(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	puipui 2006-08-14 03:10 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I was avoiding the extra typing, sorry. Even with the extra text, though, I've still never seen it happen. Unless you count thorn_star, maybe? But he wasn't so much arguing rules as flat-out trolling, and even then people protested his banning when it first happened. I don't think telesilla or darkrose could get anywhere near thorn_star levels ever. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

pyratejenni
2006-08-14 03:24 am UTC (link)

You're forgetting the people who post "I can't help myself, I had to wank!" comments.

And

scotch.

And, actually, I have banned people for arguing with me over a rule. I banned

fpb for it, in part 7 of [Bad username: charlottelennnox]'s post.

In all honesty, it seems to me people are more upset it's popular people this time, rather than unpopular people.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 03:35 am UTC (link)

The "I can't help myself, I had to wank!" people generally get a pretty nasty dogpile rather than a banning, though, and when they are banned, it's for trolling. They're not arguing rules, they're breaking them. Same with

scotch; he wasn't arguing rules, he was posting anonymously with racist trolling comments and trolling CC.

Since we were talking about FW, I didn't think your banning of

fpb was part of the discussion, since that was BP and not FW. However, I also thought that he was banned for trolling, since he's a known troll who was banned at FW for making death threats. Please note, however, that he was not arguing with the mods over whether or not it was theoretically okay to ban someone who made death threats; he was actually making death threats.

All of the people you have mentioned were banned for breaking the rules, not for disagreeing with the mods about the rules. So unless it's a rule here is that members are not allowed to disagree with the mods, I'm still failing to see where telesilla or darkrose broke any rules.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2006-08-14 05:32 am UTC (link)
	fpb was banned here for arguing with me about a rule. The discussion over the no-trolling rule was already held, here. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 06:04 am UTC (link)

fpb was banned here for arguing with me about a rule.

If that is the case, then I strongly disagree with his banning, as well.

You might want to note, though, that when you banned him you said it was because he was using BP as a place to air grievances about FW and its members and seemed to imply that you considered it trolling to do so. His comment after your first warning, though a little difficult to follow, does not seem to be arguing your trolling rule so much as continuing to air grievances about FW and its members just like you'd warning him against doing. He's a known troll, he seemed to be continuing in his trollishness there, and it made sense to ban him at that time. He didn't appear to be debating the trolling rule, he appeared to be actually trolling.

However, again, if I'm reading that incorrectly, and you specifically banned him for arguing with you, then I am perfectly willing to change my opinion of that exchange to his favor, because I don't think it's right to ban people purely for disagreeing with you about the rules when they haven't actually broken any rules. And please keep in mind that I am, in fact, one of the people that

fpb was banned from FW for threatening to kill, so it's not really something that I would say lightly. But fair is fair, though, so if you banned him for arguing and not for trolling, then I think he should be reinstated along with telesilla and darkrose, because it would be the exact same thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

pyratejenni
2006-08-14 06:26 am UTC (link)

Continuing to do so will get you banned, as will arguing about this with me or any other bad_penny

He continued to argue. He got banned.

He will not be reinstated. Nor will

darkrose or

telesilla. Again, I have to wonder why no one made a fuss when I banned

fpb, or warned vanceone.

In fact, I had to ban

darkrose again --

roger_taylor is her RP acccount.

telesilla posted as

the_squid, because she would "normally respect a ban", but didn't it mattered here, I guess.

Tell me -- why should I let people who think they're above the rules back in?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 06:43 am UTC (link)

Nobody made a fuss when you banned

fpb because they, like me, probably thought that you were banning him for the "continuing to do so" part, not the "arguing about this with me" part. Also, again, he is a known troll, and vanceone has shown a marked preference for trollish behavior, as well. Nobody made a fuss because we know what they are like.

People are making a fuss now because we also know what

darkrose and

telesilla are like. I do not know either of them outside of our interactions on JF, and neither of them is on my flist, but I know damn well that they are not prone to trollish behavior. They seemed to have an honest disagreement with your opinion, and they expressed it. They did not spam the post with it, and while they may have gotten a little heated, so did you. Telesilla called you stupid, you called her stupid back. You told telesilla to shut the fuck up, darkrose told you that she thought you were full of shit. The score was pretty damn even there, from what I can see, and neither of them trolled. Neither of them even condoned trolling. They merely argued the definition of trolling in cases that they thought to be a grey area.

So, again, unless your rule is that nobody is allowed to disagree with you on your own comm, I'm still not seeing where either telesilla or darkrose broke any rules before you banned them, and if you're saying that they think they're above the rules because they're not respecting their banning then I would very greatly appreciate it if you could point me to the rule that they broke to get banned in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

pyratejenni
2006-08-14 07:10 am UTC (link)

They broke the "don't be stupid" rule. That relates not only to posting on here, but to discussing matters with me. I didn't spell it out before, because I didn't think I'd need to.

They know why

fandom_wank has the no-trolling rule. I've explained elsewhere why I have similar rules. They took a hypothetical situation in which I expanded my version of the no-trolling rule, and got stupid all of a sudden. Why they decided to play dumb, I don't know. But I have a low tolerance for it, especially coming from people who damn well know better.

That

darkrose and

telesilla have been around on

fandom_wank for a long time does not matter. That you "know what they're like" doesn't matter. That they're popular doesn't matter.

My decision is made, and it is final.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	puipui 2006-08-14 07:21 am UTC (link)
	They broke the "don't be stupid" rule. Everybody acts stupid at some point or another. Are you going to be banning everyone now? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

pyratejenni
2006-08-14 07:35 am UTC (link)

Pretending you don't understand something in order to keep arguing a point = stupid that will get you banned.

Continuing to argue with me after I've told you not to or be banned = stupid that will get you banned.

"heehee, I AR SMART and will post with a different account despite being banned!" = stupid that will get you banned.

"Well, people should have just left/outwalked the hurricane"-esque sentiments a la

blackjackrocket also = stupid that will get you banned.

This whole exchange we've had, while stupid to my mind, will not get you banned.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 07:44 am UTC (link)

This whole exchange we've had, while stupid to my mind, will not get you banned.

But how is me disagreeing with you any different than darkrose and telesilla disagreeing with you, other than the fact that I've been very careful not to call anyone stupid? I don't understand and I keep arguing the point, and they didn't understand and kept arguing the point. What makes you think that they were only pretending to not understand when everything that I've seen of them arguing the same point in other places continues to indicate that they truly didn't understand?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2006-08-14 04:34 pm UTC (link)
	What makes you think that they were only pretending to not understand when everything that I've seen of them arguing the same point in other places continues to indicate that they truly didn't understand? This. They understood, all right. They just didn't like it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

puipui
2006-08-14 06:29 pm UTC (link)

You've linked that thread multiple times, and I have already read it. I see them disagreeing with you on what constitutes trolling. I see them continuing to disagree with you because they don't understand how your definition of trolling is actually trolling. I see a debate between people with differing opinions who are probably never going to have the same opinions, but are continuing to try to make their opinions understood by the other party because that's what people do.

I do not see anything in that thread that indicates that they completely understand your point of view and are just arguing for shits and giggles. I do not see anything in that thread that makes them disagreeing with you there any different than me disagreeing with you now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

naienko
2006-08-15 02:23 pm UTC (link)

I see things in that thread that sound like they were defending the right of people to use the info they get from b_p and other jf comms to make other people's lives hell. In this instance, CC, by attempting to derail her writing career based on, as of right now, a hypothetical plagiarism charge. The b_p posts have already had a noticable repercussion, if you look at the amazon listing for City of Bones -- "What do customers ultimately buy after viewing items like this? 32% buy The Secret Country (The Secret Country Trilogy, Vol. 1) by Pamela Dean".

KV didn't get away with it, and her plagiarism, AFAIK, was much less blatant than CC's proven plagiarism is. Why should anyone a) think that CC would be allowed to get away scot-free once her book is published and readers start comparing, and b) take things into their own hands, based SOLELY on the info at b_p?

Every time I look at that thread, I go "buh?" because it sounds like they, and others, are defending people's right to do that -- and again AFAIK, that's never been okay at f_w, and pyratejenni's made it clear it's not okay here either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	puipui 2006-08-14 06:30 pm UTC (link)
	Also, even if they did understand, I fail to see how not liking a rule is enough to get someone banned. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -