Landlord

[Saunders]

Unrelated (kind of) - it is interesting to me how often he rails on teach for being a troll/disagreeable without ever really reflecting inwardly.

It's related. Landlord is a "high horse" guy to a T.

I swear he's only really interested in partying, and trying to prove that everything is a shade of grey, except his opinion.

Also, dude's a creeper. Ask QMany.

 

[Enhance]

I did meet him in person once and one of the first things he talked to me about was his posting style and how it's 'passionate' and some people find it abrasive. I  know he knows he's not easy to get along with but that apparently doesn't translate to changing.

 

[Saunders]

I did meet him in person once and one of the first things he talked to me about was his posting style and how it's 'passionate' and some people find it abrasive. I  know he knows he's not easy to get along with but that apparently doesn't translate to changing.

He literally does the exact same thing teach does, yet he's full bore on wanting him banned. Teach does it to poke fun, Landlord does it to be superior.

 

[Mavric]

He literally does the exact same thing teach does, except I find it infinitely more condescending, because of his attitude. Teach does it to poke fun, Landlord does it to be superior.

This is the thing about a lot of what people like to call "trolling".  A lot of posters do it to different degrees.  Some of my posts are snarky to the point that someone could - and have - label it the same.  It mostly depends on whether you agree with the point being made or not.

But - to me - this isn't the type of trolling that required formal warnings.  Perhaps an occasional post or PM if it's a bit over the top or repeatedly directed at a certain poster (and that I would consider trolling).  

But the more general snarky-ness is not in the same category, IMO.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Well he's at it again, inserting himself into a conversation that FTW and I were having. I personally believe he was trolling for a response from me. His response to my post to FTW: 

You're going to sit there and tell me we have a realistic chance to beat Penn State with a straight face? I highly doubt that...

Nobody is sitting there telling you that. 

So I called him out on it in the thread: 

Nobody is sitting there telling you that. 

 How did your post add to the conversation here? It didn't....... it's just you stirring the pot again. 

His response back: 

How did your post add to the conversation here? It didn't....... it's just you stirring the pot again. 

He called you out on stating emphatically that we will lose to PSU while also saying that there aren't any guaranteed wins left. I think FTW saw that as either being logically inconsistent, or unnecessarily pessimistic. Then he very clearly articulated that, and you responded with, "You're going to sit there and tell me we have a good chance of beating PSU?" When, he didn't tell you that. Ever. He didn't even say anything like that.

Just making sure we all understand what the other people are saying and not arguing against strawmen or talking past each other. 

So rather than call him out in the thread I sent him this PM: 

I think he and I worked the discussion out and I doubt he needs you to respond for him.

You can spin it anyway you like LOMS, to me it's just one example of many of you inserting yourself into a conversation in a manner that's trying to illicit a negative response. Some would call that trolling, you would argue differently. You respond to posters posts with one sentence responses in a manner that can at times give the appearance you are trying to illicit a negative response or an argument. Why else would you give such short responses without any explanation as to why you are responding that way? It basically requires someone to respond to you.

Maybe it's time to reflect inward and see how you can change your posting style to not come across as fishing for arguments at times. I'm certainly not the only poster or mod here that has noticed it. You were complaining the other day in the shed about us not being black or white with past banned posters creating new accounts. You were told not everything is black and white and didn't agree with that. 

If you want me to be black and white I can, you were trolling me, period, end of story. I can enforce those rules I suppose as black and white, but I'd much rather choose to work in the grey area on most things.  

So we'll see how he responds. Now I completely admit I don't care for this guy and I might be being touchy with him, but he is very critical of the things we do here from time-to-time and has displayed this behavior for awhile. 

 

[Enhance]

IMO, he might be particularly touchy because of Moiraine's situation and her decision to no longer post here. In their opinion, the Leadership Team is entirely at fault.

I like Landlord but he refuses to acknowledge the sometimes subtle (and not-so-subtle) toxicity he adds here.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

He hasn't responded yet, he's been on the board since I've sent it but it appears he hasn't read it. Oh well...................I guess I wasn't aware Moraine decided to no longer post here. I was wondering what happened as I haven't seen any posts from her for several days. That answers it. 

 

[Enhance]

Yes, it's pretty disappointing. I tried to convince her otherwise.

Her and I had a long back and forth in PM about the sexism thread. I told her I understood her perspective. She refused to move on. Very few people (outside of Landlord) seem to support her overt anger about it. She started a thread titled 'just ban me' during the fallout and then asked me to delete it which I refused to do. I wasn't going to pander to her misbehavior/tantrum.

She then sent a final PM saying she no longer felt comfortable posting here. That was Oct. 9th and it doesn't look like she's visited the board at all since then.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Looking at the the most recent report submitted by RicFlair, LOMS needs to be suspended. The question is for how long, and given his posting history, should it be permanent?

 

[Enhance]

Just my two cents.

98% of his post was OK, but the first sentence certainly goes a little too far, so I don't have a problem editing it and still leaving most of what he said there.

As far as punishment, it's been about 10 months since his last violation and we're often lenient with people who haven't had a violation for awhile, even if said person has a history (teachercd and StPaulHusker immediately come to mind). As such, a short-term suspension seems fair and in accordance with precedent. Anything longer than a couple weeks feels excessive to me.

Perhaps an additional comment in the warning could include that his warning history is against him and he will be on an indefinitely short leash upon his return.

 

[Mavric]

Yeah, I'm kind of torn on this.  Landlord likes to stir the pot.  And my first reaction was it deserved a suspension.  But after I read it a couple more times, I'm not sure it's all that bad.  As @Enhance said, the first sentence was completely uncalled for.  But I'm inclined to let a little more slide in the P&R forum.

As as to Landlord's history, I don't think people should be "punished" for being a long-time member.  Landlord has racked up his share of warnings.  But they're fairly well spread over a fairly long period of time.  Now, you can make an argument that he should know better by now.  But I don't think this is an egregious repeat of past transgressions that would call for a ban.

 

[jsneb83]

I have always wondered if we should have warnings expire after a certain amount of time.

 

[Mavric]

I have always wondered if we should have warnings expire after a certain amount of time.

I like keeping them on their profile so you have the history to refer to.  But I don't put as much stock in the ones from years ago - unless the current issue in question is a direct repeat.

Kind of a hybrid.

 

[Enhance]

Yeah, I'm kind of torn on this.  Landlord likes to stir the pot.  And my first reaction was it deserved a suspension.  But after I read it a couple more times, I'm not sure it's all that bad.  As @Enhance said, the first sentence was completely uncalled for.  But I'm inclined to let a little more slide in the P&R forum.

Yeah, after thinking about it more, I'm leaning more towards this. I don't think it was all that bad really. Just over the top with the first sentence.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

It seems that most are not concerned with LOMS's warning history, so it makes this case easier to review. Imo, his initial comment is as clear of a personal attack and rule violation as it gets. If we want to be a little more lax as it was in the PR forum, I am not opposed to that at all. However, I would suggest it is deserving of a warning and 1-wk suspension.