Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(August 1, 2013 at 7:09 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (August 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: BRING BACK THE GAUNTLET!
![[Image: GrumpyCat_620x350.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.i.cbsi.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim%2F2013%2F03%2F14%2FGrumpyCat_620x350.jpg)
Oh, I'm sorry.
BRING BACK THE GAUNTLET.... please!
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2013 at 7:16 pm by fr0d0.)
(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.
Why?
The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.
The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.
GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.
The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I say, socks should be allowed only when it's completely obvious they're socks. They have to be at least Borat level of obvious.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm
(August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.
Why?
The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.
The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.
GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.
The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.
so he broke a rule aaaaaaaaand?
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:22 pm
(August 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: so he broke a rule aaaaaaaaand?
Go try breaking the rules Germans. See what happens.
If the rule is meaningless, get rid of the rule. We'll all know where we stand then.
I asked if I could block a troll staff member. uh uh not allowed. Take a ban or play the game.
To me sock puppetry is far worse.
Posts: 2854
Threads: 61
Joined: February 1, 2013
Reputation:
35
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Fr0ds, bro, you need to chillax.
Posts: 30974
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm
(August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.
Why?
The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.
The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.
GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.
The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.
It's largely moot, as he's come forth.
We DO name names - when people are banned, but not when they are warned.
Creating a sock does not automatically result in a ban, although typically the circumstances do lead to one - they are most often used to circumvent bans.
In this particular case, BadWriterSparty came forward voluntarily to staff, when he realized that what he was doing was not allowed. He has been given a warning. Had he not come forward voluntarily, the end result would likely have been different.
Yes, you are correct that it is deceitful to use a sock account, and it is certainly not appropriate to use one to "gang up" on another member.
Posts: 5170
Threads: 364
Joined: September 25, 2012
Reputation:
61
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm
(August 1, 2013 at 7:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (August 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: so he broke a rule aaaaaaaaand?
Go try breaking the rules Germans. See what happens.
I did.
And as a result my head was not chopped off and paraded through the streets on a fucking stick.
And I really appreciate that, and I guess all others who conflict with the rules will appreciate that aswell.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm
(August 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: We DO name names - when people are banned, but not when they are warned.
Creating a sock does not automatically result in a ban, although typically the circumstances do lead to one - they are most often used to circumvent bans.
Good post CD.
I think a sock puppet, especially when another person has been victimised as in this case, must be named.
Otherwise where's the justice for the victim? The thread stands as do the posts, and the perp gets a private warning.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Atheists go to Heaven too
August 1, 2013 at 7:54 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2013 at 7:55 pm by Whateverist.)
(August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.
Why?
The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.
The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.
GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.
The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.
I'm a big fan of BadW but I agree with you that even handedness is justice.
Frankly the technicality of the sock puppet troubles me less than the sense that someone like GC needs to be driven off. If we want to hear all voices and not restrict membership to the choir, then we all have to refrain from playing king of the mountain. If someone is disturbed and disturbing people that might be different, but GC represents the thinking of a broad sweep of Americans and is far from crazy. No atheist here should feel so empowered that they can tell a theist member that this forum isn't big enough for both of them.
That said, I'm all for recognizing that the infraction may not have been intentional. It is the lack of fair play which motivated making the sock puppet that I object to. Maybe something appropriate expressed to GC acknowledging the wrong doing toward him would be enough? Whatever is done, I think GC needs to hear that we as a community do not condone this sort of thing.
|
