RedRedJarvisRedwine
New member
I skip over his posts faster than I toss aside parts of the newspaper not named sports.
The People v 84Husker
- Thread starter Landlord
- Start date
knapplc
Active member
So this is less an attempt to modify behavior that either annoys a significant portion of the board or causes a different significant portion of the board to mute or skip over his posts, and more an attempt to get the rest of us to stop complaining about him.
I agree. I think it's very sad, then, that 84HuskerLaw clearly doesn't share that opinion.
This certainly seems to be the only thing that's being heard, despite the fact that it's not what I'm saying, and this...
...explains why the problem persists, because if this is the basis from which every discussion takes place, rather than a truly open mind including all possibilities at the disposal of the Mods, nothing will get done.
zoogs
New member
I think I'm mystified by why you feel so strongly that so many regulars need to be booted.
I suppose that's another part of my reticence. We will never run out of regulars who, from one perspective or another, "need" to be banned. 84 wasn't the first. He won't be the last. The fact that several others have been banned appears to have made no difference. I completely understand the desire to enforce some bar for poster quality, and I am not at all saying that 84 is far above it. But this is an appetite that will never be fully whet.
You've certainly always known about my reluctance to ban. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I suppose that's another part of my reticence. We will never run out of regulars who, from one perspective or another, "need" to be banned. 84 wasn't the first. He won't be the last. The fact that several others have been banned appears to have made no difference. I completely understand the desire to enforce some bar for poster quality, and I am not at all saying that 84 is far above it. But this is an appetite that will never be fully whet.
You've certainly always known about my reluctance to ban. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
What regulars have I asked to have banned? I can name one: 84HuskerLaw
I can also name a regular who recently was banned that I've asked to have unbanned: Count. You and I talked about Creighton Duke and I specifically said I didn't think he should be banned - but he was.
Who else have I asked you to ban?
zoogs
New member
bnilhome? cm? huskerfan2000? I remember reading in various forums quite a bit from that those guys shouldn't be allowed to continue posting. And by no means do I disagree in every case, and even about this one I don't think we see things very differently. I don't think 84's a great member here, and he's probably skating on thin ice.
Maybe I'm wrong to direct this at you, and I'm sorry. It's a very general thing. There's always lots of talk about various regulars who need to get the boot. Yes, it's good to have these discussions. What I disagree with is when it gets to the point where people are arguing that they have to go.
I'll cite an example from the HOL board, which I've read occasionally but of course do not moderate. I've felt the same way you do here, frustrated that a handful of posters who repeatedly do nothing but turn threads into extended personal slugfests are always allowed to return. These are guys who throw 20 "your mom" posts back and forth. That's the kind of stuff I would call too permissive. I'd argue strongly that what we have here is very different: a community of posters who are all generally level-headed and not too worried about identifying and running off bad guys.
I include you firmly in that category, by the way, which is why this extended and somewhat heated debate about 84 is a little confusing to me. Perhaps we're both being pedantic at this point, saying more because there's always more to respond to. I apologize for that.
Maybe I'm wrong to direct this at you, and I'm sorry. It's a very general thing. There's always lots of talk about various regulars who need to get the boot. Yes, it's good to have these discussions. What I disagree with is when it gets to the point where people are arguing that they have to go.
I'll cite an example from the HOL board, which I've read occasionally but of course do not moderate. I've felt the same way you do here, frustrated that a handful of posters who repeatedly do nothing but turn threads into extended personal slugfests are always allowed to return. These are guys who throw 20 "your mom" posts back and forth. That's the kind of stuff I would call too permissive. I'd argue strongly that what we have here is very different: a community of posters who are all generally level-headed and not too worried about identifying and running off bad guys.
I include you firmly in that category, by the way, which is why this extended and somewhat heated debate about 84 is a little confusing to me. Perhaps we're both being pedantic at this point, saying more because there's always more to respond to. I apologize for that.
knapplc
Active member
Where and when did I ask for bnilhome to be banned?
cm husker was banned - not by me, not by a report I made, not by my request.
huskerfan2000 was banned - not by me, not by a report I made, not by my request.
I recently PM'd you about another member I had a Spidey-sense tingle about, a PM which you just checked, but in that three-message exchange I ended it by saying it was probably nothing, and citing myself as an example. And at NO TIME did I ask or even imply that that person should be banned. If that's how you read it, that's not on me.
I find that accusation disappointing, and the random throwing out of names like that is an unfortunate accusation against me that I do not deserve. For a conversation in which you're pushing fairness above all things, this is a "Do as I say, not as I do" move.
cm husker was banned - not by me, not by a report I made, not by my request.
huskerfan2000 was banned - not by me, not by a report I made, not by my request.
I recently PM'd you about another member I had a Spidey-sense tingle about, a PM which you just checked, but in that three-message exchange I ended it by saying it was probably nothing, and citing myself as an example. And at NO TIME did I ask or even imply that that person should be banned. If that's how you read it, that's not on me.
I find that accusation disappointing, and the random throwing out of names like that is an unfortunate accusation against me that I do not deserve. For a conversation in which you're pushing fairness above all things, this is a "Do as I say, not as I do" move.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs
New member
You've in recent months suggested publicly and repeatedly that it was incredible cm and bnilhome -- in response to your request -- were allowed to continue to post here. Am I wrong?
Again, I apologize for turning this on you. I don't mean to make accusations, and I'm trying to outline why I find this confusing -- as well as push back against the general trend of "___ has to go", which, again, comes up every now and again.
I also spent quite a bit of time trying to discourage people from running off cm husker. That's analogous to this one, especially in the point that I really wish people didn't think that the poster needed to be banned.
Again, I apologize for turning this on you. I don't mean to make accusations, and I'm trying to outline why I find this confusing -- as well as push back against the general trend of "___ has to go", which, again, comes up every now and again.
I also spent quite a bit of time trying to discourage people from running off cm husker. That's analogous to this one, especially in the point that I really wish people didn't think that the poster needed to be banned.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show me where I asked for any or all of them to be banned.
Stop editing your posts! I respond to something and there's more. Gah.
I don't know why you find this confusing, or why you're using cm husker and/or huskerfan2000 as examples. Both were banned - clearly they were bad for the board. I didn't ask for either to be banned, I didn't report either - heck, I didn't even have the most gripes about either. Go look at the Derp thread in the Shed here, go look at the couple cm husker threads here. For goodness' sake, I even posted this about cm husker:
Stop editing your posts! I respond to something and there's more. Gah.
I don't know why you find this confusing, or why you're using cm husker and/or huskerfan2000 as examples. Both were banned - clearly they were bad for the board. I didn't ask for either to be banned, I didn't report either - heck, I didn't even have the most gripes about either. Go look at the Derp thread in the Shed here, go look at the couple cm husker threads here. For goodness' sake, I even posted this about cm husker:
"So why don't you do the same for 84HuskerLaw, knapp?" Great question. Because even though he's on my ignore list, people keep talking about him in forums I frequent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance
Administrator
zoogs, I must admit I'm confused why "banning" seems to be the axis on which this conversation continues to spin.
I know mods/admins in the past have approached posters and politely requested they change their tone and/or approach. Now that we've brought attention to something some of us feel is an issue, is it wrong to ask to simply monitor how he conducts himself and consider reaching out to him if the behavior persists?
People make criminal mistakes and don't always get thrown in the slammer. Not that 84 is a criminal, but my point is I think we can take a similar and equitable approach here.
I know mods/admins in the past have approached posters and politely requested they change their tone and/or approach. Now that we've brought attention to something some of us feel is an issue, is it wrong to ask to simply monitor how he conducts himself and consider reaching out to him if the behavior persists?
People make criminal mistakes and don't always get thrown in the slammer. Not that 84 is a criminal, but my point is I think we can take a similar and equitable approach here.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs
New member
I don't think I'm the one keeping there. I thought this grew entirely out of the fact that 84 has not yet been banned, something which there's disagreement about: whether he is at a "change-or-ban" point or not.
I think this is reasonable. I'll go ahead and do that.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
I can't count how many times I did that as a Mod. Many, many times. It can work, if the person is reasonable. Without outing current members, I've had many successes with this approach. They're welcome to respond if they see this and see fit. I don't just hit people with the ban hammer, despite my reputation.
This is why I asked who's doing this with 84HuskerLaw. Instead we went after the messenger.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance
Administrator
My apologies - I haven't been following all of the responses in this thread (just yours and a couple other posters) so I may have missed those suggesting it was time to lay down the ban hammer. That's never been my MO.
I appreciate your consideration on this issue - truthfully!
