[Poll] VI Metrion Cascade?

[Edi]

It is hereby brought before the Senate that the user called Metrion Cascade has, while engaged in a debate, committed the following:

• dishonest bullshit
• strawmanning
• outright lies
• broken record tactics
• wall of ignorance
• intentionally ignored all points made against her

Therefore the Senate is asked to decide whether or not Metrion Cascade should receive the custom title of Village Idiot.

Thread in question

Metrion Cascade starts spewing bullshit

Edi

[Darth Wong]

She's always been one of those fucking people who repeats herself like a broken record. If I recall correctly, she even admitted once that she acts like a troll and ignores the relevant part of rebuttals when she gets her dander up.

[Kuja]

Approve. I'm surprised she wasn't VIed a long time ago when she decided to run out of a Borg-debating thread in STSW.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Approve. I'm surprised she wasn't VIed a long time ago when she decided to run out of a Borg-debating thread in STSW.

This is the thread in question(?)

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But, yes, there appears to be a history of such VI-worthy debating tactics.

Thusly, I vote Yes.

[SirNitram]

Her WoI never came down as I hoped it would. Title time.

[Sonnenburg]

Approve. I'm surprised she wasn't VIed a long time ago when she decided to run out of a Borg-debating thread in STSW.

This is the thread in question(?)

Thanks. Referring to the canonicity of Enterprise as an "appeal to authority" fallacy made this one a slam dunk.

[Kuja]

Approve. I'm surprised she wasn't VIed a long time ago when she decided to run out of a Borg-debating thread in STSW.

This is the thread in question(?)

Yup, that'd be it. Man, that was so long ago I forgot what it was about.

[Coyote]

Well, the merits of whether she should be VI'd was-- it seemed to me-- based solely on the thread that was linked, the one about rights and pregnancy. No other examples were provided. While I could see that she was irritating, I didn't see any reason to title someone for it. A stern warning, maybe, or a temporary sig loss, maybe...

So I voted "no" before I realized she had more of a history. But I'll stand by my vote on principle; I still feel a warning and explanation would do first for miscreants.

[Edi]

I didn't particularly enjoy putting up a VI poll for one of the Mess members, but it would have been neglecting my duties not to. The only reason she's avoided being polled for VI or even titled outright is that she's had pretty long intervals of quiet or no activity at all.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

well she's been rather honest about her refusal to be reasoned with. I generally ignore her as a matter of course anyways....

[Stuart Mackey]

No. I think a warning should first be given, if that is ignored then title.
Has this person been warned for this behaviour on other occations?

[SirNitram]

No. I think a warning should first be given, if that is ignored then title.
Has this person been warned for this behaviour on other occations?

Would being yelled at that she's being an unreasonable lunatic count? I think that's amongst the litany in earlier trainwrecks she's created.

[Stuart Mackey]

No. I think a warning should first be given, if that is ignored then title.
Has this person been warned for this behaviour on other occations?

Would being yelled at that she's being an unreasonable lunatic count? I think that's amongst the litany in earlier trainwrecks she's created.

In all honesty, I think a person should be warned first, by the staff, then titled if corrective action is not taken. I admit that the rules dont nessarly say that has to happen.

[The Yosemite Bear]

true she's never had an administrative warning, then again neither have some others who have committed single egreious offenses. of course by now the only people who have been un-vi'ed are supes and sheppard....

[LadyTevar]

This is also not the first time that she's taken WoI femi-nazi stands in a thread. I'm still looking for the thread on circumscion that she turned into a similar frenzied rant so the members of the Senate can see there is a pattern to her antics.

[SirNitram]

I'm a whipped, whipped man. The thread LadyTev brought up.

[LadyTevar]

I'm a whipped, whipped man. The thread LadyTev brought up.

You're not whipped, you're my better half

[Ghost Rider]

Pfft...should've happened long ago. The pattern is simple why she didn't get a public warning long time ago...though she actually has gotten, put up or shut up. I know...I was a mod she accused to Mike about abusing powers.

The pattern is the bitch runs away, hides for an inordinate amount of time, then pops back in, gets riled in some thread and shows why she should've gotten boot to the ass, let alone a mere title.

[RedImperator]

When did "oh noes, we nevar gave a warning, so now we can't punish asshat behavior!!!!!111111!oneone" become a policy? We have all the rules written in plain English where anyone can read them and we have a Parting Shots forum full of the corpses of people who disobeyed them. That's all the warning we're obligated to give. If we're feeling leniant, we can give a warning for bad behavior, but as far as I'm concerned, our hands are never tied because we failed to warn someone before titling or banning him.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

When did "oh noes, we nevar gave a warning, so now we can't punish asshat behavior!!!!!111111!oneone" become a policy? We have all the rules written in plain English where anyone can read them and we have a Parting Shots forum full of the corpses of people who disobeyed them. That's all the warning we're obligated to give. If we're feeling leniant, we can give a warning for bad behavior, but as far as I'm concerned, our hands are never tied because we failed to warn someone before titling or banning him.

I agree. Frankly, if someone repeatedly refuses to provide evidence, or repeatedly hides behind walls of ignorance and adopts trollish debating tactics in spite of being reamed repeated for this behavior by the mods and the board's better debaters (which, for non-trolls, should've hammered the point home repeatedly,) then it's arguable that any warning from on-high would be completely and totally redundant at that stage. The user in question has engaged in the exact same tactics time and time again. She gets into these discussions which quickly degenerate into flame-fests where she engages the WoI and other blatantly trollish tactics, gets flamed to a crisp for it, and then apparently vanishes until she thinks she's been forgotten, and then emerges to do it all over again.

With the way that train-wreck of a thread is going, being titled as a VI should be the least of her concerns, as the thread is progressing in the way that threads usually do for people who end up in front of the Senate to face the other type of poll.

[Keevan_Colton]

When did "oh noes, we nevar gave a warning, so now we can't punish asshat behavior!!!!!111111!oneone" become a policy? We have all the rules written in plain English where anyone can read them and we have a Parting Shots forum full of the corpses of people who disobeyed them. That's all the warning we're obligated to give. If we're feeling leniant, we can give a warning for bad behavior, but as far as I'm concerned, our hands are never tied because we failed to warn someone before titling or banning him.

Amen to that, the warning is a big public one to all who enter here.

[The Yosemite Bear]

When did "oh noes, we nevar gave a warning, so now we can't punish asshat behavior!!!!!111111!oneone" become a policy? We have all the rules written in plain English where anyone can read them and we have a Parting Shots forum full of the corpses of people who disobeyed them. That's all the warning we're obligated to give. If we're feeling leniant, we can give a warning for bad behavior, but as far as I'm concerned, our hands are never tied because we failed to warn someone before titling or banning him.

when I was supporting that veiw point, I did point out that no-where in the rules do we have a clause that says we have to give them a warning. Infact we titled Supes something derrogatory a long time ago without warning over a single thread. we have done other disciplinary actions without warning particularly against corperate spammers/scammers. on the other hand we have allowed other denizens to get away with many warnings with minimal disciplinary action. hell I have even been personally threatened by one denizen back when I was a super-mod for six months.

[Coyote]

Maybe we should have a mod warning at some point? There's a big difference between getting a PM from a mod saying that something is over the line, and having that same mod say "you're being a dishonest fuck" in a debate where several other people may or may not be saying the same thing.

If this seems like a good idea, then Mod Warnings should be given out at the moderator's initiative but of course it should be spelled out exactly what brought it on. Warning could be by PM or in the thread where the violation took place.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Maybe we should have a mod warning at some point? There's a big difference between getting a PM from a mod saying that something is over the line, and having that same mod say "you're being a dishonest fuck" in a debate where several other people may or may not be saying the same thing.

If this seems like a good idea, then Mod Warnings should be given out at the moderator's initiative but of course it should be spelled out exactly what brought it on. Warning could be by PM or in the thread where the violation took place.

I'm seeing two things going on in this thread. One being the discussion of slapping a VI on Metrion Cascade. The other being about what steps should be taken before a user comes up for a VI. The latter discussion should, maybe, be split into its own thread?