Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Jeff ([info]backfromspace) wrote in [info]fw_debate,
@ 2004-12-19 22:51:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I'm banning [info]thorn_star. I'm pretty sure he's Phoenix under a new name, and if he isn't then he's just as annoying in all the same ways.

Thoughts?


(Post a new comment)

this is a question, not an attack
[info]marlo
2004-12-20 08:12 am UTC (link)
what did ToS did [info]thorn_star violate? Just wondering.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: this is a question, not an attack
[info]backfromspace
2004-12-20 08:23 am UTC (link)
Very good question. There are some compelling arguments that he's Phoenix, who was banned both as a user and as an IP and is thus no longer welcome on the JF servers. Most notably, they share a lot of stylistic elements, colloquialisms, and vendettas. It's all circumstantial, so they're not the Reason; but they did encourage a swifter response that usual.

Regardless of whether he's Phoenix, thorn_star's been carrying on a low-level harassment vendetta thingy against [info]oulangi for quite some time now. He's also had only one exchange so far that didn't derail a topic into whining about DeleGate or the Cabal (oddly enough, another striking similarity with Phoenix). Enough is enough. thorn_star's total contribution to the FW community seem to consist of attacks on or complaints about other members, with the lone exception of that time he got into a big argument with someone over the literary value of Harry Potter. Enough is enough, really. This isn't even a situation of a member with a vendetta he can't let go of; thorn_star's entire presence here seems predicated solely on pestering other members.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]thorn_star
2004-12-20 08:58 am UTC (link)
Um, a lot of what you say is totally untrue. The only exchange with oulangi that I can remember is yesterday on we_wank when I mocked her light-heartedly in a small exchange (which was actually quite funny) after she mocked me first. On we_wank. Not f_w. Where else have I ever spoken to her? Otoh, she left a comment on my journal a long time ago which I never got around to answering. I deliberately moved my exchange with wp off f_w to avoid clogging up the board. I didn't get into an argumment on that harry potter thread at all. Go back and read it. It was all in very much a light-hearted tone. I can't help if I sound like Phoenix. Lots of people sound like each other on the net. I posted 2 wanks and 1 was rejected so I did complain a bit about that. But very, very little if you actually go back and read the thread. I've never mentioned the cabal that I recall but I did mention mockitymock on MY OWN JOURNAL. Is that an offence? This seems like some sort of petty revenge for my exchange with wp in we_wank to me. Which, like I said, happened on we_wank as I moved it there deliberately.

So please point out these supposed other exchanges to which you refer or kindly withdraw the allegations. I find the accusation about a vendetta against oulangi to be extremely unfair and particularly scurrilous.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]oulangi
2004-12-20 09:09 am UTC (link)
Liar:
http://www.journalfen.net/community/we_wank/9355.html?thread=192907#t192907

I was responding to llama_treats - unless you have another confession to make?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]thorn_star, 2004-12-20 09:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]oulangi, 2004-12-20 09:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]thorn_star, 2004-12-20 09:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]thorn_star, 2004-12-20 09:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]oulangi, 2004-12-20 09:25 am UTC

[info]bubosquared
2004-12-20 12:39 pm UTC (link)
I posted 2 wanks and 1 was rejected so I did complain a bit about that.

"A bit"? Dude, you went on and on and on, using false logic, ditto statistics, and basically ignoring any reasonable argument anyone tossed at you.

I'm not personally convinced that you're Phoenix, but then, I don't care. You're annoying. Enough already.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

For the record
[info]thorn_star
2004-12-20 10:23 am UTC (link)
Here's that Harry Potter thread. I talked to 8 different people on that thread and all in good humor. One anon got a bit whiny but I responded to even her in good faith. There was no big argument there with anyone.

(Reply to this)

Respectfully,
[info]ignatius
2004-12-20 10:29 am UTC (link)
Could you provide some links to the harassment or other evidence? I haven't really noticed thorn_star doing anything, but I might not have been paying attention, and I don't read every single wank.

It's just that the exchange above seems to back up what he/she was already saying, and it didn't seem unreasonable, since his/her name was invoked.

Unless there's a history there.

(Reply to this)


[info]iczer6
2004-12-20 11:10 am UTC (link)
Meh. I won't miss 'em.

Their near constant fights with the mods got real old real fast.


Icz

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]thorn_star
2004-12-20 11:37 am UTC (link)
near constant fights

That's not true, Icz.

The only clash with a mod was wp recently and I took that away from f_w after his long rant at me as it looked like it would go on a bit.
The quibbler thread a long time ago involved me questioning a post that was rejected and being jumped on by everyone and their mother for doing so.


There was nothing else anywhere, on (or off!) f_w.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(no subject) - [info]kraken_sleeps, 2004-12-20 11:39 am UTC

[info]pokecheck
2004-12-20 12:12 pm UTC (link)
Well, thorn_star doesn't seem to pop up with the alarming frequency that phoenix did, although neither seems to know when to shut it down.

Is there a possibility of a "thorn_star can you just let some of this go already and get back to the normal mocking?" probation period? Or are there problems with this that I'm missing?

And if the people directly involved in the thorn_star kerfluffle don't care if he/she is around, then well...

Just my $.02.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]virago, 2004-12-21 02:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pokecheck, 2004-12-21 02:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]virago, 2004-12-21 03:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pokecheck, 2004-12-21 02:59 am UTC

[info]kijikun
2004-12-20 12:27 pm UTC (link)
I knew he remined me of someone.

(Reply to this)


[info]shoiryu
2004-12-20 02:01 pm UTC (link)
Oust the asshole. I'm all but convinced he's Phoenix, and frankly as far as I'm concerned Phoenix deserves whatever the fuck he sets himself up for.

(Reply to this)


[info]smo
2004-12-20 03:27 pm UTC (link)
Not a second too soon, baby.

(Reply to this)


[info]tekenduis
2004-12-20 03:56 pm UTC (link)
Thoughts?

I'm surprised he lasted this long, honestly. He only ever seems to post to whine (endlessly) or pick a fight with someone and then fall back on the "but I was JOKING!" crutch.

(Reply to this)


[info]phosfate
2004-12-20 03:59 pm UTC (link)
I'm not comfortable with this. Thorn_star is undeniably a grade-A pinhead who doesn't know when to shut his cake hole, and I wouldn't be sorry to see him brained by a random piece of falling masonry. But similarities of style aren't proof that he's Phoenix. If you can ban him on his own merits, fine. (And if he continues on his current track, I have no doubt he'll give us all ample reason.) If you can prove he's Phoenix, fine. Otherwise, I don't think it's right.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]darkwitch666, 2004-12-20 04:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2004-12-20 04:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]marlo, 2004-12-20 04:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rinoared, 2004-12-20 05:10 pm UTC
Also - [info]loki, 2004-12-20 05:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mrbimble, 2004-12-20 06:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2004-12-20 07:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlebitca, 2004-12-20 11:59 pm UTC
another $.02 - [info]friendly_cow, 2004-12-20 08:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sepiamagpie, 2004-12-20 11:33 pm UTC

[info]snacky
2004-12-20 04:51 pm UTC (link)
Eh. [info]thorn_star could be Phoenix, but until I see proof (and I've read all that [info]oulangi has, and I think it's a pretty compelling argument, but still no concrete proof anywhere), I'm not convinced, so I don't think he should be banned on those grounds.

[info]thorn_star is a troll (of this I'm convinced, based on his recent adventures in we_wank), so I suppose he could be banned for that. Yet I haven't seen the complete rampant non-stop assholery that usually gets trolls banned from here. For what he's done so far, I'd think he could be warned or something ("keep it up and we'll ban your ass" or whatever modly statement you like to make *g*). As far as I can see, he's got a lot of rope and he's just using it to hang himself - I've never seen anyone here before with as little support as [info]thorn_star has. Everyone seems to think he's an ass. But if you can banned for being an ass, I've got a list of requests I'd like to make. ;-)

On the other hand, I think banning him for no real reason other than "we think he's a bad guy and he makes us itch" would be extremely wanky and fun, and cause a nice wanksplosion. And I like to point and laugh, is why I'm here.

So, I'm of two minds: if I'm being fair, all things considered, I'd say it wouldn't be right to ban him. If I'm looking for maximum wank potential, I'd say this could be awfully funny, and go for it.

So two different points of view. In the end, I'd probably go with fair over wanky, but it's your call.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2004-12-20 05:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cesare, 2004-12-20 05:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2004-12-20 05:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snacky, 2004-12-20 05:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ymfaery, 2004-12-21 10:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snacky, 2004-12-20 05:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kristenk2, 2004-12-20 05:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]a_partridge, 2004-12-20 06:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hugsnkisses, 2004-12-20 09:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snacky, 2004-12-20 09:40 pm UTC

[info]ipomoea
2004-12-20 05:29 pm UTC (link)
I'm pretty much on the "not sure he's Phoenix, but pretty dang sure he's a troll" side. If he could manage to be a funny troll I'd be all for letting him stay, but since all I've ever seen is a lot of unfunny and useless whining, I won't complain if you ban him.

(Reply to this)


[info]sarajayechan
2004-12-20 06:12 pm UTC (link)
Eh, go for it. He's a bit of an ass.

(Reply to this)


[info]naienko
2004-12-20 07:02 pm UTC (link)
[info]thorn_star annoys the hell out of me with that n00b "PAY ATTENTION OT ME!!1!!11" behaviour, and I wouldn't be sorry to see hir go, but I agree with others that banning this hastily may be a bad precedent. If s/he popped up on EVERY f_w post bitching or tailing someone (I'm [info]wankprophet wishes s/he would stop that) then I'd agree, but so far, as annoying as it is, it's still just typical n00b whining every so often and an exaggerated desire to either be the in-crowd or bring down the in-crowd. When s/he does something TOS-worthy, then go for it, but right now s/he's annoying and we should ignore it.

Too bad ljcode doesn't have an "ignore user" function.

(I think the phoenix thing is irrelevant. If there's no proof you can put out for us to see, then don't think about it that way, yes please?)

(Reply to this)


[info]sarracenia
2004-12-20 07:21 pm UTC (link)
Seems like a bit of an overreaction to me, to be honest. Okay, [info]thorn_star's irritating, completely lacks anything resembling a sense of humor, and is generally the most self important, small minded idiot on fandom wank, but frankly, I haven't seen her do anything really banworthy. And banning someone for being a jackass seems like a really bad precedent to me.

If you're certain she's phoenix, then that's one thing. But from what I understand, if it's just a random hypothesis, well...I'd like bannings to be conducted with a bit more evidence than that.

On the other hand, I'm currently hoping that thornstar crosses the line and gets banned. Because whatever else, she's irritating. I just don't think that irritation, in and of itself, should be a banworthy offense.

(Reply to this)


[info]wankprophet
2004-12-20 07:48 pm UTC (link)
Okay. As I see it, the evidence that he's phoenix isn't decisive. There are quite a few idiotic trolls out there, and thorn_star could simply be yet another loser with nothing going for him except the rare instances where someone replies to his whinging cries for attention. Nor is his trollery quite at the "ban" level. So, no, I don't favor banning.

However, almost his entire sum contribution to f_w has been a series of pathetic attempts to stir up metawank and whine about being oppressed. As such, he's contributed nothing worthwhile -- which is fine -- and spent considerable time harassing other members and the mods -- which is less fine. His recent foray into this we_wank was a deliberate -- if futile -- attempt to bring grudge wank against a mod (me) who gave him a well-deserved smack for trying to create metawank on f_w where there wasn't any. I didn't ban him because being an idiot isn't a banning offense, not to mention 1) it was on we_wank, 2) it was just plain incompetent, even by troll standards, and 3) his flailing attempts were amusing. But I'm certainly not going to encourage people creating metawank just for the sake of their own sense of entitlement.

But unless he's proven to be phoenix -- in which case, ban his ass -- or shown to be a more competent troll than he appears to be, I'm gonna vote no on banning. My suggestion: since everyone seems to be quite in agreement that thorn_star is a pathetic wanker, not to mention a gadfly grub irritant to the body politic, he should be placed under probation, as it were. It seems fair, given that his behaviour would have gotten him kicked off virtually every other community in LJ-clone land long ago. But we're more loving and benevolent than the HP fen or the tinhats. So we could put him on probation -- basically the equivalent of giving him a stern warning -- and see if he can learn to play with the other kids. I daresay he won't quite grasp the fact that people aren't supporting him, just the general ethic of leniency on f_W and will spend time crowing at how loved he is. But we can hope that he'll take a lesson from this and stop acting like a 9 year old kid throwing rocks at people to get attention.

p.s. thorn_star, you seem to be under the impression that this is related to your total assholery toward me recently. Just to poke a hole in your haze of paranoia, if I had wanted to ban you for that, I would have done it myself and made this post myself. As it is, I'm voting no on your banning...so you might consider show some class.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2004-12-20 07:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkwitch666, 2004-12-20 08:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ymfaery, 2004-12-21 10:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ehann, 2004-12-22 04:15 pm UTC

[info]anatsuno
2004-12-20 08:06 pm UTC (link)
*raises hand for the 'not happy with banning hir on the current amount of trouble yet' brigade*

(Reply to this)


[info]littlebitca
2004-12-20 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Don't really see what the basis is for banning [info]thorn_star.

If being annoying is a basis for banning, then the [info]fandom_wank ranks can be pared down considerably.

If being pig-headed about supporting a position that has been shown to be nonsensical is a basis then I don't want to be around when the banning suggestions begin.

If responding to something by flying off the handle and posting an angry FU! reply is a basis then, again, the [info]fandom_wank ranks can be significantly reduced.

If actual proof can be obtained that [info]thorn_star is phoenix then banning is really a given, because phoenix was banned from JF by ZR. So the behaving 'better' isn't really even an issue, unless ZR decides to lift the server ban.

I rather feel that the ToS are there for a dual purpose. First to let people know what behaviors won't be tolerated and secondly to give the moderators a 'leg to stand on' if banning should be necessary. Everyone working under the same set of rules.

So banning? I vote no. Now, shunning? I for one could happily manage not to feel the need to tell [info]thorn_star that if s/he has to explain that hir comment was funny/amusing, then it wasn't.

(Reply to this)


[info]msmanna
2004-12-20 11:28 pm UTC (link)
What [info]littlebitca says. If being annoying and lacking social skills were sufficient reasons for banning, we'd have to shut down the whole internet.

If [info]thorn_star is causing problems for people over on the high-minded debating society which is we_wank, then ban him/her/it from we_wank. I've barely even noticed s/h/its name popping up on the f_w threads.

(Reply to this)


[info]telesilla
2004-12-20 11:44 pm UTC (link)
I've gotta say that I'm uncomfortable with this as well.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map