(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

puipui
2006-08-14 01:34 am UTC (link)

So, just to sum up, you guys were having a disagreement about the finer points of what constitutes trolling and whether or not someone posting in their own journal that they were going to boycott a con because of BP and encouraging others to do the same is a bannable offense, and during the course of that disagreement, telesilla said you were being stupid, you told her that the internet is not a democracy and that unless she was speaking on the behalf of the JF admins then she should shut the fuck up, darkrose said that the internet may not be a democracy but she was still free to tell you that you're full of shit, and so you banned both of them.

Huh. Well, I'd tell you what I think of that interaction there, but you'd probably ban me for it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2006-08-14 01:38 am UTC (link)
	So, just to sum up Almost. Not quite. Well, I'd tell you what I think of that interaction there, but you'd probably ban me for it. No. You'd enjoy it too much. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 01:53 am UTC (link)

Almost. Not quite.

So what was off about it, then? Was there something missing from the screencaps? Because that's what those pics are showing me.

Honestly, and not being at all facetious for a moment here, I think that your no-trolling rules go way beyond those of FW's and into some uncomfortable territory, and I can see where there could be some honest disagreement about that. I can especially see where darkrose and telesilla, having been around a long time and being very vocal people who are very into defending the rights of others, would disagree with you about that. Some of their language was inflammatory, yes, but yours was just as inflammatory, and none of it was nearly as bad as we see on FW all the time. So, really, I'm having a very hard time seeing this as anything other than "I banned them because they disagreed with me, and I'll ban you, too, if you do the same" and your comments on your other post and this one are not doing a whole lot to disabuse me of this notion.

And that's not even bringing musouka into this. I have no idea at all what she did other than just be her usual self, really, which, yeah, she's annoying, but are you banning people for being annoying now?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2006-08-14 02:15 am UTC (link)
	The only thing I can suggest is you check out princessdot's post. And musouka has been unbanned. I lost track of the time (gee, wonder why?), or would have done it sooner. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 02:58 am UTC (link)

The only thing I can suggest is you check out princessdot's post.

I did, thank you, and it included the parts that yours were missing, which was very helpful.

So, to summarize again:

You: If anyone anywhere says that they are taking action against anybody posted about on BP, whatever that action may be, and says that they are doing so because someone on BP told them to, then they will be banned from both BP and fandom_discuss.

Telesilla: Wait, you're going ban people from BP and FD for things said elsewhere?

You: Yes.

Telesilla: You're stupid. Once the information gets out, who are you to control what people do with it?

You: I can't, but I can certainly ban them. You're stupid, shut the fuck up, I can ban whoever I want.

Darkrose: Yeah, you can ban who you want, and we can tell you you're full of shit for it.

You: *bans both darkrose and telesilla*

So. Yeah. I'm still having trouble seeing the bannable offense there. It was a disagreement, you were just as inflammatory as them, and you banned them for it because you could. For the record, I agree with you on coming down hard on people who claim that BP sent them to make with the justice, but your banning in this case was (if you'll excuse the phrasing) unjustifiable.

And I'd have a much easier time buying that musouka was only a temporary ban if you hadn't made it sound so permanent when you first did it. Just sayin'.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2006-08-14 03:18 am UTC (link)
	I did say it was an early birthday present. Check the comm on the 23rd. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	emiweebee 2006-08-14 04:16 am UTC (link)
	I have to say, one thing I dislike about TS and DR's defense is their argument that you cannot control anything once it gets disseminated on the internet. I mean, why have rules in the first place? People will always break them, and they might be out of range of your ability to react, so you might as well just let them do as they please. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 04:32 am UTC (link)

I agree with you, and I agree with the concept of disciplining people who act like asshats and say that BP told them to do it using the only means at the mods' disposal, which is banning.

I very strongly disagree, however, with banning people who disagree with the concept of disciplining asshats in that manner because they voice said disagreement. It's one of those "but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" sorts of things, I guess.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

esclaramonde
2006-08-17 09:22 pm UTC (link)

On the one hand, I can agree with that, but on the other ... if I were running a controversial comm that became instantly internets famous and people were being deliberately stupid (if you get why F_W doesn't let you go to the wank'd's LJ, you sould get why B_P has its rule - and I do wonder what would have happened if someone said "Wow. You're stupid," to Snacky or Sep on F_W (probably there would have been a huge dogpile of "don't disrespect the mods", making a banning unnecessary)), then it'd be easier to ban them then to deal with them possibly continuing to not get the point and be obnoxious about it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	krazycat 2006-08-14 01:50 am UTC (link)
	That's what happened? Well, that's pretty... wait, I don't want to be banned either. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -