Doc Mercer Revisited...

[DeathEatsaCracker]

DEAC, I saw your Cindy Sheehan 'cartoon' in the thread "Wil, thank you, sir". This was far more offensive than anything I've seen from Doc. And before you commit the Ann Coulter fallacy, yes her views are fair game. However, personal attacks are not. Being passionate about a war that resulted in her
son's death seems pretty natural to me; it does not make her an "attention whore". Perhaps we should start a poll to ban you. That would not after all be an attack on your political views, but the disgusting way in which you expressed them.

But, on second thought, such a poll could easily be used to attack people based largely on the popularity of their views, so let's not establish such a dangerous precedent.

Get the point.

If I:

• Averaged 32 posts a day
• Had a plethora of threads with very few or zero responses that pushed good threads off the first page
• Was unable to formulate a coherent thought on my own
• Lied excessively
• Hijacked thread after thread with off-topic nonsense

you may have a case. As it stands currently, I don't, so you don't.


So shut up about it.

 

[davidbird]

By the way, less than half voted for a permanent ban the last Doc poll. Will this series of polls be a best 2 of 3, 3 of 5, maybe the best 4 of 7. Just wondering?

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

If there was an option to limit him to 3 or 4 threads a day, I would probably support that.

 

[davidbird]

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbird
DEAC, I saw your Cindy Sheehan 'cartoon' in the thread "Wil, thank you, sir". This was far more offensive than anything I've seen from Doc. And before you commit the Ann Coulter fallacy, yes her views are fair game. However, personal attacks are not. Being passionate about a war that resulted in her
son's death seems pretty natural to me; it does not make her an "attention whore". Perhaps we should start a poll to ban you. That would not after all be an attack on your political views, but the disgusting way in which you expressed them.

But, on second thought, such a poll could easily be used to attack people based largely on the popularity of their views, so let's not establish such a dangerous precedent.

Get the point.

If I:

* Averaged 32 posts a day
* Had a plethora of threads with very few or zero responses that pushed good threads off the first page
* Was unable to formulate a coherent thought on my own
* Lied excessively
* Hijacked thread after thread with off-topic nonsense

you may have a case. As it stands currently, I don't, so you don't.


So shut up about it."

So you will decide which offensive behaviors require a poll? Personally, I find your disgusting attack on a grieving mother more offensive than all of the above behaviors combined. And that still doesn't make a poll calling for your banning a smart idea.

And don't shut up about it. This is after all a forum open to free debate.

 

[Willie99]

By the way, less than half voted for a permanent ban the last Doc poll. Will this series of polls be a best 2 of 3, 3 of 5, maybe the best 4 of 7. Just wondering?

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think the raw vote will have anything to do with management's decision, unless it was totally lopsided. I think they're looking at the feedback to get a better understanding of how the other posters feel. The final decision will be of a more subjective nature.

This is probably uncharted waters for the mods.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbird
DEAC, I saw your Cindy Sheehan 'cartoon' in the thread "Wil, thank you, sir". This was far more offensive than anything I've seen from Doc. And before you commit the Ann Coulter fallacy, yes her views are fair game. However, personal attacks are not. Being passionate about a war that resulted in her
son's death seems pretty natural to me; it does not make her an "attention whore". Perhaps we should start a poll to ban you. That would not after all be an attack on your political views, but the disgusting way in which you expressed them.

But, on second thought, such a poll could easily be used to attack people based largely on the popularity of their views, so let's not establish such a dangerous precedent.

Get the point.

If I:

* Averaged 32 posts a day
* Had a plethora of threads with very few or zero responses that pushed good threads off the first page
* Was unable to formulate a coherent thought on my own
* Lied excessively
* Hijacked thread after thread with off-topic nonsense

you may have a case. As it stands currently, I don't, so you don't.


So shut up about it."

So you will decide which offensive behaviors require a poll? Personally, I find your disgusting attack on a grieving mother more offensive than all of the above behaviors combined. And that still doesn't make a poll calling for your banning a smart idea.

And don't shut up about it. This is after all a forum open to free debate.

What a horrible mangling of code. I'm tired.

 

[davidbird]

DEAC: "If there was an option to limit him to 3 or 4 threads a day, I would probably support that."


If there was an option limiting everyone to a set number of threads, I would support that. But the rule should apply to all, not just Doc.

 

[davidbird]

DEAC:
What a horrible mangling of code. I'm tired.

Yea, I noticed. I'll catch on. But what about your response to the content. I'm sure you can still read it.

 

[davidbird]

DEAC said: "If I:

* Averaged 32 posts a day
* Had a plethora of threads with very few or zero responses that pushed good threads off the first page
* Was unable to formulate a coherent thought on my own
* Lied excessively
* Hijacked thread after thread with off-topic nonsense

you may have a case. As it stands currently, I don't, so you don't.


So shut up about it."


davidbird said:

"So you will decide which offensive behaviors require a poll? Personally, I find your disgusting attack on a grieving mother more offensive than all of the above behaviors combined. And that still doesn't make a poll calling for your banning a smart idea.

And don't shut up about it. This is after all a forum open to free debate."


There you go.

 

[xpanda]

There will not be rules limiting the number of threads a poster can start per day. That would, obviously, be counterproductive.

David: reagarding DEAC's Sheehan post - If this forum were being moderated now (it's not) that post would be moved to the RR Political Spam thread, since it is a clear spam/flaming post. Nobody would be banned over posting spam occasionally.

This Doc drama has been ongoing (as a moderating issue) for several months now. When I began moderating here, in less than three weeks I amassed a spam thread to dump personal attacks, hijacks and spam which garnered well over 500+ posts in that time. Two-thirds of that was Doc's. He has been warned many times. He was suspended three times (four, if you count the reversed permanent ban.) It's not like he hasn't been given any chances, here. And yet the flaming, personal attacks, and hijacking of decent threads continues. Other posters, on both sides of the political aisle, have also had warnings and suspensions doled out.

I see your point about the poll, but since this is coming on the heels of several complaints from veteran posters, management wanted to get a feel for how the whole forum views Doc. I wouldn't worry about polls becoming a regular feature in moderating decisions; this is a rather exceptional saga.

 

[davidbird]

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think the raw vote will have anything to do with management's decision, unless it was totally lopsided. I think they're looking at the feedback to get a better understanding of how the other posters feel. The final decision will be of a more subjective nature.

This is probably uncharted waters for the mods.

You could be right. But if that is the case, I wonder why the first poll only a week or two ago wasn't sufficient. In that poll less than half favored a permanent ban.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

"So you will decide which offensive behaviors require a poll? Personally, I find your disgusting attack on a grieving mother more offensive than all of the above behaviors combined. And that still doesn't make a poll calling for your banning a smart idea.

And don't shut up about it. This is after all a forum open to free debate."


There you go.

xpanda answered your question succinctly.

 

[teazeman]

i think this is a waste of time at this point, having read across the street that doc notified wil of his intent not to return. if wil would simply confirm or deny that this is the case this could be put to rest at this point, a continuation of this would be considered by me a means to draw further attention to a messy situation.

 

[davidbird]

I didn't really want DEAC banned or even rehabbed. Frankly, I'm lazy and personal attacks like his on Sheehan are the easiest to refute. Coulter should learn that.

But this is the second Doc poll. Less than half were voting for a permanent ban when the first one was closed. This makes it hard to see the need for a second poll so soon. Wasn't the first poll doing its job of gaging how the forum feels about Doc? Again, I am not judging the merits of his case from the distant past. Its the concept of the poll, which will still largely reflect the voters' political views, which bothers me. I still say though that Doc's behavior since his unbanning doesn't strike me as being outstandingly outrageous.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Re-read xpanda's post. It didn't strike you as outrageous because you didn't see it. Most of his garbage ended up in the Rubber Room almost as quickly as he posted it.

 

[TheRightSide]

I didn't really want DEAC banned or even rehabbed. Frankly, I'm lazy and personal attacks like his on Sheehan are the easiest to refute. Coulter should learn that.

But this is the second Doc poll. Less than half were voting for a permanent ban when the first one was closed. This makes it hard to see the need for a second poll so soon. Wasn't the first poll doing its job of gaging how the forum feels about Doc? Again, I am not judging the merits of his case from the distant past. Its the concept of the poll, which will still largely reflect the voters' political views, which bothers me. I still say though that Doc's behavior since his unbanning doesn't strike me as being outstandingly outrageous.

DB please get a clue. The other poll was started by a poster not a mod. Big difference there. DB just go across the street at the "other" place and he is already making great friend with the other posters all the while not answering a single question they have put to him. That is par for the coarse with that loser. He is gone now cant we jut leave it at that.

Stucco and his other butbuddy CC are with him. They never added anything to this forum. Not sure what Stucco ever brought to this forum. CC started out OK but as he began being Doc's biggest cheerleader he became a phony as he would act like a man of god yet go along with all the hatefull shit that moron would spew. Bye to all them flammers.


Wil just take down the poll since he has left and lets get back to some good lively debate. Ther is so much comming up that is way more important than one jerkoff.

Iraq
public education
unions losing big time
Housing market
stock market

and many many more.

 

[xpanda]

I didn't really want DEAC banned or even rehabbed. Frankly, I'm lazy and personal attacks like his on Sheehan are the easiest to refute. Coulter should learn that.

Which is precisely what this forum is for. Your level-headedness is appreciated, especially these days.

But this is the second Doc poll.

That last poll was started by a poster, not a moderator. It has no bearing on this decision.

I still say though that Doc's behavior since his unbanning doesn't strike me as being outstandingly outrageous.

I don't disagree with you necessarily. I've been paying far less attention to this forum since Doc's reinstatement (as have many many others) but it's clear that we lost a lot of quality and veteran posters (most of them not on the Right, fwiw) when Doc was reinstated. The emails we've received only confirm what we were worried about. Losing posters who have been regulars in this forum for many years over one guy is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. (Conversely, when Doc was last banned, we did not lose nearly as many veterans over it.)

 

[DennyCrane+]

Maybe whats is happening right now will wake Doc up abit. I never knew what "across the street" meant untill this thread. I went over to take a look, and right now they are having a poll on how useless Docs threads are. By they way a majority have problems with him over there too. Hopefully this will be a reality check for him, I dont think he should be banned but the spamming needs to stop. Other good threads get killed because of it.

 

[xpanda]

Its the concept of the poll, which will still largely reflect the voters' political views, which bothers me.

Also, fwiw, Wil can see who voted. Political views and such will be taken into consideration (as many on the right will vote him out as will posters on the left vote to keep him, purely for partisan reasons. That there are so many who agree with Doc politically, but still want him banned, will be a larger consideration.)

 

[teazeman]

X

doc notified wil of his intent not to return. if wil would simply confirm or deny that this is the case this could be put to rest

yes or no?