Just to throw my two cents in, I always thought the "ask and ye shall receive" rule applied only to permabans and self-imposed vacations. Why call it a two-week ban if it doesn't automatically go away in two weeks? ETA: I have no idea about Castle melting down on FB or not, and I find him repetitive and bothersome at times, but those are the rules as I remember them. Not having been through the process, perhaps I'm wrong.
It's been 4 or 5 years since I got banned, but I had to ask. This thread has highlighted an important issue. We aren't banning enough people. I think we should aim for 1 ban a month for mods, 2 for admins quota system. That way people are more aware of the rules and process.
When I was banned, I had to request reinstatement, and promise to make amends for my bad behavior. It's the same standard, always has been.
Yeah, but you killed a girl. We've tried to be smooth about it, and forgive you, but none of us really got over it. I can't help keep looking at you funny, and this weird magnetic repulsion feeling comes into the room when you're there.
I've heard of the final straw, but I see no mention in the rules about challenging the owner's ego....so I'm not actually seeing the supposed "final straw". The final straw should be a rule breach, no?
Trolling the membership (and a decent poster at that) with flippancy in the help desk. Classy mate. Classy.
Threatening the board and it's membership, especially when you have a history of attacking boards (and often boast of it) was the final straw. Afterwords when I found out he had called up the owner of another board he decided to take down, and threaten that guys children (according to Tamar), whelp. Doesn't really want to make me or the owners of the board to go out of our way to roll out the red carpet. He's welcome to come back via the same process as everyone else, but this whole 'fuck your rules, let me back or else' tough man act isn't going to take him far.
Not everyone takes this internet lawyer business as seriously as you do. I think it was pretty clear I was joking.
Oh please, don't feed me that bullshit. Not only is Castle about as much threat to this board as a squashed peach, but there is no evidence of him attacking other boards beyond absurdly old rumours. All this looks like is you trying to project the size of your phallus, and taking advantage of his patheticness and lack of popularity to do so. That is unless you can explain I me what tools Castle is going to use to take down the board? Gordon P. Firemark? If Castle is such a threat why is he spending his time melting down on FB over the course of a month instead of launching his dastardly plan of malice?
The funny thing Chup, is that his trolling you with personal info is what got the ball rolling, so each time you insist that nothing was done, and instead focus on the final issue, I just have to laugh a bit. Anyway, looks like I owe Tex some money, because I thought you'd appreciate our efforts on your behalf, and he insisted you'd go Internet lawyer and miss the point. Shouldn't have made that bet I guess.
Ahhh, I take the internet too seriously eh? Which one of us is now making personal insults outside of the Red Room in breach of the rules he's supposed to promote? Funny how with you all your trolling is dismissed as "a joke". But the man who tells others they take things too seriously is the same man who had the loudest voice during the previous owner's regime over how we needed a serious plan to revive the place. The man with all the big ideas for WF who has not only failed to deliver, but shits on the rules that well predate him.
Not much, we'd just have to decide to do it. At the moment there is no real desire to do it (as I alluded to in my post, bannings are pretty rare), and ZERO desire to make any changes due to castle throwing a tantrum.
"We" as in the Four Horsemen? I don't care because it's Castle, I care because the current nomenclature for bans doesn't make sense.
Yep. It's worked well enough the last 7-8 years. I believe it was due to Elwood getting tired of playing fuck fuck games with people doing the same shit over and over again, doing two weeks, building up warnings, getting banned, rinse repeat so they had to agree to cut the shit out to come back.
As a sidebar, I suspect this thread--and particularly gul and Anc's responses in it--helps people understand two things: 1) Why I decided it was pointless to remain on staff and 2) Why no amount of explaining will allow Anc to understand why I left staff.
What the hell are you talking about? You left almost immediately, whining the whole way. Everyone knows why you left the staff. I mean, you go on like you were an integral part of the team! Picture it this way: It's like going to medical school for a few months, and then dropping out. Yet from that point forward, you'll preface everything you say with "when I was a doctor...".
Ah. So when Castle did it it was WRONG and EVIL and he must do pennance. But Borgs, who actually did try to destroy the board, gets a handwritten big smile invitation back in the door. Got it.
I'll give castle the same treatment. After 8 years of him not doing anything I'll lift his ban without him having to ask. Until then, no special treatment. He does it the same way everyone else does.
Ok, can one of the other admins please point to where Castle was warned for Chup's PI? There is nothing in the Shelter Release about it (and it's past time the thread would have been released); nor is there any mention in the Warning Zone. If the warning did go out, the procedure needs to be streamlined so there's a record of it. Secondly, the thread in Release about Castle's banning specifically points to the alleged threat Castle made against the board. I must point out that when @Ancalagon point blank asked Castle if he was threatening the board or its membership, Castle's response was a clear (paraphrased), "No, why aren't you coming down on those unable to ignore me and shit up the threads?" In his exact words: Nothing there indicates he will sometime in the future fuck things up for us. He's attempting to call to attention a problem he himself can't shake of (and doing so in his inimitable style, no less). Look, Castle's posting style does leave a lot to be desired. His dialogue on FB in his petition to return doesn't help his cause. His detractors that continuously egg him on use the equivalent of, "He made me hit him!" when they damn well could exercise some self-control and scroll by his posts or put him on ignore, eliminating a large part of the problem we have. However, this ban is on less than flimsy pretext, and that is not how the staff should operate. All in all, I tend to be a fairly laissez-faire as an Admin here, because taking a hard line approach is not a good alternative. Had he been banned because of a valid reason, yes, asking him to agree on not pulling shit again before letting him back in is reasonable. So far, I don't see a valid reason; at this venture, simply saying, "Welcome back. Tone down your shenanigans." would be the way to go, though honestly, he shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Who knows, it's likely he would have honestly earned one a bit down the line at that rate. This isn't my board. This is my opinion and vote as an admin. I request, however, a clear spelling out on what policies have changed, pinned in the Red Room so the membership is clear what will be expected of them if they are banned and wish to return, as well as any relevant information on what will result in a holiday from the board.
I understand your position, but in this case, I have to disagree. I admit that looking at that one post allows for your reading. But it was clear that Castle was deliberately trolling, and putting the blame for that on moderators who should help him "shake off" the very reactions he very deliberately and carefully cultivated is just part of that routine. Yes, people could in theory just scroll past his posts and even put him on ignore. If everyone on the planet was perfect except Castle, that is what would happen. But in reality, everyone has some buttons that can be pushed. Nobody is completely immune. For a long time, Castle, in this and most of his previous identities, was pretty much ignored, at least to the extent that reactions didn't dominate the board. Immunity held. Castle responded by investing an enormous amount of time, over years, into becoming a greater nuisance, and honing the personality that would be apt on WF to push most buttons most of the time. Eventually, he stumbled into one such identity. It's not even that he's some kind of genius troll; but he was bound to find a truly annoying version of himself, because as long as he didn't, he just continued to change. So now he has found that version. It obviously hit Anc's buttons, and the other horsemen at least agreed with his reaction, IIUC. I'm guessing it was probably even deliberate that the "Now." in his post, drawn either to the statement above or below, could even invite a reading by which he was continuing his threats. Even if it wasn't, the attitude he cultivated that made that interpretation likely clearly was. Either way, while you can always blame Anc or anyone else for responding to one given sting, I don't see how you can fault people for having some sensibility that a determined troll will find if they literally invest the better part of a decade to do so. "He made us punch him?" Note that the horsemen didn't punch him. They didn't interfere with his private, professional, or other "real" life, for instance. "He made us close the door on him lest we'd end up punching him." is more like it. Again, in a perfect world, that wouldn't be necessary; but I'm not too proud to say that when somebody invests years, they will eventually find a way to make me want to either punch someone or distance myself from them, as well. That's technically a fault on my part, but so is mortality and the lack of wings. Look at his recent spin-off from his BR where he explained that this was what he was doing. Ultimately, consider this: if the better solution would have been for everyone to put him on ignore, how is that substantially different from removing him from the board? None of that is to say he should never be allowed back; he can be smart, and he could be an interesting contributor. I hope he will be. But there's no gain for anyone, including him, in letting him back to continue the exact same behaviour as before. So there's my vote, not that I should get one.
I wasn't referring to the staff or owners with that statement. Not everyone would put him on ignore. That will never happen; people like me don't use the feature, don't need to. However, if it were used, without the negative sounding board that pushes back, I imagine he'd use his persona less. Personally, when he does come back, I sincerely hope he does tone down the persona. It's grating, and it makes it harder for me to do my job as an admin when I'm skimming through a thread and only see the Usual Shenanigans of Castle vs. le Danceur du Jour. It increases the likelihood of missing something that needs moderation (even if in the Red Room).
