Ban Pchan - Peregrine 2.

[Legomyeggo]

da bitches round hurr be callin me pimpchan, nahm sayin?

 

[K. Ishitar]

This thread is not very convincing IMO.

convinced of what persay? multiple points have been brought up, if you're referring to pchan being banned then I wouldn't be too convinced either

 

[Pompidou]

Really, what's the point of the rep system if the people doing something the community dislikes enough to get several red dots is allowed to stick around, continually doing things the community dislikes? It already holds no purpose because of this.

You've made good posts before Uzor, this however, wasn't one.

Dots shouldn't get a person banned because there's no consistancy to them. I mean, look at my modest bar. You'd think I made consistant good points, but I'm just a nobody. Dots are a fun minigame, something to pass the time, but no kudos or punishments should come from them. Infractions are the redcards that should lead to banning. On a side note, posting misinformation shouldn't be considered flamebaiting. It should just be considered stupid. If posting misinformation illicits flames in response, the flames should be considered a lack of self control when reading stupidity. For every dumb post, there are a handful of people who don't know how to not reply. Like the spammy threads in the flameboard - just don't bother replying because it's not worth your time.

 

[Skaw]

It takes a lot to go beyond one red dot though. You have to either be trying, or just continuously doing whatever it was that put you in the red in the first place. The problem with Pchan is he's told he's wrong first, but still stands by his falsehoods. More people tells him he's wrong, showing proof. He still goes on spouting out stupid comments and/or he'll try to nitpick the proof with irrelevant statements. Every single time. He never learns. He never even tries to stop. And thats the point at which the flaming starts.

 

[Pompidou]

I agree with you on all your specifics. Standing by his falsehoods - I agree. Spouting stupid comments - I agree. Nitpicking proof with irrelevant statements - I agree. He never learns - I agree. He never even tries to stop - I agree.

That's an awful lot of agreement up there. Where do I disagree? He should be banned. He shouldn't. He's a waste of time to ague with, I think you've made that point perfectly clear. You'd probably agree it's like talking to a wall, right? So don't argue. Save your finger muscles for more rewarding endeavors. Ignore Pchan.

 

[Bajaratt]

So... don't actually fix any problems, just ignore them?

 

[Skaw]

I agree with you on all your specifics. Standing by his falsehoods - I agree. Spouting stupid comments - I agree. Nitpicking proof with irrelevant statements - I agree. He never learns - I agree. He never even tries to stop - I agree.

That's an awful lot of agreement up there. Where do I disagree? He should be banned. He shouldn't. He's a waste of time to ague with, I think you've made that point perfectly clear. You'd probably agree it's like talking to a wall, right? So don't argue. Save your finger muscles for more rewarding endeavors. Ignore Pchan.

Theres a flaw. Ignoring only works on his posts. Not those responding to him. Sure, he may be muted. But threads still derail. You still see them fall apart.

 

[Pompidou]

So... don't actually fix any problems, just ignore them?

Why ignore them? This is QCDN. It's cooler to contribute to them. Make every small problem into a large one. If you see a dumb post, by all means, make a huge fiasco over it. That way the one bad post derails the whole thread. Sometimes, I forget myself. I never have learned how to bite onto every single "flamebait" (using the term as loosely as possible). The problem wih this place is even lousy flamebaiters catch way more fish than they deserve.

 

[Bajaratt]

Why ignore them? This is QCDN. It's cooler to contribute to them. Make every small problem into a large one. If you see a dumb post, by all means, make a huge fiasco over it. That way the one bad post derails the whole thread. Sometimes, I forget myself. I never have learned how to bite onto every single "flamebait" (using the term as loosely as possible). The problem wih this place is even lousy flamebaiters catch way more fish than they deserve.

So now the actual problem isn't to blame, it's everyone else who doesn't want to have to just ignore the problem? That just circles back to the solution: remove the problem and none of that will happen again. Peregrine got banned, and like magic, all of those derails and off-flameboard flamings stopped. The exact same thing will happen here.

 

[Pompidou]

I have no problems with anyone being banned, but ban for rule violations. Being dumb isn't one of them. Flamebaiting isn't a catchall offense for every post the handful of important people on this site don't want to read. It actually has to mean something. If Pchan actually breaks the rules, he should be punished. Anything less is just the usual QCDN lynch mob justice. You think banning pchan would solve anything? You all would just move on to the next lowest rung on the totem pole. There'll always be one. A person who's posts weren't worth bothering with while Pchan is around will suddenly be "flamebaiting" because anything that causes people any irritation, regardless of actual content is "flamebaiting" these days. Maybe that person will get banned too. Then you can all move on to the next person. Eventually Reeve will have this whole place to himself. QCDN will never be perfect, and every post can't be guaranteed to be one you enjoy reading. The ignore feature is there for people who aren't breaking the rules but aren't making enjoyable posts.

 

[Bajaratt]

You can put away the foil hat, the doomsday slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Peregrine was banned, what, 2 years ago? Since then, there's only been one or two people who have put themselves in the same position as peregrine. But let's go ahead and say you're right, we ban them, then we ban the next people on the list when they get to that level. Given the rate based on peregrine's banning to now, we'd be banning 1-2 people per year. Assuming we completely lock new members from joining and we take the 2 people/year route, it'd take 5,474.5 years to clean out QCDN completely. So yeah, I'd be perfectly fine with that if it comes to it, which it never would.

Yes, banning Pchan would solve quite a few things. First: there'd be no derails of threads because of him, second: the amount of flaming off the flameboard would drop, third: it'd cut down on the mod's workload by not having to sift through the posts to clean up a thread, etc. It's asinine to think that it wouldn't actually help the boards to remove the one member whose presences and activity is causing these problems.

No one's talking about someone who just annoys you, we're talking about the very, very, very few people who disrupt the boards with their activity on it. Hellstorm is another such person, made even worse because he's a mod for some LS forum, so we can't even put him on ignore. You're not even offering up a solution or a way to help out, just saying to completely ignore the problem in the hope that it will just go away.

 

[Nugotugo]

When Pchan is banned, and with any luck it will be when not if. Might as well just take Mdkloser with him since it will only be so long before the account is banned for sock puppeting.

 

[Pompidou]

I have offered solutions. I'll try and illustrate. Here's a sample thread progression:

Me: Any suggestions for a good strategy to win Salvage?
Skaw: Thow a lot of monks at it.
You: Get job skills back in the following priority: ...
Random stranger: (Quotes you) This
Pchan: Savage gear... pup's the best... etc...

Now, the thread can go one of two ways at this point. Have you ever replied to a post in a thread that *wasn't* the last one? I know I have, but I admit it can be tricky. It involves pretending the offending post isn't there. Here's the thread continuing if people do what I do:

Tristam: Here's a FAQ about salvage from Alla that helped me
Jamal: That guide's not entirely accurate, don't do (snippet X)
Pchan: Aaaah! Salvage gear... Pups the best... etc... etc... Look at me guys!
Tim Wakefield: I use the guide at Someplace and we usually do alright
Pompidou: Thanks everyone

Now that went pretty good. Yeah, you had two offending posts, but if Pchan was on ignore, you wouldn't see them. Noone quoted them to make ignore useless. The problem did go away. It can be hard to reply to posts selectively, but I've just demonstrated it can be done. In this very post I replied to you, Bajaratt, and Nugotugo had posted after you. You can replace Nugutugo with Pchan and the same technique works. If my solution has a flaw, it's that people have no self control. But the banning solution requires banning for rules that haven't been broken. There is no perfect solution.

 

[Bajaratt]

Except your sample thread is incomplete. It ofetn does go that way, but only for a short while. Eventually there is always a response

You're still proposing to completely ignore the problem, but you're masking it in happy thoughts and the foolish idea that this world is somehow perfect.

Here's a better sample thread:

Me: Any suggestions for a good strategy to win Salvage?
Skaw: Thow a lot of monks at it.
You: Get job skills back in the following priority: ...
Random stranger: (Quotes you) This
(Pchan posts nothing because he's banned.)
Tristam: Here's a FAQ about salvage from Alla that helped me
Jamal: That guide's not entirely accurate, don't do (snippet X)
(Pchan posts nothing because he's banned.)
Tim Wakefield: I use the guide at Someplace and we usually do alright
Pompidou: Thanks everyone

See there? The problem never posted, so no change in the flow of the thread, and no matter how far into the thread you go, it would remain that way(at least, not changed due to the problem). That's what's being proposed here, removing the problem from the equation entirely, not just trying to ignore it; something that NEVER works.

Your offered solution is proven to be ineffective, because not everyone ignores the problem. This leads to people who are trying to ignore the problem still being effected by it, either through seeing the problem's posts through quotes, or still having to scroll down past the problem's posts that they're ignoring. Either way, it doesn't actually solve anything, but just lets the problem continue uninhibited.

Let's put it another way. If you have a bad person in your linkshell, you don't tell the rest of your LS to just ignore them(unless you're a shitty leader), you get rid of that person.

 

[Uzor]

Except your sample thread is incomplete. It ofetn does go that way, but only for a short while. Eventually there is always a response

You're still proposing to completely ignore the problem, but you're masking it in happy thoughts and the foolish idea that this world is somehow perfect.

Here's a better sample thread:

Me: Any suggestions for a good strategy to win Salvage?
Skaw: Thow a lot of monks at it.
You: Get job skills back in the following priority: ...
Random stranger: (Quotes you) This
(Pchan posts nothing because he's banned.)
Tristam: Here's a FAQ about salvage from Alla that helped me
Jamal: That guide's not entirely accurate, don't do (snippet X)
(Pchan posts nothing because he's banned.)
Tim Wakefield: I use the guide at Someplace and we usually do alright
Pompidou: Thanks everyone

See there? The problem never posted, so no change in the flow of the thread, and no matter how far into the thread you go, it would remain that way(at least, not changed due to the problem). That's what's being proposed here, removing the problem from the equation entirely, not just trying to ignore it; something that NEVER works.

Your offered solution is proven to be ineffective, because not everyone ignores the problem. This leads to people who are trying to ignore the problem still being effected by it, either through seeing the problem's posts through quotes, or still having to scroll down past the problem's posts that they're ignoring. Either way, it doesn't actually solve anything, but just lets the problem continue uninhibited.

Let's put it another way. If you have a bad person in your linkshell, you don't tell the rest of your LS to just ignore them(unless you're a shitty leader), you get rid of that person.

Unless the people complaining are annoying as well, and another problem by themselves entirely.

 

[Bajaratt]

Unless the people complaining are annoying as well, and another problem by themselves entirely.

Yay more friend defense. Now it's the "it takes one to know one" angle. Maybe next time it'll be "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Rayn]

Sup Baj

 

[Pompidou]

You're still proposing to completely ignore the problem, but you're masking it in happy thoughts and the foolish idea that this world is somehow perfect.

No. I'm proposing QCDN abides by its own rules. If the rules aren't good enough for you, have them changed. Make whatever Pchan is doing against the rules, then punish for it, with the usual infraction system. Pchan's not breaking the rules, and annoying you isn't an offense, at least not yet. Talk to Arc and Miros and maybe you can get that changed. You'd be happy to make up rules as you go along and ban people you don't care for on a whim, because you're what? Too good to ignore user? Problems will go away if people make even the slightest effort to do so.

Let's put it this way. If the speed limit on the street you live on is too high, you don't demand the police issue speeding tickets for people following it. You follow procedure and have the speed limit lowered, and then demand the police issue speeding tickets for people not following it.

EDIT: I'll clarify my position. I don't care about Pchan. I don't care about anyone, really. Ban one person. Ban them all. My only position in this argument is that the only way a person should ever get banned is for breaking the rules. When you sign up with a QCDN account, you enter an agreement that if you abide by the rules you'll be allowed the priveledge of membership. You needn't make moral judgement on the quality of the rules, you just follow them to get to post. The rules need clarification one way or another. This thread is at least proof of that. But, when all is said and done, Pchan is doing his end of the bargain, and unless QCDN wants to change the contract, QCDN should uphold its end and let him post. Yes, I realize that the staff can ban any of us with or without cause, this isn't a government. But thus far, the staff has done its best to uphold a semblance of fairplay, and they should continue to do so. If you can get the staff to come up with some rule that would end these recurring issues, I'll support you 100%. I don't disagree with your problems. I disagree with the solution.

 

[Bajaratt]

No. I'm proposing QCDN abides by its own rules. If the rules aren't good enough for you, have them changed. Make whatever Pchan is doing against the rules, then punish for it, with the usual infraction system. Pchan's not breaking the rules, and annoying you isn't an offense, at least not yet. Talk to Arc and Miros and maybe you can get that changed. You'd be happy to make up rules as you go along and ban people you don't care for on a whim, because you're what? Too good to ignore user?

At this point, he's blatantly flame baiting. He keeps posting the same stupid crap, and it keeps generating the same responses; not even pchan is dumb enough to think that he'd get a different response on the 1,000th attempt. Peregrine was banned for the same reason, the constant flame baiting and derailing of threads with his stupidity; it's a precedent that should be followed. Hellstorm does the same thing, with his retarded whining about making rdm a melee job.

Problems will go away if people make even the slightest effort to do so.

No, they really don't. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it better; you don't just ignore the oil light or the gas light on your car when it goes off, you do something about it. Ignoring him doesn't magically make him smarter, but banning him would remove his stupidity from the boards.

 

[Pompidou]

The problem is, it wasn't considered flamebaiting when Hellstorm did it. The staff can't go and change their minds on interpretations, apply them retroactively, and punish everyone who broke the new guidelines. It's not flamebaiting yet. The best case scenario for your side in this argument is that the staff decides that from now on, the behavior of Pchan and Hellstorm will be treated as flamebaiting, and work the infractions henceforth. I wouldn't be opposed to that. All I want is for everyone to get the same justice. I see tons of posts that annoy me, too. It'd be great if I had a smite button that could make them all go away, but it wouldn't be right. If the staff wants to consider Pchan flamebaiting and let everyone know it will be a violation here on out (because it hasn't been, for better or worse, considered one during the Hellstorm era, and still not now in the Pchan era) that would be great. They'd know they can no longer get away with it, and if they persist, they brought the punishment on themselves. If they reform and never get banned, you still win. Certainly noone here would continue to push for a banning on popularity alone if the person is behaving? I'm against an on the spot ban until then.