One crime does not prove another

[Richard III]

one example


A suggested new rule (if it isn't considered one already):

Jail time clears the crime. E.g. presumption of guilt because of a previous post for which one was punished or banned should not be permitted at CFC so that we're not forced to relive the same debates endlessly. Each post should be examined by mods on its individual merits, and presumed by posters to be a distinct post.

This is happening more and more as posters get used to each other (I think I've done it in the case of the tedious Ozz myself once or twice) and personal rivalries grow, and is clearly detracting from people's ability to "reintegrate into CFC society" like other, er, convicts.

R.III

 

[anarchywrksbest]

Interesting suggestion.

But I like the current set up. More fighting!

 

[superslug]

I can't ever recall posting an opinion in contrary to yours, Richard, but in this case I feel compelled to disagree. In the example you linked to, I do think the moderator warning prevented that thread from following the same tack as the previous mentioned incident. It kept the thread on the topic, rather than letting degenerate into the same mess.

As someone who's done 'time' and clearly established individuals I care not for, I feel more comfortable posting here knowing the moderators will warn me if they see me drifting back towards flaming said individuals.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Which posts are you specifically talking about?

 

[Richard III]

Well, Dr. Doktor's in that thread. I've also seen a series of posts that went like that, too, but can't remember where.

Oh, and also, that Mahathir thread got out of hand in part because someone presumed Iceblaze was merely repeating an anti-european argument that he'd been whacked for before, when it was a much more selective hit on his part, although that's not as good an example for a range of reasons.

Superslug, I agree, I suppose I'm just suggesting that it actually be codified that this is unacceptable behavior so that no one is surprised when the mods warn about it. My legalistic mind at work; one must have a reg in place before one can enforce it, however weak or selective the enforcement might be.

R.III

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

You don't like the warning Lefty gave?

The first post made by this person does nothing to address the topic, but focus' on the person who made the topic. Second post by this person does the same thing but further focus' on the other poster. 2 issues. Threadjacking; well known rule. Borderline harassment towards another poster; stated in the rules. They are warned for both.

I don't see the issue. . . ?

 

[Perfection]

I'm not following here, are trying to say that you can't be flamed by other posters for actions that you were moderated for.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Richard, it is not clear whether you are refering to how the moderator acted, or how the posters acted toward each other. In fact I are entirely confused about what you are suggesting is a problem or solution.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Richard, it is not clear whether you are refering to how the moderator acted, or how the posters acted toward each other. In fact I are entirely confused about what you are suggesting is a problem or solution.

You're not the only one.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Must be some sort of Canadian to American language problem; We will need Jellica Jamb from the Emerald City to translate English to English.

 

[Turner]

Not to put words in his mouth, but it sounds to me that he's saying "Let bygones be bygones." and once a ban is over "He's paid his debt to soceity." I could be reading more into it than there is, tho.

 

[Richard III]

Alright, point taken.

1. My problem is with the posters.
2. I have no problem with the warnings given in the instance provided.
3. I have no problem with Duke's articulation of why the warning was given.

HOWEVER,

4. I felt it would make it clearer for posters if the following were codified or explained, namely "that it is inappropriate to argue with a poster about material for which the poster was previously sanctioned for."

Betta?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I doubt most people see a ban as a 'cleansing' of their past actions, but rather see their past actions (bans and all) as part of who that poster is.

But, if it gets taken to a personal level, they can get repremanded for it.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Originally posted by Richard III
it would make it clearer for posters if the following were codified or explained, namely "that it is inappropriate to argue with a poster about material for which the poster was previously sanctioned for."

This, like most rules, is common sense. It is also deduced from other rules that already exist. If this is a problem, then perhaps is should be clarified, but I don't see this as being particularly worthwhile.
Also, bans are like jail-time. The "criminal," has paid for his infringement once it is over, but it is still factored into the way other people behave towards him. Obviously, it has no place being mentioned in a forum discussion on a completely unrelated topic, but there isn't much that can be done to prevent this.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
Obviously, it has no place being mentioned in a forum discussion on a completely unrelated topic,

Exactly so, as in the example linked by Richard III above.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by Richard III


Alright, point taken.

1. My problem is with the posters.
2. I have no problem with the warnings given in the instance provided.
3. I have no problem with Duke's articulation of why the warning was given.

HOWEVER,

4. I felt it would make it clearer for posters if the following were codified or explained, namely "that it is inappropriate to argue with a poster about material for which the poster was previously sanctioned for."

Betta?

Since when did you get sanctioned so making this an issue for you?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Ok let me get this clear. It is not allowed in direct and open fashion to direct posters to attention for what they have written in other posts, as long as that person was given a ban. I accept that.

It is however legal to open threads were the warnings given by moderators to particular posters are discussed. And that behind their backs. Either to obtain clarification of the rules - since if stupidity is not an excuse for infringing upon the law, then neither can the absence of any given law be based on the cleverness of anyone. Or in fact to ensure further stricter laws so that certain persons who are out of bounds will then be called to attention for their lapse of discretion.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
Also, bans are like jail-time. The "criminal," has paid for his infringement once it is over, but it is still factored into the way other people behave towards him. Obviously, it has no place being mentioned in a forum discussion on a completely unrelated topic, but there isn't much that can be done to prevent this.

I tend to see restrictions as more of enforced vacation time, to get posters out of the posting rut for some days, and come back with a more tempered mood to post... Sometimes in the heat of arguments, posters can tend to go overboard, and mayhaps an enforced vacation period can cool them down a little...