The following is a slightly altered (to remove the names & change the flow of the conversation to be more orderly) transcript of a discussion with a staff member of this site on the specifics of a particular poster:
Q:Why don't you ban him?
"He has he VPNs :/"
"The fucker keeps using a damn VPN and phone posting and cafes"
"His IP keeps changing but stays English"
"The flag stays English but the hash changes"
Why don't you just keep on banning him?
"We do but he keeps coming back like the card he is"
How long are these bans?
"Idk [REDACTED] kinda keeps Nigel as a per project. The main ones are permanent"
"Speaking with the admin now to get more"
"He has been working on the Nigel situation"
"Apparently lotus says he is handling it :/"
"Idk much more than that apparently he pulled the perma bans things"
"That explains his dumb fucking comic being back"
What?
"You know the Virgin glimmer fan vs the Chad Nigel"
"Tbh I will never understand the guy"
"It's like zald"
"Why does zald come daily"
End
And, that is the situation at hand. From my perspective, a confused mess that is sort of plays like a bounce check in dealing with the situation at hand. I may be biased, and I'll admit it here, however I see a problem that must be dealt with sternly. Here are my proposals:
1. Ban/remove on sight.
In disobedience, a particular poster has repeatedly evaded bans & caused disruptions. I suggest that an immediate response to the sight of such disruption through means of harsh banning of the perpetrator and swift removal of all traces of disruption. I request that to fall under the juridstiction of not a single admin, but be collectively an order to all posting regulatory staff. The issue of a task force or new janitors if needed be. Providing some leniency, then the response of removal is only needed without bannings. Although, it must be noted that a character can be driven off along with the problem through attrition.
2. End the "pet project."
I request full transparency on this cause. This has become an issue of hot debate over the course of time, and the noncompliancy of staff can only serve to seed distrust in current power structure.
3.The establishment of a new rule.
I propose a rule against spam & derailment. Pertaining derailment, derailment must be "spam" in order to be banned. The change of topics can be welcomed under this rule, however the harmful debauchery of spam must not be. Already, have there been precedents in support of this new rule.
4.A rangeban on "Nigel."
If the poster "nigel" persists in his cancerous behaviour all the while evading bans, then I suggest a range ban within his radius. However, if there may be another IP within his range that proves not to be the same poster, then I suggest ignoring this proposal. Another addition to this to make sure no one is unjustly blocked, I add that there be a way to appeal the particular ban of an IP within the rangeban with careful evaluation.
5.Extend punishment to others if need be.
The provocation of this problem must not be tolerated just as the problem itself. If need be, punish others.
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
Archived thread
File (): 75B83C857454C29F5AF10764F07172CF-616368.png (601.9 KB, 1500x2000, 1510372308835-3.png)
>>3605
Much of this was not communicated to me.
>Pet project
We had one mod who talked about that, because he thinks the situation is funny. In general, the mod team is indifferent and ignore him.
>Permanent bans
If you were told that he has ever been permabanned, you've been lied to. Nigel has never been permabanned, permabans against him have not been requested by mods, and permabans on him have never been instated and then removed.
>VPNs
This is probably true. If we were to ban him, it would probably be ineffective because he changes IPs every three days. There was a time he was banned on a three day ban, with not one but two bans, and he did not even notice that the second one was not removed because he changed IPs (after he was told the first one was removed)
>1. Ban/Remove on Sight
This is a very harsh rule, I am uncertain. It probably won't even affect him primarily, since he is not nearly as bad of a baiter as other posters.
>2.End the Pet project
One mod thought it would be funny to have our own Barneyfag, and recommended just watching. But that hasn't really affected the proceedings much.
>3. Establish a new rule
He actually hasn't been derailing much if at all. He created a /sp/ thread that was derailed, he created a /qa/ thread, and someone else derailed a winterball thread by clearly baiting him. He hasn't been spamming and derailing, only arguing with people who come up to him to argue
>4. A range ban on Nigel
The only way he could be range banned is if we stripped away the IP hashing so all user IPs are revealed, then discovered his IP range and banned it. This was considered during the mass spam attacks and it was thought to not be worth the cost to user security and privacy. I personally do not think it is worth it to ban someone who triggers people.
>5. Extend Punishment to others if need be
THIS is the reason he has not been banned. Not a pet project, not VPNs, not a lack of special rules. It's the fact that every time he does something that looks like it might earn a ban, there's at least three people trolling, baiting, spamming, or otherwise intentionally triggering him and making the situation worse who are equally or more deserving of a ban than him. (They certainly piss me off more, because while the glimmer hater doesn't know any better, they do). Because banning 4 or more people is just too much, it's better to leave the situation alone and hope people who are triggered by him will eventually learn that all they need to do to make it stop, is just stop provoking him.
Much of this was not communicated to me.
>Pet project
We had one mod who talked about that, because he thinks the situation is funny. In general, the mod team is indifferent and ignore him.
>Permanent bans
If you were told that he has ever been permabanned, you've been lied to. Nigel has never been permabanned, permabans against him have not been requested by mods, and permabans on him have never been instated and then removed.
>VPNs
This is probably true. If we were to ban him, it would probably be ineffective because he changes IPs every three days. There was a time he was banned on a three day ban, with not one but two bans, and he did not even notice that the second one was not removed because he changed IPs (after he was told the first one was removed)
>1. Ban/Remove on Sight
This is a very harsh rule, I am uncertain. It probably won't even affect him primarily, since he is not nearly as bad of a baiter as other posters.
>2.End the Pet project
One mod thought it would be funny to have our own Barneyfag, and recommended just watching. But that hasn't really affected the proceedings much.
>3. Establish a new rule
He actually hasn't been derailing much if at all. He created a /sp/ thread that was derailed, he created a /qa/ thread, and someone else derailed a winterball thread by clearly baiting him. He hasn't been spamming and derailing, only arguing with people who come up to him to argue
>4. A range ban on Nigel
The only way he could be range banned is if we stripped away the IP hashing so all user IPs are revealed, then discovered his IP range and banned it. This was considered during the mass spam attacks and it was thought to not be worth the cost to user security and privacy. I personally do not think it is worth it to ban someone who triggers people.
>5. Extend Punishment to others if need be
THIS is the reason he has not been banned. Not a pet project, not VPNs, not a lack of special rules. It's the fact that every time he does something that looks like it might earn a ban, there's at least three people trolling, baiting, spamming, or otherwise intentionally triggering him and making the situation worse who are equally or more deserving of a ban than him. (They certainly piss me off more, because while the glimmer hater doesn't know any better, they do). Because banning 4 or more people is just too much, it's better to leave the situation alone and hope people who are triggered by him will eventually learn that all they need to do to make it stop, is just stop provoking him.
File (): DDF358C83BA8E6B0A558B6349F957F4A-1051882.gif (1.0 MB, 238x190, mfw evading bans.gif)
Ban evasion is a clear cut business.
If he evades, he gets a new one with a longer sentence. if he dodges that one too, an even higher one. If he does it repeatedly, he gets a permaban. Theres no problem. His writing style is so unique he can always be spotted.
+++
>Ban evasion.
>Message:
>He still thinks Hanz and Taze are the only people who dislike an unstable God complexed cuck who is hated by several people lmao check out this kike.
>Ban evasion.
>Message:
>Lmao look at the little faggot, deleting posts that say meanie things about him! Booooo hoooo! Enjoy the only power you will ever have in your life, BTW how's that gf? Oh yeah she thought you were REPULSIVE, I would to though tbh fam.
+++
is that him? i was not present when or where this happened. Anyways, I find it fairly embarrasing that it has come to this that we must now carry this issue of moderation to the public eye, as if not enough damage had already been done.
>>3608
I would like to note that, re-reading the transcript, it does not look like the mod ever alleged that he has been permabanned
>>3611
No, a mod was personally insulted by a person who has a personal grievance against him on Discord, so he permabanned him on several IPs. I removed the permabans, and what were left behind were 4 week bans for ban-evasion. this has nothing at all to do with the Glimmer situation - it's unrelated Discord Drama spillover and a mod getting personal
>>3612
Not out of the question. There is the difficulty that baiting posts can still be seen by people who have the thread open, so it would not be perfectly effective
I would like to note that, re-reading the transcript, it does not look like the mod ever alleged that he has been permabanned
>>3611
No, a mod was personally insulted by a person who has a personal grievance against him on Discord, so he permabanned him on several IPs. I removed the permabans, and what were left behind were 4 week bans for ban-evasion. this has nothing at all to do with the Glimmer situation - it's unrelated Discord Drama spillover and a mod getting personal
>>3612
Not out of the question. There is the difficulty that baiting posts can still be seen by people who have the thread open, so it would not be perfectly effective
File (): 75DE4FD36E0ADC927E747F23CAB106E4-324205.png (316.6 KB, 500x373, dont call it a coffin, its the future you chose.png)
>>3613
you do realise that he archives everything and brings it up repeatedly after that or to make his special meme edit templates along with his rants.
take a look at the winter ball thread and how unapologetic he was. not only was he posting off topic, he had no idea what the thread even was about in the first place. even AFTER another poster adviced him on the thread topic he still though of something else.
It takes a certain kind of thickheadeded ignorance for this kind of behavior.
you do realise that he archives everything and brings it up repeatedly after that or to make his special meme edit templates along with his rants.
take a look at the winter ball thread and how unapologetic he was. not only was he posting off topic, he had no idea what the thread even was about in the first place. even AFTER another poster adviced him on the thread topic he still though of something else.
It takes a certain kind of thickheadeded ignorance for this kind of behavior.
>>3611
>>3605
I'm going to be very clear on why he is not banned - it's because the people who keep fighting him are as bad or worse than he is. All that need be done to shut him up, is stop baiting him. Stop calling him "nigel," stop posting that Chad meme, stop posting Starlight Glimmer threads and images at him, stop giving blanket walls of text about the non-existence of Glimmer Niggers. Just stop inciting him, and he'll stop as he did before. If he were banned for 3 days, there would be another 3 people banned for three days, and one banned for a week, if it is in proportion at all to actual rule breaking/culpability/how pissed off I am.
>>3617
He posted in the Winter Ball thread only because (you) baited him with an off-topic and personal attack. (you) derailed that thread, not him.
>>3605
I'm going to be very clear on why he is not banned - it's because the people who keep fighting him are as bad or worse than he is. All that need be done to shut him up, is stop baiting him. Stop calling him "nigel," stop posting that Chad meme, stop posting Starlight Glimmer threads and images at him, stop giving blanket walls of text about the non-existence of Glimmer Niggers. Just stop inciting him, and he'll stop as he did before. If he were banned for 3 days, there would be another 3 people banned for three days, and one banned for a week, if it is in proportion at all to actual rule breaking/culpability/how pissed off I am.
>>3617
He posted in the Winter Ball thread only because (you) baited him with an off-topic and personal attack. (you) derailed that thread, not him.
>>3619
He is at liability as well for the derailment. If anything, I can't understand why you are such a soft apologetic for him. Dehumanising him by taking away his accountability. Of course, you can posit that he's just as bad as everyone else, but in the whirlwind of egos, there must be a lesser of two evils. And, if it is to be done, then fucking lay the ban hammer. Ignore it though; then we see the same conflict, it'll die down, and it will re-emerge again. We're stuck in a loop until whoever wants to leave, leaves. We're not solving a problem here, we're shuffling it for later.
He is at liability as well for the derailment. If anything, I can't understand why you are such a soft apologetic for him. Dehumanising him by taking away his accountability. Of course, you can posit that he's just as bad as everyone else, but in the whirlwind of egos, there must be a lesser of two evils. And, if it is to be done, then fucking lay the ban hammer. Ignore it though; then we see the same conflict, it'll die down, and it will re-emerge again. We're stuck in a loop until whoever wants to leave, leaves. We're not solving a problem here, we're shuffling it for later.
File (): E91FA2DC0AE4884474673958415ECCBA-24416.jpg (23.8 KB, 515x375, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) punch.jpg)
>>3619
Yes. Yes I did. And I would do it again with no regret whatsoever.
If Nigel Truly is mentally retarded as I suspect, I wont just stop talking to him as long as he uses his site. It is not my responsibility to protect others from their own actions. If he comes into a public place and expects his actions to have no consequences, he is wrong. He is in need of a tard wrangler of a supervisor in this case, not a hugbox that coddles him and tells him he can do no wrong.
I thought of Nigel just as a Newfag that was in need of getting more used to the site when i first enouncerted him. I was wrong. With his history and past behavior in other communities (from his own mouth) i am now of the opinions that he is a drag to MLPOL and possible even a long term threat.
Nigel is the definition of a lolcow, may he like the fact or not. He is doomed to repeat this existince for the forseeable future unless he gets off the internet or receives profound treadment. Dont expect MLPOL to be his therapy group. If you put the wellbeing of 1 man over that of a whole website, you should reconsider your priorities.
If this somehow violation the site conduct, I am fully willing to take my punishment for this, on the condition that it is deployed on Nigel as well as of all his detractors. However, even after a sentence I will not bow to a deluded pseudointellectual that thinks he is above the law.
Yes. Yes I did. And I would do it again with no regret whatsoever.
If Nigel Truly is mentally retarded as I suspect, I wont just stop talking to him as long as he uses his site. It is not my responsibility to protect others from their own actions. If he comes into a public place and expects his actions to have no consequences, he is wrong. He is in need of a tard wrangler of a supervisor in this case, not a hugbox that coddles him and tells him he can do no wrong.
I thought of Nigel just as a Newfag that was in need of getting more used to the site when i first enouncerted him. I was wrong. With his history and past behavior in other communities (from his own mouth) i am now of the opinions that he is a drag to MLPOL and possible even a long term threat.
Nigel is the definition of a lolcow, may he like the fact or not. He is doomed to repeat this existince for the forseeable future unless he gets off the internet or receives profound treadment. Dont expect MLPOL to be his therapy group. If you put the wellbeing of 1 man over that of a whole website, you should reconsider your priorities.
If this somehow violation the site conduct, I am fully willing to take my punishment for this, on the condition that it is deployed on Nigel as well as of all his detractors. However, even after a sentence I will not bow to a deluded pseudointellectual that thinks he is above the law.
File (): D408D67411EAC9A8AA1F271CE6816EBA-27052.jpg (26.4 KB, 292x350, 1484324254731.jpg)
I wish we had another enemy like /int*/ that could exploit our weakness, then we would learn.
File (): 6488FA7F9A3747AE3543283016E90749-118740.jpg (116.0 KB, 684x623, argentina and brasil.jpg)
Anonymous
No.3633
File (): 4B53DE8E49EC57424236D6E5A34AC1DD-102068.png (99.7 KB, 925x974, 1485886126248.png)
File (): D9741F9059B2A954B600FA794EBA0781-650365.png (635.1 KB, 844x1038, 1466994441808.png)
>>3624
>>3630
I can't say I am fully okay with this situation as this was the status quo months ago and the lackluster enforcement of it had driven us into the predicament we are in now, but hopefully this temporary solution will hold more results than i expect. Putting a gag on the entirety of the site is possibly the worst way to deal with this, but every action causes reaction. For your sake I hope it will be the one that serves us all best.
>>3630
I can't say I am fully okay with this situation as this was the status quo months ago and the lackluster enforcement of it had driven us into the predicament we are in now, but hopefully this temporary solution will hold more results than i expect. Putting a gag on the entirety of the site is possibly the worst way to deal with this, but every action causes reaction. For your sake I hope it will be the one that serves us all best.
>>3635
Nope, I'm tired of everyone's bullshit. Everyone who baits and trolls will be banned. You don't need to bait him, because he'll get banned even if you don't. Be happy.
Nope, I'm tired of everyone's bullshit. Everyone who baits and trolls will be banned. You don't need to bait him, because he'll get banned even if you don't. Be happy.
Anonymous
No.3637
File (): 3C22C07FC56F85BC364D58F93D553659-1528841.jpg (1.5 MB, 5500x4135, 1895916 - D.Va Dandon_Fuga Overlook.jpg)
>>3636
I apprectiate the gesture but your feelings should not impose influence on your code of ethics or enforcement of judgement. Here is a gesture of relaxation. Take it in and try to find your peace with it for now.
I apprectiate the gesture but your feelings should not impose influence on your code of ethics or enforcement of judgement. Here is a gesture of relaxation. Take it in and try to find your peace with it for now.
23 replies | 9 files | 4 UUIDs | Archived