Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2012, 07:14 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 06:58 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  
(28-12-2012 05:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Public beatdowns until they either stop being a goddam motherfucking prick or leave.
That's a threat of violence. He has also insinuated that he was doing research on me and has my personal information, and now he has showed that he wants violence towards me. If I said this to anje' or w/e her name is, I would get banned immediately.

Either have rules and enforce them, or don't have them at all.
Sweetie, by public beatdowns he meant humiliating you by pointing out your flaws on the forums.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 07:15 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(26-12-2012 12:07 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Hi, I am doing an investigation in you, since what you say is so suspicious-
Is that what the priests say to the alter boys?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
28-12-2012, 07:18 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 06:58 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  
(28-12-2012 05:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Public beatdowns until they either stop being a goddam motherfucking prick or leave.
That's a threat of violence. He has also insinuated that he was doing research on me and has my personal information, and now he has showed that he wants violence towards me. If I said this to anje' or w/e her name is, I would get banned immediately.

Either have rules and enforce them, or don't have them at all.
Are you insinuating that you are a troll? Consider

(28-12-2012 05:29 PM)Dom Wrote:  But are we supposed to just sit there and let trolls take over everything?

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
28-12-2012, 07:30 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
Just a few cents. Here's my proposed model on post "threat"/troll level.

2 Categories
- Unintentional hurting of a user, whereby the user posts something that he/she does not know that will offend other users
- Intentional hurting of a user, whereby the user posts something that he/she explicitly knows that will offend other users.

There's one problem with such a classification I proposed however, that is how does one know whether the damage is intentional or unintentional? A proposed solution is to give the accused a chance or a platform to justify his/her actions, and/or issue an apology to the people which the post unintentionally/intentionally hurt.

Even so, it's still a case by case basis, depending on the severity of the post, so I propose a possible scale as a guideline.
Level 1: No damage. Zero. None. As clean and harmless as the phrase "rainbow unicorn".
Level 2: Very mild damage. Maybe 1 or 2 users might not agree with a few points. A basic level of controversy.
Level 3: Mild damage. Controversy where you can see two sides against each other over that particular issue. Just disagreeing with each other over that. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate.
Level 4: Moderate damage. Basic ad hominem attacks.
Level 5: Moderate-high damage. Constant badgering and harassing of a user/many users.
Level 6: High damage. Death threats and other serious stuff like that.

A problem to the scale I proposed is evident in Level 4 and Level 5. Is it even considering damaging if the other party does not take offense to the posts at all? What do we classify poking fun at others for laughs? Even so, on which level do we consider it drawing the line? Level 6 is a given, but how about Level 5?

Regarding that, I understand there is no black and white solution, so I propose a voting system of some sort, to determine in general, how the forum views such a member, and what actions do the forum thinks it's appropriate for the user to do (ranging from apologies to banning). The voting system will not used as a definitive system to oust someone out, but a very general opinion on what the forum thinks. The results can either be kept anonymous, in which only a few people can see the results, or the results can be public after the vote is cast.

So there's my opinion Smile

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
28-12-2012, 07:30 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 07:14 PM)Red Tornado Wrote:  
(28-12-2012 06:58 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  That's a threat of violence. He has also insinuated that he was doing research on me and has my personal information, and now he has showed that he wants violence towards me. If I said this to anje' or w/e her name is, I would get banned immediately.

Either have rules and enforce them, or don't have them at all.
Sweetie, by public beatdowns he meant humiliating you by pointing out your flaws on the forums.
He's a big boy, he said what he meant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 07:31 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 07:30 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Just a few cents. Here's my proposed model on post "threat"/troll level.

2 Categories
- Unintentional hurting of a user, whereby the user posts something that he/she does not know that will offend other users
- Intentional hurting of a user, whereby the user posts something that he/she explicitly knows that will offend other users.

There's one problem with such a classification I proposed however, that is how does one know whether the damage is intentional or unintentional? A proposed solution is to give the accused a chance or a platform to justify his/her actions, and/or issue an apology to the people which the post unintentionally/intentionally hurt.

Even so, it's still a case by case basis, depending on the severity of the post, so I propose a possible scale as a guideline.
Level 1: No damage. Zero. None. As clean and harmless as the phrase "rainbow unicorn".
Level 2: Very mild damage. Maybe 1 or 2 users might not agree with a few points. A basic level of controversy.
Level 3: Mild damage. Controversy where you can see two sides against each other over that particular issue. Just disagreeing with each other over that. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate.
Level 4: Moderate damage. Basic ad hominem attacks.
Level 5: Moderate-high damage. Constant badgering and harassing of a user/many users.
Level 6: High damage. Death threats and other serious stuff like that.

A problem to the scale I proposed is evident in Level 4 and Level 5. Is it even considering damaging if the other party does not take offense to the posts at all? What do we classify poking fun at others for laughs? Even so, on which level do we consider it drawing the line? Level 6 is a given, but how about Level 5?

Regarding that, I understand there is no black and white solution, so I propose a voting system of some sort, to determine in general, how the forum views such a member, and what actions do the forum thinks it's appropriate for the user to do (ranging from apologies to banning). The voting system will not used as a definitive system to oust someone out, but a very general opinion on what the forum thinks. The results can either be kept anonymous, in which only a few people can see the results, or the results can be public after the vote is cast.

So there's my opinion Smile
I agree, so girlyman should be banned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 07:31 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 06:58 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  That's a threat of violence. He has also insinuated that he was doing research on me and has my personal information, and now he has showed that he wants violence towards me. If I said this to anje' or w/e her name is, I would get banned immediately.

Either have rules and enforce them, or don't have them at all.
Actually, GirlyMan was talking about them (trolls), not you (FZUmedia) specifically.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 07:34 PM
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 07:31 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(28-12-2012 06:58 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  That's a threat of violence. He has also insinuated that he was doing research on me and has my personal information, and now he has showed that he wants violence towards me. If I said this to anje' or w/e her name is, I would get banned immediately.

Either have rules and enforce them, or don't have them at all.
Actually, GirlyMan was talking about them (trolls), not you (FZUmedia) specifically.
Then I can say "people with cancer should be publicly beaten up - oh i'm not talking about anje specifically" ... It's ridiculous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 07:36 PM (This post was last modified: 28-12-2012 07:40 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 07:34 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Then I can say "people with cancer should be publicly beaten up - oh i'm not talking about anje specifically" ... It's ridiculous.
That's a false analogy. Whether or not you are a troll depends on the subjective judgment of an individual; whether or not Anjele has cancer depends on the objective tools of modern medicine.

Unless GirlyMan has explicitly stated that he thinks that you are a troll, there is no reason for you to think that you were included in his statement.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2012, 07:37 PM
Threat to out me from FZUMedia via messages
(28-12-2012 07:30 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Just a few cents. Here's my proposed model on post "threat"/troll level.

2 Categories
- Unintentional hurting of a user, whereby the user posts something that he/she does not know that will offend other users
- Intentional hurting of a user, whereby the user posts something that he/she explicitly knows that will offend other users.

There's one problem with such a classification I proposed however, that is how does one know whether the damage is intentional or unintentional? A proposed solution is to give the accused a chance or a platform to justify his/her actions, and/or issue an apology to the people which the post unintentionally/intentionally hurt.

Even so, it's still a case by case basis, depending on the severity of the post, so I propose a possible scale as a guideline.
Level 1: No damage. Zero. None. As clean and harmless as the phrase "rainbow unicorn".
Level 2: Very mild damage. Maybe 1 or 2 users might not agree with a few points. A basic level of controversy.
Level 3: Mild damage. Controversy where you can see two sides against each other over that particular issue. Just disagreeing with each other over that. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate.
Level 4: Moderate damage. Basic ad hominem attacks.
Level 5: Moderate-high damage. Constant badgering and harassing of a user/many users.
Level 6: High damage. Death threats and other serious stuff like that.

A problem to the scale I proposed is evident in Level 4 and Level 5. Is it even considering damaging if the other party does not take offense to the posts at all? What do we classify poking fun at others for laughs? Even so, on which level do we consider it drawing the line? Level 6 is a given, but how about Level 5?

Regarding that, I understand there is no black and white solution, so I propose a voting system of some sort, to determine in general, how the forum views such a member, and what actions do the forum thinks it's appropriate for the user to do (ranging from apologies to banning). The voting system will not used as a definitive system to oust someone out, but a very general opinion on what the forum thinks. The results can either be kept anonymous, in which only a few people can see the results, or the results can be public after the vote is cast.

So there's my opinion Smile

Who do you propose should do all that investigating and judging? Consider

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
Exclamation Big Tornado Threat Charis 32 343 28-04-2014 09:25 AM
Last Post: JDog554
  Messages That Shouldn't be Shared by Text Can_of_Beans 11 181 05-04-2014 12:58 PM
Last Post: Can_of_Beans
Question Me and the 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution Metazoa Zeke 3 278 06-02-2014 04:03 AM
Last Post: Metazoa Zeke
  Whoops. I "accidentally" banned FZUMedia. My bad. Buddy Christ 116 3,325 01-01-2013 07:32 AM
Last Post: Logica Humano
  So which is more a threat to liberty? Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver 8 337 31-12-2012 11:40 PM
Last Post: Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver
Forum Jump: