Should we institute temp bans?
forgot password / register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#patnet


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
778,882 comments by 11,519 users, 2 online now: jazz_music, TwoScoopsMcGee
new post
« prev   patnet

5
7

Should we institute temp bans?

By Goran_K following x   2017 Nov 11, 8:05am 1,274 views   105 comments   watch   quote     share  


#patnet

So far I think the new rules are working. The deleting of personal attacks seems to be working a lot better than “uncivil”.

However certain members are still having a hard time understanding the new rule. I’ve had to delete 5 straight personal attacks from errrc.

Should we institute a 24 hour ban for repeated offenses? Like being deleted 3-4 times and warned with no improvement?

« First    « Previous     Comments 66 - 105 of 105     Last »

66 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 11, 1:13pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

PCGyver says
If Goran wants to make statements that he can't back up, maybe he is not a good choice as a moderator.



“Your statement is false because....”

Takes care of the issue, doesn’t it?
67 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 4:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Patrick says
Goran_K says
Should we institute a 24 hour ban for repeated offenses? Like being deleted 3-4 times and warned with no improvement?


@Goran_K yes, that's a good idea.

I'll work on that this morning.


Also @WookieMan : note that moderators can now ban users from commenting in their topic for 24 hours.

Just go to their user page (click on their icon or name) and the ban link is at top. Let me know if it doesn't work.

Thanks for the suggestion, Goran.
68 WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 5:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says
Also @WookieMan

FYI, usually I get email notifications on these and I didn't on this one for some reason.

At this point I don't have much need for the feature as the limited #housing comments have been solid so far. We'll see in the future.
69 Ceffer   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 11, 5:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Dan and Iwog can't stand being perverted anonymous lurkers. They'll be back as their dander rises.
70 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 6:40pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says
Also @WookieMan : note that moderators can now ban users from commenting in their topic for 24 hours.

Just go to their user page (click on their icon or name) and the ban link is at top. Let me know if it doesn't work.

Thanks for the suggestion, Goran.


I really don't want to use the feature but it's a necessary part of keeping things clean. Thanks for all the hard work Patrick.
71 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 11, 6:47pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

PCGyver says
If Goran wants to make statements that he can't back up, maybe he is not a good choice as a moderator.

It's pointless to engage with a bunch of anon alt accounts, so maybe you can give a coherent answer as to what you want besides running your own forum. I declined moderating investing due to lack of time and agreed, almost encouraged iwog as moderator instead. Now he apparently is gone in protest and you guys are running wild because someone else moderates another topic?? WTF? This clearly proves that you guys won't stop until you run your own site or can claim some bogus bizarre govt law based on muh feelings and opinions on who is a liar and who isn't. Reminds me of the modern left. Protest and scream and point fingers until only people you approve run everything. I remember Goran buying a house back then and agreeing on Iwogs bullish stance. They weren't that far apart. But somewhere somehow feelings were hurt and now he's Iwogs arch enemy and thus also the arch enemy of his loyal fanboys. Don't you have your own opinions/minds? There's plenty of other topics and people to discuss with, so what the fuck gives?!
72 anon_d2af7   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 7:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

mell says
They weren't that far apart. But somewhere somehow feelings were hurt and now he's Iwogs arch enemy and thus also the arch enemy of his loyal fanboys. Don't you have your own opinions/minds? There's plenty of other topics and people to discuss with, so what the fuck gives?!

No, many people on here are against him because they don’t like his approach to posting and his obvious lack of sincerity. He’s simply a poor choice as moderator and that is borne out by the reaction to it (and for many just the idea of him having the power to delete others’ posts is anathema - little better than say CiC doing it). Now he’s got Patrick to ban people based on his deleting policy. It’s ludicrous. People don’t like him. They react. He deletes. They react. He keeps deleting and gets them banned. Yeah, obviously a great way to run a site. You simply don’t pick someone who is so disliked by a large number of the remaining posters to moderate the busiest thread. It’s beyond stupid.
73 anon_d2af7   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 7:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
Patrick says
Also @WookieMan : note that moderators can now ban users from commenting in their topic for 24 hours.

Just go to their user page (click on their icon or name) and the ban link is at top. Let me know if it doesn't work.

Thanks for the suggestion, Goran.


I really don't want to use the feature but it's a necessary part of keeping things clean. Thanks for all the hard work Patrick.

No, it’s not. Patrick could simply ban the obvious trolls like CiC, but he doesn’t. That individual has done more than anyone to bring this site to its knees and yet Patrick just lets him roll back in, instead going down this path... in the process driving away two of the more interesting posters (what’s that, about 10% of the total regular posters?). He’s shooting himself in the foot once again. Things are just getting worse now with you trying to usurp more and more power. People will be up in arms for a while and then will simply drift away. You’ll be left with a small handful of right wingers posting fact free praise of your supposed great leader. And CiC will be long gone.
74 anon_d2af7   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 7:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Ceffer says
Dan and Iwog can't stand being perverted anonymous lurkers. They'll be back as their dander rises.

Perverted anonymous users? FFS, everyone on here is anonymous. The only difference now is that all those people who spent their time attacking posters rather than argue points are left scrambling around going “Oh X, is Iwog, Y is Dan...”
75 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 7:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_d2af7 says
No, it’s not. Patrick could simply ban the obvious trolls like CiC, but he doesn’t. That individual has done more than anyone to bring this site to its knees and yet Patrick just lets him roll back in, instead going down this path... in the process driving away two of the more interesting posters (what’s that, about 10% of the total regular posters?). He’s shooting himself in the foot once again. Things are just getting worse now with you trying to usurp more and more power. People will be up in arms for a while and then will simply drift away. You’ll be left with a small handful of right wingers posting fact free praise of your supposed great leader. And CiC will be long gone.


Can someone tell me what CiC means or stands for?
76 anon_d2af7   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 7:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
Can someone tell me what CiC means or stands for?

What does it matter? Are you pretending that you don’t know who that poster is? How many times have you asked this? How many times have people pointed out that you know fine well who it is? You have to laugh.
77 anon_d2af7   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 7:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

And it stands for call it crazy if I remember correctly, not that it matters a damn.
78 BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 11, 7:55pm   ↑ like (7)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

I think Dan and iwog are on their honeymoon in chile...
80 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 9:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_d2af7 says
And it stands for call it crazy if I remember correctly, not that it matters a damn.
Thanks. Barely remember that guy. Him and Renting for half the cost used to be great allies I believe.
81 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 9:09pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_d2af7 says
mell says
They weren't that far apart. But somewhere somehow feelings were hurt and now he's Iwogs arch enemy and thus also the arch enemy of his loyal fanboys. Don't you have your own opinions/minds? There's plenty of other topics and people to discuss with, so what the fuck gives?!

No, many people on here are against him because they don’t like his approach to posting and his obvious lack of sincerity. He’s simply a poor choice as moderator and that is borne out by the reaction to it (and for many just the idea of him having the power to delete others’ posts is anathema - little better than say CiC doing it). Now he’s got Patrick to ban people based on his deleting policy. It’s ludicrous. People don’t like him. They react. He deletes. They react. He keeps deleting and gets them banned. Yeah, obviously a great way to run a site. You simply don’t pick someone who is so disliked by a large number of ...


You know what’s awesome about the new system? I’ll never be able to defend deleting a comment or banning anyone if a personal attack is not involved. It’s a pretty neat system.
82 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 11, 9:54pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says

You know what’s awesome about the new system? I’ll never be able to defend deleting a comment or banning anyone if a personal attack is not involved. It’s a pretty neat system.


Maybe that’s what has the leftists so up in arms. There’s an actual standard and the bar can’t be moved without it being noticeable.
83 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 11, 10:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
You know what’s awesome about the new system? I’ll never be able to defend deleting a comment or banning anyone if a personal attack is not involved. It’s a pretty neat system.


That's a great point.
84 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 11, 10:08pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Fucking White Male says
Goran_K says

You know what’s awesome about the new system? I’ll never be able to defend deleting a comment or banning anyone if a personal attack is not involved. It’s a pretty neat system.


Maybe that’s what has the leftists so up in arms. There’s an actual standard and the bar can’t be moved without it being noticeable.


I'm still baffled by this development, maybe I shouldn't but I would have not pegged everyone that invested in their views to cause such a rift when finally an objective standard is used - though I was fine with no (except for illegal stuff) moderation which is still my preference. Even if somebody would be baiting or polarizing, there is a rule in place that is easy to follow with a bit of self-control. The whole point of laws and rules is that they are not pegged to certain personalities ("asshole", "smug", "sjw" etc.). They simply are neutral and have to be followed by everybody. It would also be logical that mods would be chosen more or less randomly across the spectrum, similar to a jury.
85 anon_84d68   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 12:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Sniper says
anon_d2af7 says
It’s ludicrous. People don’t like him. They react. He deletes. They react. He keeps deleting and gets them banned.


So, you think Goran shouldn't have deleted all of errc's (one of iwog's fanboys) temper tantrums of comments this morning? Do you think errc's comments were OK? Or, are you another one of iwog's fanboys too, and are just parroting his comments because Goran isn't a member of your "tribe"?

Most of your comments should be deleted but aren't. You were 'deleted' and are somehow back posting up the same tired old shite. Errc was just making a point. His posting history is infinitely superior to yours, so I'd avoid getting on your high horse if I was you.
86 anon_04cbc   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 7:48am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

anon_b67e3 says
Feeling sad and lonely now that Dan and Iwog have gone? You must be beside yourself. Your post count is certainly down. I wonder why.


He'll languish without the ugliness requisite to interest him. Actually he's posing as iwog and Dan in order to insult himself and staart an argument. It's so important to him he'll eventually forget it's himself he's screaming at. Sad. How mature. Must be drunk. Lonely. Out of welfare checks.

PLEASE IWOG, COME BACK AND VALIDATE ME!!!!!!!
87 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:01am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

anon_84d68 says
Errc was just making a point.

Errc was being vulgar, obnoxious, and rude. There are rules against uncivility around here and he broke them.
88 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 8:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Onvacation says
anon_84d68 says
Errc was just making a point.

Errc was being vulgar, obnoxious, and rude. There are rules against uncivility around here and he broke them.

Apparently that doesn’t stretch to libtard comments, racism, etc., etc.
89 anon_13ce6   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Onvacation says
anon_84d68 says
Errc was just making a point.

Errc was being vulgar, obnoxious, and rude. There are rules against uncivility around here and he broke them.

Apparently that doesn’t stretch to libtard comments, racism, etc., etc.


Why doesn't it stretch to libtard. It's name calling and uncivil so all comments with it should be marked uncivil.
90 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:11am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”
91 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 9:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Onvacation says
anon_84d68 says
Errc was just making a point.

Errc was being vulgar, obnoxious, and rude. There are rules against uncivility around here and he broke them.


Since when?

I’ve been reading Patnet off and on since 2005. Patrick allowed a few posters to be so beyond rude and disruptive that it’s ridiculous to ask that all of a sudden, everyone else change course.

It’s akin to releasing the last few Jews from Auschwitz, and then telling them that their captors will be tasked with making sure that the Jews are civil. It’s an unrealistic expectation
92 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.
93 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.


Show me the post.
94 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.


Show me the post.

Pretty much every post ever made by TPB for starters.
95 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.


Show me the post.

Pretty much every post ever made by TPB for starters.


That’s not specific enough. We have a pretty good standard here of what gets zapped and what doesn’t. Show me a post and if it fails the standard, it gets zapped.
96 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 9:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.


So the actual problem isn’t the policy, it’s that you don’t understand the policy.

Or more accurately you’re playing at being obtuse because you think it makes a point(it doesn’t)
97 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

errc says
Patrick allowed a few posters to be so beyond rude and disruptive that it’s ridiculous to ask that all of a sudden, everyone else change course.

Maybe Patrick now wants a site where people are NOT vulgar, rude, and obnoxious.

I could be wrong about the vulgar part.

@patrick Do you consider vulgarity uncivil?

I do.
98 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Onvacation says
errc says
Patrick allowed a few posters to be so beyond rude and disruptive that it’s ridiculous to ask that all of a sudden, everyone else change course.

Maybe Patrick now wants a site where people are NOT vulgar, rude, and obnoxious.

I could be wrong about the vulgar part.

@patrick Do you consider vulgarity uncivil?

I do.

Yeah, pretty much at the time he let CiC back. Oh, hang on...
99 anon_98513   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 9:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Fucking White Male says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.


So the actual problem isn’t the policy, it’s that you don’t understand the policy.

Or more accurately you’re plying at being obtuse because you think it makes a point(it doesn’t)

No, because the “rules” are not remotely applied even-handedly. The mere fact that you’ve popped up to chip in pretty much underscores my point given your posting history.
101 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 11:24am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_98513 says
Fucking White Male says
anon_98513 says
Goran_K says
You can use the word libtard all you want as long as it’s not directed at someone personally.

Ok:
“Libtards are ruining the country.”

Not ok:
“You are a clueless fucking Libtard.”

While ‘you libtards’ or anything along those lines is perfectly acceptable, because err, well fuck I don’t know.


So the actual problem isn’t the policy, it’s that you don’t understand the policy.

Or more accurately you’re plying at being obtuse because you think it makes a point(it doesn’t)

No, because the “rules” are not remotely applied even-handedly. The mere fact that you’ve popped up to chip in pretty much underscores my point given your posting history.


The rules, in practice, just popped up.

Now you are being unintentionally obtuse. Not to mention disingenuous.
102 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 3:47pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Onvacation says
patrick Do you consider vulgarity uncivil?


Not necessarily. Vulgarity can be good natured. Consider AF. Usually vulgar, but rarely if ever uncivil.

The essence of civility is a subtext of good will toward the other users.
103 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 12, 4:36pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says

Not necessarily. Vulgarity can be good natured. Consider AF. Usually vulgar, but rarely if ever uncivil.


He is a good barbarian. I like him.
104 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 12, 6:43pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says
Patrick says

Not necessarily. Vulgarity can be good natured. Consider AF. Usually vulgar, but rarely if ever uncivil.


He is a good barbarian. I like him.


I agree. He's opposite of me on the political spectrum, but he is by far the funniest poster on Patrick.net.

I see quite a few have him(her?) on ignore, and I think they are missing out.
105 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 12, 7:03pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Fucking White Male says
Strategist says
Patrick says

Not necessarily. Vulgarity can be good natured. Consider AF. Usually vulgar, but rarely if ever uncivil.


He is a good barbarian. I like him.


I agree. He's opposite of me on the political spectrum, but he is by far the funniest poster on Patrick.net.

I see quite a few have him(her?) on ignore, and I think they are missing out.


Agreed.

« First    « Previous     Comments 66 - 105 of 105     Last »


Comment as anon_6135f or log in at top of page:

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail   old posts by year  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home