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"
"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"
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.