[Discussion] Graeme Dice

[CmdrWilkens]

In regards to the case of Graeme he comes in rather late and immediately starts addressing the prior debate as if it had always been about morality when rather clearly it was consistently about legality. If he wanted to bring up the question of the morality of actions then thats fine and certianly a point worth debating but, as Thanas pointed out in addition to Ender, he didn't do so but rather waltzed into the debate and claimed that this was what was being argued the entire time. In my mind this is a clear violation of DR1 and his insistence that he is right probably borders on a violation of DR5.

The severity of response is what I am uncertain about but this was a blatant and willful violation of the rules.

[Knife]

Another example of Dice that needs to be brought up from This Thread actually a split in the HOS but...

Oh I fully admit that I have a vendetta against Sheppard, but I also feel that it is fully justified as he is one of the worst people I have ever personally had to deal with. He's an unrepentant criminal and I still cannot understand why anybody would ever support him. His mere presence in a thread is as repugnant as anything I can imagine despite the fact that I used to think he was a friend. He'd be the only person to ever grace my killfilter if we had them.

Here he openly admits to a violation of board rules in his vendetta.

[Mr Bean]

Quite right which is why I am going to request that Dice be split off from Elfdart because Dice could be banned alone based on This thread right here

I am going to set up a ban thread on the subject later this evening. The main thing to keep in mind, He flat out admits to breaking the Vendetta rule and his response when confronted on this is in essence "Yes and? Sheppard deserves it.

[CmdrWilkens]

The user Graeme Dice has been brought up in the Elfdart/Graeme thread as having multiple examples of violations of DR1 (hijacking), DR2 (vendetta) and DR5 (wall of ignorance).

Specifically the following threads have been offered as evidence:

Thread #1
and
Thread #2

There was some request in the mixed thread to move straight to the ban poll but I am opening up the next 24-48 hours for discussion both in regards to any other evidence (or mitigating evidence) which may be out there AND a consideration on whether any ban poll should be perma-ban or temp-ban.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What can we say here? He's so much as admitted to holding a vendatta, and his response to being confronted about it is: "So what? He deserves to have a vendetta held against him." The Wall of Ignorance also hurts my brain to read through. The clear-cut nature of the offenses demand at least a temp-ban.

[Stark]

I agree. However, this is the kind of 'ban me' openness that has resulted in instant permbans for others - I supports temp ban simply because I think it's generally best to temp ban first.

[CmdrWilkens]

The bit about "so what if I have a vendetta?" is what makes me feel that perma-ban is the correct action.

[Sea Skimmer]

He didn't contribute one damn thing to that thread at all, it was pure unrepentant trolling. We’d perm ban a newb for this without the slightest hesitation, I see no reason to treat him any differently. Maybe some folks like him from back in the good old days or something, to me he is a self confessed troll and not even a good one, he didn't even fucking try. He's made it plenty clear that he does not intend to change, so a temp ban would just be a bullshit waste of time. Bring on the perm ban poll.

[Alyeska]

Dice has a known history of trolling for his own purposes. This example is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. I believe a temp ban to get the picture across is the least we can do. However, I am open to other suggestions.

[Stark]

He didn't contribute one damn thing to that thread at all, it was pure unrepentant trolling. We’d perm ban a newb for this without the slightest hesitation, I see no reason to treat him any differently. Maybe some folks like him from back in the good old days or something, to me he is a self confessed troll and not even a good one, he didn't even fucking try. He's made it plenty clear that he does not intend to change, so a temp ban would just be a bullshit waste of time. Bring on the perm ban poll.

This is my attitude - I don't want his connections or history to mitigate the situation. I'd just like to see less instant-bans in general. This case is pretty open and shut, however, particularly since as many observe there's no reason to expect him to change.

[The Yosemite Bear]

what makes us ASVSers go crazy. Then again it's been so long since I have been thre the place could be being run by Boyd for all we know....

[Simplicius]

How known is Dice's "known history of trolling?" If he's known enough to have had some punitive action taken against him in the past, then I say a permanent ban is appropriate.

If he's never been punished by the board before, it becomes a question of whether he would be receptive to the message a temp-ban would send. I'm not familiar with him at all, but I would think his longevity as a poster would leave him set in his habits which would reduce the effectiveness of a corrective message at this point in time.

[Coyote]

Don't we have a "worthless trolling palmfucker" title to try first? He's certainly up to no good in those threads, but at the same time I've seen him in other threads and he's never made any lasting impression on me, negative or otherwise.

[Patrick Degan]

Vendetta

Oh I fully admit that I have a vendetta against Sheppard, but I also feel that it is fully justified as he is one of the worst people I have ever personally had to deal with. He's an unrepentant criminal and I still cannot understand why anybody would ever support him. His mere presence in a thread is as repugnant as anything I can imagine despite the fact that I used to think he was a friend. He'd be the only person to ever grace my killfilter if we had them.

What action we ultimately support turns, as Simplicus outlines, upon the question of whether Graeme Dice has been warned or sanctioned before for trollish behaviour. If the answer to that question is "yes", then mere titling and warnings will not serve as any sort of deterrent or corrective —in fact will be meaningless— and the options come down to temp- or perm-ban. But even if the answer to the question is "no", temp-ban still has to be considered as part of any sanction. Openly admitting to a vendetta is a gleeful flouting of board rules if not a demonstration of outright contempt for them. That Graeme Dice may not intend such contempt for the board is immaterial; it has been expressed by deed and that is enough.

[Stark]

Don't we have a "worthless trolling palmfucker" title to try first? He's certainly up to no good in those threads, but at the same time I've seen him in other threads and he's never made any lasting impression on me, negative or otherwise.

I'm all for following the path of shame in these cases. Can people post links to his previous incidents or examples of previous punishment, to make the situation clearer?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think Graeme has been enough of an infrequent poster that a temp-ban probably won't bother him; but also because of that, a permanent ban seems quite excessive, he's just that much of a harm to the board. On the other hand, he unquestionablly has it out for Shep in a very unfair way, and is even proud of it. Because of that I'm prepared to support a Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker title for him, but I oppose a temp-ban as ineffective and a perm ban as our not having gotten to that point before. Though I would hope it is made clear to him that if this happens again, it will be a permban poll coming up in the Senate. He's intelligent enough that I hope that would be sufficient to put him on a path toward more mature and productive involvement in the board.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think Graeme has been enough of an infrequent poster that a temp-ban probably won't bother him; but also because of that, a permanent ban seems quite excessive, he's just that much of a harm to the board.

And so by the same logic, he doesn’t contribute much useful stuff either so we aren’t losing anything by kicking him out the door. That’s a bullshit reasoning to let him dodge a permban poll for so openly and proudly violating several core rules. He if was a no name user who had made fifteen posts in five years the same exact argument would apply, but you sure wouldn’t be defending him. If you think a temp ban is worthless, then why do you think a title would be any damn different anyway?
I might favor a little more moderate approach, save for the fact that he didn’t just proudly admit to a vendetta we know wont change, he was pure wall of ignorance from the moment he stepped foot in that thread, and he was derailing another thread at the same time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think Graeme has been enough of an infrequent poster that a temp-ban probably won't bother him; but also because of that, a permanent ban seems quite excessive, he's just that much of a harm to the board.

And so by the same logic, he doesn’t contribute much useful stuff either so we aren’t losing anything by kicking him out the door. That’s a bullshit reasoning to let him dodge a permban poll for so openly and proudly violating several core rules. He if was a no name user who had made fifteen posts in five years the same exact argument would apply, but you sure wouldn’t be defending him. If you think a temp ban is worthless, then why do you think a title would be any damn different anyway?
I might favor a little more moderate approach, save for the fact that he didn’t just proudly admit to a vendetta we know wont change, he was pure wall of ignorance from the moment he stepped foot in that thread, and he was derailing another thread at the same time.

*Sighs*

You're right, my friend.

I'm only proposing a moderate course of action with Graeme because I'm reluctant to see another ASVS vet go, and I should recognize this. I'm stepping out of the debate having conceded the point.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I recall why GD and others from ASVS have a dislike of Ryan that goes beyond. At one point the vendetta in ASVS included calling college admins and informing them of Ryan's past criminal history.

[Sea Skimmer]

That’s just fucked up, really fucked up. If that’s what this proud ASVS history truly amounts to, I’m going to have to start considering past membership in ASVS as a negative factor, certainly not even remotely a reason to keep some asshole around. I was on ASVS a teeny tiny bit right at the end, I saw the appeal it had then, I can understand people being a nostalgic, but you know, hearing how bullshit from the internet defines peoples opinions the better part of a decade on, that’s just kind of sickening. People should grow up, most of you were in high school or barely out of it back then, Shep sure as shit did, and in all the years I have known him I have not had a single negative exchange with him… ever. SDN has enough of its own history charms and detractions without needing to bring in external bullshit by the server load. Since Dice has made it clear he will do exactly that, he can go back to ASVS and stroke his ego flaming the spammers.

[Sea Skimmer]

So based on the following thread it would seem good old Dice has expanded his vendetta to a mass campaign of private messaging, in case anyone thought he might learn anything. He could have just said, ‘I don’t fucking like Shep, but I’ll keep it out of the forums and just ignore him’ or could have just stayed silent but instead he’s doing his damnest to deliberately keep breaking rules.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0&t=131076

Can we just get the ban poll already? Its clear he has no intention of doing anything different

[Edi]

The PM campaign clinches it as far as I'm concerned. I just lost any inclinations trying to salvage anything out of this. I have no objection if someone puts up a ban poll, as that's three separate counts of breaking the vendetta rule so far in addition to the other trolling.

[Stark]

Yeah, hearing about the PM stuff removes any expectation anyone could have that this was unintentional or emotional. Time for the poll, I guess - a temp ban is indeed probably worthless (I believe it was a year since I saw him since the last time he went nuts).

[CmdrWilkens]

Real quick the push is rather clearly for perma-ban poll so I have two questions for the Senate:

1) Do we want to consider any other options in the poll?

2) Do we chose to invoke the temp-ban during perma-ban vote rule?

The poll itself will be going up along with notification as soon as I get off of work this evening.

[Edi]

If you want to make certain, make the options temp ban, permaban, WTPF title, none of the above and abstain.

Those cover all the necessary options and should avoid getting into a mess of "But the necessary option of <insert here> was missing! Waaaahh!" stuff that has happened on occasion.