alfred E. Neuman, "What me worry?"
