Subject: Sorry for forgetting when that went down. (nm)
Author:
Posted on: 2014-05-27 19:38:00 UTC
-
Just a few threads down... by
on 2014-05-27 08:13:00 UTC
Reply
...I noticed a mention of a chap called Jacer. Being the curious lad I am I searched up his name but nothing came up.
Start from the beginning if you will.
THE EMPEROR PROTECTS! -
Best left alone by
on 2014-05-27 08:36:00 UTC
Reply
The deal with Jacer (who used female pronouns if I remember correctly) was long, ugly, and messy, caused real pain for some members, and the details are probably best not discussed on the Board. But I think maybe safest thing to say is that Jacer broke several of the rules laid out in the PPC Constitution on multiple occasions and to a degree that the generally extremely forgiving and willing to see the best in everyone group here was forced to ban.
-
Was she really so horrible? by
on 2014-05-27 11:24:00 UTC
Reply
A short trip into the Wayback Machine showed... nothing abnormal for us anyways. I also visited her PPC Wiki page (noted that she like Twilight) and she'd just made a handful of correcting edits.
While I don't want to bring up... painful memories or alienate myself from the older boarders by bringing up such a... controversial topic, I'm just REALLY curious. Sorry. If you really don't want to talk about it, I'll stop now.
EVEN THE EMPEROR CAN'T BROWSE MISSING RECORDS! -
I'd leave it be. by
on 2014-05-27 11:59:00 UTC
Reply
Trust the oldbies in this. If they say it's not worth bringing up, it probably isn't.
BLESSED IS THE MIND TOO SMALL FOR DOUBT. -
Okay, dropped. by
on 2014-05-27 12:21:00 UTC
Reply
I might try digging some stuff up myself (good luck with that me) but I won't ask you lot.
THE EMPEROR PROTECTS! -
If you desperately want to read it... by
on 2014-05-27 13:01:00 UTC
Reply
... the thread is in the Board archives, here. If you desperately want to talk about it, can I ask that you do so in emails? Mine is linked above if for some reason you want to discuss it with me.
This is why I hesitated a full day before answering Ekyl's question. I didn't want to mention it at all, but saying nothing would have been too rude.
hS -
Thanks hS. (nm) by
on 2014-05-27 22:49:00 UTC
Reply
-
Sorry for forgetting when that went down. (nm) by
on 2014-05-27 19:38:00 UTC
Reply
-
It might be useful to know... by
on 2014-05-27 12:15:00 UTC
Reply
... exactly how far people can go breaking the rules and offending people before we actually get banned. That way, we can cite precedent to defend ourselves: "Jacer broke 3 more rules than I did, and offended at least 5 more people, before you banned her, so you can't ban me yet."
-
Why would you need to know that? by
on 2014-05-27 14:13:00 UTC
Reply
As Nesh has already mentioned (while I was in the process of writing this post), your question is in poor taste. Surely it would be preferable to not break the rules, not violate the PPC Constitution, and not be a dick to other people on the Board. Then everyone might ideally get along. Sunshine and rainbows all around. Don't try to use someone else's bad behavior as a measuring stick to try and say 'But I'm actually pretty good!'
-
Well... by
on 2014-05-27 14:03:00 UTC
Reply
Jacer offended damn near everybody in the community. You'd have to be deliberately, unrepentantly trying to piss us off to warrant comparison with that.
Incidentally, I find this question of how far you can go breaking the rules to be in poor taste. Even if you only break one rule and only hurt one person—say you threatened someone—that's still bad and the consequences (which would be determined by the community at large based on all facts available at the time) would still apply. Trying to wheedle out of it on the basis that someone else behaved worse than you at some point is a) not how rules work and b) disrespectful. Doing so would undoubtedly make your situation worse, not better.
Please strive to follow all the rules all the time, thanks. {= /
~Neshomeh -
Not a good precedent by
on 2014-05-27 13:36:00 UTC
Reply
It seems that the logic of banning someone would stem from emotion. "If we let this troll stay, we're going to lose some people we actually like and the number may keep going."
I'm sure that defending yourself with that technique would just earn you more annoyance points. -
Don't worry by
on 2014-05-27 15:31:00 UTC
Reply
I'm not planning on deliberately offending anyone or breaking any rules.
But with any online forum, rules will eventually be broken. There's always a slight temptation for you to break them and wear your punishments as a badge of honour, showing your integrity and strength of character, proving your superiority over all the good little boys and girls who never get into trouble because they blindly obey. After all, we've all done it elsewhere, haven't we?
It's only a matter of time before one of us gives in to the temptation and does it here too. That's just the way forums work. I'd be a fool if I denied that. -
Er... no? by
on 2014-05-27 15:36:00 UTC
Reply
No, we haven't.
And the rules in the PPC Constitution aren't the sort you're talking about - the sort that are specific to a community, and designed to fit the forum to the mods' vision. The rules in the PPC Constitution are things like 'don't make jokes about rape', or 'make your posts legible'. There's no badge of honour in being the one who thinks flaming is funny, or plagiarising is a good idea. Not in the PPC.
Your idea might - might - make sense in a forum where the users feel harassed or restricted by the mods, and make a game out of baiting them. The PPC doesn't have mods. The people doing the punishment are the entire PPC community - the 'good little boys and girls who never get into trouble because they blindly obey'. And I really can't see your idea working here.
hS -
I really, really hope you're right. by
on 2014-05-27 15:54:00 UTC
Reply
It would be nice to think that there was at least one forum where everyone could always resist the temptation to be The Troublemaker.
Let's hope you're right and the board can stay that way, even though the pessimist in me has some doubts. -
If someone was found to be making trouble... by
on 2014-05-27 16:07:00 UTC
Reply
... purely for the sake of making trouble, they would be asked to stop. They might even be given multiple chances, depending on the severity of the trouble. If they didn't stop, they would be asked to leave. If they didn't leave, they would be kicked out. No more troublemaker! Amazing how that works.
~Neshomeh -
We've managed for twelve years so far. by
on 2014-05-27 16:03:00 UTC
Reply
Yes, we occasionally have troublemakers - who doesn't? But they either genuinely reform, are viewed with suspicion for a while, and then reintegrate fully - or they leave of their own accord - or they get kicked out. They don't hang around being deliberately provocative - or if they do, they're not liked for it. People who constantly snipe at other people, or at one other person, are generally disliked for it.
Which is what the Constitution means when it says 'If you find it impossible to get along with another member of the PPC, please take it up in private e-mail' (Article 8). The unspoken second half of that statement is 'if you can't stop sniping at someone, just stop replying to them at all'.
And people who deliberately break the rules in a way that upsets everyone, not just one person... yeah, they don't stick around.
hS -
Thanks guys. It's good to know. (nm) by
on 2014-05-27 17:29:00 UTC
Reply
-
I... see. That doesn't sound good. (nm) by
on 2014-05-27 10:56:00 UTC
Reply