Trolling and flaming in the Green Room

Personal information is a red herring in that statement. If it's information that can be used by board rules, then it can be used for trolling where trolling's allowed. If it's not fair game then it can't be used for any purpose.

The problem here, if there is one, is using avatars to troll outside the Red Room. And there we have plenty of precedent: trolling signatures have been commonplace over the years, and they have the same forum issues that avatars do. I'm pretty certain I complained about it to no avail in the past.

Trolling signatures have been taken down before.

And I can't think of anyone currently using a sig to troll.

Even Tamar admitted that would be questionable evidence given his low credibility.

Not at all.

Absolutely not. That initiates a bad precedent to remove someone's av without evidence.

Well, now, there's some "telephone game" and/or memory distortion going on there. The game there was that it was a picture of someone else -- I don't even remember which fictitious name i made up, Neil something-Irish. O'Connell? McConnell? I don't even remember. I've been told I have an Irish-looking face, so I made up a fake Irish name for that bit of fun. But there was never any part of the narrative, as I created it, about harassing anybody. That wouldn't even make sense -- how do you get someone to repeatedly let you take pictures of him when you're harassing him?

It should also have been obvious to everybody that none of the guy is ever visible from the shoulders down. Self-taken pics are pretty obviously self-taken.

I'm not cutting you off here because I'm dismissing the rest of your point; I'm cutting you off at 'but' to make a point. Staff shouldn't have that 'but'. If they know it's me, then they know it's me, period. End of story.

Yes, I do draw a distinction between the Red Room and everywhere else -- because the rules draw that same distinction.

I still contend that El Chup's sig is trolling. I've just given up on anything ever being done about it.

'Even' Tamar?

Tamar and this guy have a history, one which he trolled her the exact same way.

She should step out of this entirely. Frankly, I doubt this would have become the shitfest it became if Lanz was currently overseeing the board.

Its willful ignorance to suggest that such a thing could be easily photoshopped.

So I won't go into the Green Room and see a pic of a user photoshopped onto a disgusting body if I look at one of Liet's posts?

BTW, I don't think anyone here is going to confuse that with the original pic.

Absolutely not. That initiates a bad precedent to remove someone's av without evidence.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to the bad precedent that you can be trolled with personal information?

Which one is more important?

Didn't the founder of the board get banned for that? Indeed, didn't most of our bans happen because of that?

If it's a picture of Samuel Jackson I think the admins are smart enough to realize that no, it isn't possibly a real pic of the user.

If its a pic that was posted AS the user, then you err on the side of caution.

And yet, he didn't do that, even though he suggested that he could. That's why it was clearly trolling, and not a true mental break-down.

Well if at this point it's accepted that the pics are you then yes his sig and avatar are trolling.

I'm not in charge though.

The implosion on Facebook doesn't mean the guy is in the insane asylum. However, it can easily mean that he wasn't thinking clearly. That's what a breakdown is, no?

And he tried, he just screwed up the implementation:
http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2414578&postcount=67

Hell, he could just post a photo of himself with WF up on his computer. It would prove it was him because it was posted under his account.

If he can't or won't, fuck him.

But my bet is he can, for the same reason the trolls created their avs - that is him, and he was lying when he said it wasn't a while back for whatever reason.

If you think I give a damn about a picture of me being posted 9 years ago, particularly since I've posted plenty in the interim both here and on Facebook, you are sorely mistaken.

He's the one who holds grudges for centuries if need be. He's done these sorts of things on multiple boards for years.

Of course, he admitted it was a troll and apologized to get back in here and now he's back to acting like he gives a shit because what he wants is tighter rules he can more easily exploit. He'll deny it all day but if you know his track record....and why do you think he's such a big proponent of protected usernames and not being able to mention other boards?....you would know this is not remotely new tactics for him.

Besides, banning people left and right isn't something I want to do, warnings hardly make much of a difference and I felt staff interference would just make things worse in this case. The parties involved worked things out among themselves pretty well...probably much faster than if we threw around the banhammer.

Which is exactly why his credibility was (and should have been) called into question.

He should remove it, but it's not a clear cut rule violation.

Again, no such precedent was instituted. Even if the photos were of Visionrazer, he posted them outside of the Blue Room and thus they aren't protected as personal information. The personal information argument is irrelevant in this case because no personal information was involved. As for the trolling argument: If there was undeniable proof a member was using another member's real life photo in their avatar for trolling purposes, and they continued to post outside of the Red Room, then it would be a violation of the trolling rules. However, Visionrazer himself claimed the pictures weren't of him. He is lying that the pictures weren't of him or he is lying that the pictures were of him. Either way, it seriously calls into question his credibility, along with his entire troll persona.

Again, his whole persona is based on drumming up controversy around himself and his credibility is questionable. There was no credible reason to believe it was him, thus erring on the side of caution in this instance was not banning the members using these avs.

Honestly, it's a while since I've paid attention to signatures. At a glance I'd say there are a few borderline mild trolls in signatures now, but nothing directed at specific individuals (other than El Chup's) and none that are worthy of complaint.

It's certainly possible my memory is faulty, but it seems to me that while trolling signatures have eventually come down in the past, that "eventually" does a lot of work. Still, I haven't paid close enough attention to signatures recently to say what current enforcement policy is, so I'll have to admit that it's not a very good precedent.

@Chad - Asked and answered - you don't have to ban the users, because this is not clear cut issue, you simply tell them to remove the Avs until what time as it can be clarified.

If they refuse that, then you get into sanctions.

The argument that the two choices were either ignore the Avs or ban the people using them is patently absurd.

But if there's a chance that a users personal information is being used, then the staff needs to clarify that at the very least.

They ignored it, citing several different reasons, all of which are of dubious providence, because the clear case is that they just don't give a shit that its JC being trolled.

[yt=How about video?]cV7A9ZYjukg[/yt]

Skype is also an option.

They would have every right to refuse without evidence, and any such sanctions would be unjustified, would have inevitably led to bans if they continued to refuse, and would have created just as much (if not more) drama.

Again, it was publicly shared. The personal information rule was never in play, even if the photos were of him.

That's what happens when you cry wolf.

I don't see how I was crying wolf.

Then I can credit your poor judgement on other factors?

Irrelevant to whether or not people can troll him with his personal info.

I don't care about him. You are just repeating over and over again that it is the PERSON that is what you are concerned about, not what the rules say.

The #1 rule, the one which is stated as being the default when there is any question at all, is no trolling outside the Red Room.

There's clearly trolling going on outside the Red Room.

Nobody asked for a ban.

You could have made it go away by simply confirming the identity of the user.

You seem to not have wanted to do that.

And its because this is a personal issue, as you stated before.

If WAB, Liet, Gul and Co raised a big stink about not trolling with what was quite likely personal info then they are the ones causing the problem, and if that needed to be addressed and they refused to comply over time it could have led to banning, sure.

But they likely would have complied and just bitched a lot.

Such is their right. It doesn't matter to the issue at hand.

Privacy rights being enforced based on personal issues as opposed to policy issues is a big deal.

No, they wouldn't have had every right. Refer to rule #1. Judgement call, and when it isn't clear #1 is the primal rule of the board.

Not how Lanz ruled it when he ruled against Rays from being used as avatars or when stated that you couldn't put up an avatar based on a person's initials.

Its him. He didn't cry wolf. He shouldn't have lied about it in the first place, but that's not crying wolf.

Oh, I agree, I'd say he has no credibility on the issue.

But it wouldn't have taken much to find out.

The Privacy rule is more important than the distaste of admitting that JC was right about something.

He posted it in the Green Room.

Privacy was not in play.

How about exclusivity? There's no board rule about that, either -- that is to say, none that says that if it's your image, only you can use it -- but maybe there should be.

I joked before that you were trolling me in your sig. I was joking tho, I think it's clever. I'm a sucker for clever. My last name has been a source of mockery since I started kindergarten. Idiots were punched, but the clever ones became my friends.

However, the entire board knows you don't like liberals and that sig is intended to show how much you don't like them - in every forum.

I can't give a proper answer since this is the Help Desk and I'd no doubt gather a warning. Maybe multiplies.

Actually that was put there because I thought it was hilarious and it was about hippies.

While I realize that almost all hippies are liberal in their outlook I do not foolishly believe as some on this board apparently do that all liberals are hippies.

Ah goodie, Liet is trolling me with a pic like the one I removed about my kid now.

You going to do something about that Tamar?

Is that your kid? And it's a pretty cute pic if you ask me compared to what Liet normally has. How do you say it is trolling?

If I remember correctly, it's actually a picture of Demiurge, as he was the one in the stay puffed costume.

A pic "like" a picture of yours?

If it's not the actual picture, then no.

I'm not sure whether you're trying to be funny or not. It's a bad effort if you are. I certainly have no idea what you're talking about. That's just a cute picture that's been making its way around the internet recently, and I like Ghostbusters.

So a picture of a ray is considered trolling a member, and a picture of a guy with the initials the same as another member is a troll, despite no one knowing either of these things, but this picture isn't.

OK, Tamar.

Go ahead and lock my account.

I don't need another Lisa.

I'll be calling you in the next few days.

We can discuss it then.