(April 8, 2016 at 9:06 am)Marsellus Wallace Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 8:53 am)Evie Wrote: Anyone who all by themselves persistently create a highly toxic atmosphere on the forums.

with all sewiousness though, am I creating a toxic atmosphere ? 

If you have to ask...
Maybe you're doing something wrong...

(April 8, 2016 at 9:06 am)Marsellus Wallace Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 8:53 am)Evie Wrote: Anyone who all by themselves persistently create a highly toxic atmosphere on the forums.

which layer we talkin' about ? 




with all sewiousness though, am I creating a toxic atmosphere ? 

That depends.
How often do you fart?

And when did you last shower?

Seriously, though, I have an example of the kind of toxicity we're talking about. Some years ago over at the erstwhile JesusNeverExisted forum, we had a pretty unpleasant troll by name of Troy Brooks (aka Churchwork, Worker for the Church, Friend, A Friend, Parture and many, many other identities that may get him past the ban radar). He is the distillation of every lunatic we have ever had around here, theist or otherwise. After an eternity of his insane ramblings - JNE was even more resistant to permabans than we are - his entire post output consisted of spamming the same massively ranting essays multiple times, in multiple threads, across multiple boards and over many weeks. He polluted the entire forum into being his own personal vomit pile. We had people dreading to log in and others saying they were leaving, all due to the misbehaviour of one member.

As far as I'm concerned, that is the minimum standard for invoking the nuke option, and I for one wouldn't even consider it for anything less.

Good post.

(April 8, 2016 at 7:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And when did you last shower?

Seriously, though, I have an example of the kind of toxicity we're talking about. Some years ago over at the erstwhile JesusNeverExisted forum, we had a pretty unpleasant troll by name of Troy Brooks (aka Churchwork, Worker for the Church, Friend, A Friend, Parture and many, many other identities that may get him past the ban radar). He is the distillation of every lunatic we have ever had around here, theist or otherwise. After an eternity of his insane ramblings - JNE was even more resistant to permabans than we are - his entire post output consisted of spamming the same massively ranting essays multiple times, in multiple threads, across multiple boards and over many weeks. He polluted the entire forum into being his own personal vomit pile. We had people dreading to log in and others saying they were leaving, all due to the misbehaviour of one member.

As far as I'm concerned, that is the minimum standard for invoking the nuke option, and I for one wouldn't even consider it for anything less.

Wouldn't the nuke option then be unnecessary because he was already violating rules?

Maybe. Hopefully. It would depend on the situation.

Quote: Churchwork,

I used to like fucking with Churchjerk, Stim.  What we have dropping jesus shit around here are pale comparisons to a true asshole like him.

Yeah, they don't grow 'em like that anymore. He even out-pioused other xtians. And then there was his long, long argument with vBulletin support, which ended like this.

(April 8, 2016 at 10:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah, they don't grow 'em like that anymore. He even out-pioused other xtians. And then there was his long, long argument with vBulletin support, which ended like this.

If you scroll down through all the comments, you'll see one made by "A Friend", wasn't he a sock of troy? If so, he's talking to himself which makes it even more hilarious.

Some people are very good at skirting the rules.

They are clearly here to annoy, but they do so in ways that make it very hard for honest staff to make a strong case.

I see this as a way of plugging all the possible gaps that such a fuckwad would hide in. The rules can't cover absolutely everything.

It's a testament to the staff, I think, that this rule is made explicit. (It happened before I was staff.) It shows the staff do take the rules very seriously; otherwise they could just ban whoever is pissing them off without giving much justification.

I'm pleased to say that since this rule has been made available, it hasn't been used. I've been here during some times where toxic individuals were running rampant, and the effect was so bad as to stop many decent regulars wanting to be on the forum. Pinning such people on the rules was very hard because they were deliberately skirting them. This rule could have saved a lot of aggro. I hope we never get such a person again.

We'd be basically saying, "We know what you're up to, stop it." If they don't stop, it's preferable to lose them than to lose nice regulars.