but it could be

And a carp could be a suspension bridge, except for the fact that it's not.

as in the oily freshwater fish of the family cyprinidae?

Well I don't kn- AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......

I thought she meant "carp" as a complaint, which Il Duce frequently makes.

Internet is not serious business, I agree. Personally I think he's a damned moron, but at the end of the day he'll get banned if and when the mods decide amongst themselves that he needs to go, and short of giving my two cents, thats not my business.

What I will point out to the mods however, is that this kind of "Playing within the rules" trolling is EXACTLY why you guys have such a vague set of rules. I'm sure some of the mods are campaigning that he shouldn't be banned on the basis of him not breaking any rules specifically.

But then again, you guys have this rule:

In other words mods, you really shouldn't use the argument "But he's not broken any rules", you should use the argument "Is the forum better if he stays, or if he goes?"

For my money, I don't think any of you can truthfully answer the latter without tieing yourself in some pretty big logical knots, when it comes to The Virgin.

His opinions are just as valid as anyone else's, including mine or yours. You come across people in your everyday life that you dislike, but do you campaign to your mayor or congressman to have him booted out of your city? No, you ignore them and go on your way. The less of a response you give to people that you dislike, the less they will annoy you.

That doesn't really apply to a public forum whose moderators are entrusted, by the admins, to keep things running as smoothly as possible.
The community as a whole should not be required to modify their actions for the sake of a single member who is being disruptive to that community. It works the other way around.

I can fully respect you point of view and reasoning, but I simply fail to see how any members of the forum are being required to modify their usual actions in order pacify The Virgin.

I was referring to them being so fed up with the pollution of threads that they found it necessary to put him on ignore. Not to mention a contributing member refraining from posting here until something is done about the situation.

Just an observation. The Virgin hasn't posted since the morning of June 27th.

I'm speaking less about TV, and more about the situation in general, regardless of who it may apply to now, or in the future.
But I think TV is on a business trip at the moment. I could be wrong.

I consider putting people that you don't like on ignore to be routine when dealing with an internet forum with over 40,000 members, as you're bound to find someone that is not to your liking. And Richard refusing to post simply because of The Virgin's presence is pretty darn childish, and fully his prerogative, as no one forced it upon him.

Unfortunately, not everyone will decide to put him on ignore, and the replies that clog up threads can still be pervasive and visible. Contributing members certainly can't be expected to ignore everyone who feels the need to say something about a clear and obvious distraction.
It returns to the idea that somehow everyone is expected to adjust to a disruptive person, versus a disruptive person adjusting to the set standards of a forum that practically everyone else knows and accepts.
And that's not how this forum is run.

Again, choosing to ignore another member or choosing to refrain from posting is up to each individual member, as nothing is forced on anyone, just as no one is forced to come on here at all.

It's would be nice if we could all get along, but that is obviously not an option. How "disruptive" another poster is is completely relative, but all that really matters are the moderators'/admins' opinions on the matter.

Urban deciding to stop posting until he gets his way is like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum in the supermarket until their mommy gives in and buys them a candy bar. If you give in once, they will do it again and again because they know that is how they can get their way.

check his profile page, he posted a message stating that he was leaving.

And it is my opinion, amongst others', that disruption is not merely gauged via a personal standard, but by the reaction of the community I'm here to serve. Obviously, we make a judgment call about whether that reaction is legitimate or not. That's what we do. And that's what we're doing.

That's one way of looking at it, but it doesn't really give the moderators any credit in their ability to discern whether it's childish pressuring, or a legitimate concern.
But, ultimately, you're right. The entire thing is a moderator decision. If our decisions aren't liked, no one is forcing the dissenters to post here. The point of the matter is getting it across that the moderators do want to take the concerns of the community into account when making some decisions. And in this particular case, the concerns are obvious, regardless of whether there's an option to ignore the concern or not.

The loss of a member like Virgin is no bad thing. However, the loss of a long standing member who has greatly contributed to the boards and previously spent a considerable amount of spare time dedicated to it's running, is.

Freebase. I wrote those rules years ago and the rule GB quoted;

It is the responsibility of the staff to protect and maintain the well-being of these forum. Consequently, we reserve the right to take any actions we deem appropriate to ensure these forums are not disrupted or abused in any way, including removal of content and user bans.

Was for this particular kind of situation.
Not only have the mods been trusted to run the site on the behalf of the Admin, they also have a responsibility to it's members.
If any member is directly responsible for disrupting the boards in any way and that includes losing valuable members because of their actions...stop fannying around and ban them!
No one member should be considered bigger than MB, especially if they have nothing to offer.

I realize that I am in the minority on this issue, so I'm really just wasting my breath. But nonetheless, if we lose Urban over this then that his his own decision. If he would let something like this run him off after 7 years then shame on him. Despite how much we dis/like another member, or who our friends are on here, I am against the banning of members who have done nothing wrong except to have differing opinions than their peers.

So if Urban decides that you or I get on his nerves next, and refuses to post until we are removed, you would be okay with that?

Nor should Urban, nor should you nor I.

I'm not just talking about Urban, or The Virgin.
How many people here have him on ignore?
I'm not talking about a perma ban either.
I've banned countless members over the years, some of which are still here and are great contributors.

There's a bigger picture than the here and now, oojay.
Take this thread...it should have been closed ages ago. In my opinion, all it does is lengthen the drama.
Christ, when a member gets banned these days the fallout in here continues for the duration and the returning member feels like his ban was unfair due to the amount of support they get irrespective of whether, or not they actually deserved it.
Which they always do btw!

I'm just arguing the principle of the matter, as neither one of us have a dog in this fight. But if we justify kicking out one member just to pacify the masses, what's to stop people from ganging up on someone when they get pissy and campaigning for their removal? I just don't want a vicious cycle to start just so we can kiss a few people's backsides and pacify our own egos.

Thanks, loose lips. I didn't realize he had done that. I just hadn't seen him around in a while so looked up his most recent posts.

The issue here isn't the virgin, he's bad, everyone wants him gone, he's clearcut.

The issue is the grey area regards popular opinion dictating policy, and I think things there are hazy.


On the one hand, it could lead to groupthink, mods banning any members who piss off enough people, but thats unlikely because most people aren't douchey enough to gang up like that.

The other problem could be influential members demanding bans on basis of seniority and contribution, and that would also be bad. I know for a fact that some would argue this already happens. Only today, I was told by someone who shall remain nameless, that "Paloma is effectively a mod". The person then went on to say that he thinks Paloma basically has the power to get people she doesn't like banned because she's pally with the mods.

Personally, I doubt thats the case, but its a can of worms.


Now, making up rules on the situation will only limit the GOOD things the rules allow, which is getting rid of nuisances who deliberately skirt the rules to piss people off. The rules need to be flexible to get rid of those wankers.

What we do perhaps need though, is assurance from the mods that nobody will ever be subject to these powerful, flexible rules, until absolutely necessary.

I think it is clear at this point, that if we are going to ban members of the community for the very act of being a negative disruption, it will be the absolute last resort.

Right complaining is over. Drama is over. Thread closed. PM any moderator for any issues on bans.