[Vote] Title WhizKid?

[SirNitram]

The Thread In Question

Esteemed Senators, another day, another slightly gunky aberration heaves forth from the abyss' of the Net and vomits onto the board. Behold, a Libertarian whackjob who has steadily decreased over a mere twenty-six posts to 'FUCK YOU YOU SOCIALIST DRONES, HOW DARE YOU PRETEND ANY CODIFICATION OF RIGHTS WITHOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS A CODIFICATION OF RIGHTS' and other such niceities. He is, in short, an annoying troll who has henceforth refused to debate because Aerius said his parents should have used contraception.

Title? Nothing? Ban? Bans are usually reserved for multiple threads, but I figure we might as well get the ball in play while he's screeching.

[Ghost Rider]

I say ban. Really low tolerance for people who resort honestly to "You're drones and I'm the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind!!!!" level of bullshit.

Literally bargain basement troll.

[Mr Bean]

I don't see a 2nd ammendment equivalent in their you fucking socialist drone. Plus I said I didn't believe, as in I was assuming. I'm sorry I don't know the in and outs of your socialist utopia.

Ahah... ha... damn, that was good.

I say we ban and give him his own holiday to remeber this, that was good shit.

However I suggest a repeat of the "banned man walking" thing which Dalton recently used as I want to see his responses over the next day or so before we axe him.

[Surlethe]

I want to chew on him a little bit, but I'd support a "banned man walking" unless he drastically improves over his next two posts.

[SirNitram]

I want to chew on him a little bit, but I'd support a "banned man walking" unless he drastically improves over his next two posts.

'Banned Man Walking' does have a very nice thing to it, including the possibility of a repreive if they shape up seriously. It strikes me as a good intermediary between 'Title' and 'Ban'. Perhaps we should discuss making it part of our regular options?

[RedImperator]

Banned Man Walking was reserved for Trekdestroyer, a unique case. This guy is just a shithead. Ban him.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yes, but damned if it wasnt amusing for us...and really, at the end of the day, isnt it our entertainment that really matters?

[Pablo Sanchez]

I think it might be flying off the handle a little too soon to ban somebody for a single incident of asinine behavior, which was the very first thread he ever participated in and which wasn't at all unusual in it's extent. We oughtn't to jump all over a person immediately like this, and I think this hair-trigger thing is a disservice to the board. Generally speaking, and excepting cases of serious misbehavior, people ought to get a warning before they're severely punished.

So, I'd have to say that if you felt like really doing something, you should just vote to title him. He'll have plenty of opportunity to prove he actually deserves a ban.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

He went from "rebutting" multi-point posts with one-liners to calling us all "socialist motherfuckers." It's clear that his idea of debating is to spout ideology and then sit back and bask in the approval of his fellow intellectual wannabes. It's clear that he ought to be titled. Maybe he'll learn that debate means actually discussing points, instead of just spouting ideology and getting offended when his nonsensical ideology is dismantled.

[CmdrWilkens]

I tend to avoid eing pro-ban if only because it removes the amusement of watching assholes contort themselves into interestingly new shapes. Titling works fine by me.

[Beowulf]

Title. He's new, and this is only a first offense. Let's give him a little more rope to hang himself with.

[Stuart Mackey]

In America, we believe rights are inherent and the government protects them, not grants them. You seem to see rights as a societal contract. We'll never agree.

Ohhh, I like this, havent argued with a guy like this in a long time. Title him.

I dont think we should jump so quickly to banning people, he may learn how to debate properly if given time.

[RedImperator]

His first thread is such an unmitigated fiasco I don't believe for a second he'll ever be rehabilitated. It's clear he's used to "arguing" in some capital-L Libertarian echo chamber and is incapable of dealing with actual points made by the other side, as opposed to the pre-made strawman distortions of them in his mind. His whole idea of debate is to simply repeat his ideology, and when that has no effect, throw a temper tantrum. And I don't give a rat's ass if he's ever been "warned" or not--we've had this discussion before in this forum, and I stand by the position I articulated then: his warning is the list of simple, plain English rules every new member is reminded to read when we send him his activation email. If you've committed a ban-worthy offense, including being generally useless, you get banned.

However, if the consensus is we ought to keep this guy around for a while just to see what happens, I'll back off my vote for a ban. He absolutely needs a title, however. Just plain vanilla Village Idiot, nothing special.

[The Yosemite Bear]

can we just sodomize him with a clue bat?

do we have a clue bat?

I think sodomy would be nessesarry as the fellow has his head so far up his ass, that to hit him over the head with the Clue Bat we may have too.

[Pablo Sanchez]

His first thread is such an unmitigated fiasco I don't believe for a second he'll ever be rehabilitated.

On the basis of 24 posts you've already decided that he's a total loss? Why are you so certain?

Maybe you're a better judge of character than me, but it costs us nothing to give him the chance to either prove he's worthless or make something of himself. I think it's better to actually establish a pattern of behavior before we flush somebody.

And I don't give a rat's ass if he's ever been "warned" or not--we've had this discussion before in this forum, and I stand by the position I articulated then: his warning is the list of simple, plain English rules every new member is reminded to read when we send him his activation email.

Certainly we could take your side, and instantaneously ban anybody who acts the fool because "they oughta know better." One wonders why police sometimes let speeders off with a warning, and more to the point, why we would even have insulting custom titles on the table as a punishment, if there's that justification to ban a user for any such offense against the rules. Do we want to be the kind of board that bans everybody who doesn't meet the exact standards within days of registering to post, or do we not? I know where I stand on that one.

If you've committed a ban-worthy offense, including being generally useless, you get banned.

There's enough "generally useless" people on the forum who don't even pop up on the radar that such a statement is meaningless.

Now, if somebody signs in for the first time and starts shooting off racial slurs and so on, by all means, ban them immediately. But I don't think there's any cause to rush to judgment in this case; whizkid83 certainly put his stupidity on display in his first thread, but it's possible (likely, I'd say) that he's a dumb teenager who just didn't understand how the board culture works and so got riled into making a series of dumb statements. So keep an eye on him and come back to the issue in a week or two when there's something to build a case for banning on. If he's as bad as you lot say, then it'll be easy to get him done.

Title him and put him on the watch list, but let's not have the Senate go out witch-hunting.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Just to clarify, I agree that with the board in general and the staff in particular, we aren't required to give a warning. If somebody comes in and is bad enough to get an instant ban, you're very right that he can't come back and protest that we didn't warn him. On the other hand, it doesn't follow that since we never have to to give a warning it means we never should give warnings.

[RedImperator]

His first thread is such an unmitigated fiasco I don't believe for a second he'll ever be rehabilitated.

On the basis of 24 posts you've already decided that he's a total loss? Why are you so certain?

Maybe you're a better judge of character than me, but it costs us nothing to give him the chance to either prove he's worthless or make something of himself. I think it's better to actually establish a pattern of behavior before we flush somebody.

In my experience, when they come in with guns blazing and respond to an ass kicking with a tantrum, what you see is what you get. He's not going to get any better. As the vote seems to be going against banning (including my own, which I changed in the very post you're quoting here), I suppose we'll find out if I'm wrong.

And I don't give a rat's ass if he's ever been "warned" or not--we've had this discussion before in this forum, and I stand by the position I articulated then: his warning is the list of simple, plain English rules every new member is reminded to read when we send him his activation email.

Certainly we could take your side, and instantaneously ban anybody who acts the fool because "they oughta know better." One wonders why police sometimes let speeders off with a warning, and more to the point, why we would even have insulting custom titles on the table as a punishment, if there's that justification to ban a user for any such offense against the rules. Do we want to be the kind of board that bans everybody who doesn't meet the exact standards within days of registering to post, or do we not? I know where I stand on that one.

Did I say we should instantaneously ban everyone who fucks up? If I have, feel free to point it out. I said that, in my judgement, this member should be banned because he's not going to improve, and the fact he hasn't been warned is immaterial. Now if you and I have different ideas about what kind of behavior merits banning on a first thread, or Whizkid's prospects for improvement, fine. That's why the Senate has votes. But don't put words in my mouth. I did not and never have said we should instantly ban anyone who "acts the fool", and point in fact, I backed off from my original position in regards to this particular case, since it seems apparent from this thread a considerable portion of the Senate seems to think he's worth keeping around.

There's enough "generally useless" people on the forum who don't even pop up on the radar that such a statement is meaningless.

The key phrase is "under the radar". Whizkid is most decidedly not under the radar. And if you have an issue with banning people for being generally useless, take it up with Mike, because he uses nearly that exact wording in the board rules (he uses "worthless" instead).

Now, if somebody signs in for the first time and starts shooting off racial slurs and so on, by all means, ban them immediately. But I don't think there's any cause to rush to judgment in this case; whizkid83 certainly put his stupidity on display in his first thread, but it's possible (likely, I'd say) that he's a dumb teenager who just didn't understand how the board culture works and so got riled into making a series of dumb statements. So keep an eye on him and come back to the issue in a week or two when there's something to build a case for banning on. If he's as bad as you lot say, then it'll be easy to get him done.

Title him and put him on the watch list, but let's not have the Senate go out witch-hunting.

So it's a witch hunt if some members of the Senate believe, based on a member's atrocious behavior in one thread, that the member has earned a banning? Not a judgement based on past experience and disciplinary philosophy with which other members of the Senate are free to disagree, but a witch hunt? Apparently, you and I disagree on the definition of this term as well as what constitutes a bannable first offense.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know we need a VI title with some picture of a sterotypical Emo kid, for whinning teens.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Did I say we should instantaneously ban everyone who fucks up? If I have, feel free to point it out. I said that, in my judgement, this member should be banned because he's not going to improve, and the fact he hasn't been warned is immaterial. Now if you and I have different ideas about what kind of behavior merits banning on a first thread, or Whizkid's prospects for improvement, fine. That's why the Senate has votes. But don't put words in my mouth.

I think the problem is that I really don't see anything remotely exceptional about his first performance, to merit an exceptional response. I figured that if you want to ban him straight away for something so milquetoast...

[LadyTevar]

Let's keep to formula, gentlemen. Title him first. Give him a month. If he's not improved, then we can ban him.

[Surlethe]

Pity that my rapidly growing social life won't permit me to chew on him so much. I'll cast my vote with the "title" crowd -- VI, or WTPF (given his performance on the last two pages of the thread) -- and see if he improves.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't see this clown improving either in rhetorical skill or attitude. Hit him with the BMW title and on his next tantrum, pull the lever.

[Edi]

Just title the fucktard for now. The next time he fucks up, we'll chew him up, spit him out and piss on his remains and then shovel them out the garbage chute.

Patrick, my memory is being rusty, what's the BMW title? WTPF and VI and even the MBA ones I remember, but this BMW thing draws a complete blank...

Edi

[Zaia]

Just title the fucktard for now. The next time he fucks up, we'll chew him up, spit him out and piss on his remains and then shovel them out the garbage chute.

Patrick, my memory is being rusty, what's the BMW title? WTPF and VI and even the MBA ones I remember, but this BMW thing draws a complete blank...

Edi

BMW = Banned Man Walking

I don't think this guy's special enough for that. VI or WTPF for him.

[Ender]

title