If this was all you had to go on, and you had to pick one, which of the two participants would you consider banning?


Participant A:
"What I want to know is why some two bit, tin badged, donut eating, rent-a-cop with misplaced assumptions of authority automatically thinks she knows anything about racing and automotive culture, especially when she has a bunch of chrome and polished crap under the hood that she thinks adds class and value. ... Speed, that is. But if you want you can substitute that with brains, logic, guts, or tact. I'm ready to shoot the ball. Get out of the way, fatboy."


Participant B:
"My post addresses the topic. It just takes a different point of view. Something that pisses you off to no end apparently. Breaks my heart. Now be a good boy and put your clown hat back on and sit in the corner for a time out."


These are characteristic of some of the worst that these participants had recently uttered towards each other in a now-locked thread.

Participant A began this approach about two full pages of posts in advance, unprovoked, in an otherwise beneficial and civilized thread, despite the significant differences of opinion being expressed.

For Participant B, it was one of the last things they said before the thread was locked, and after constant and personal provocation from near its beginning.


No, this does not tell the entire story, but in as succinct a manner as possible, gives reasonable representation of the conduct of the two parties at the center of the thread. Fortunately, this is not all you have to go on. Please read for yourself and form your own conclusions:

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthread.php?...?threadid=20580

As a direct result of their conduct in this thread, one of these participants was banned. If, in fact, both were banned -- which of the two may have been less deserving?

(and yes -- this is on-topic. It has entirely everything to do with the value, integrity and public perception of this community)

 

Which is precisely why I speculated on nothing, and posed the question for some community speculation, so this issue isn't just swept under the rug again and so that a valuable member of this community is not arbitrarily and unfairly cast out.


So, you are speculating that my information is from a single source? That my outrage is based on the downward spiral, yet again, of just ONE thread? That my disappointment is based on only recent abuses of power?


I guess you could say I was asking anyone who might know, moderators and seasoned members, by my post. I strongly doubt I am not the only one who wants to know what is going on, so lets find out -- here.

If this system is happy to accept donations, and possibly begin to function somewhat like a collective (yes, it will be a long time before your effort and sacrifice are paid for) then it shouldn't need to hide any of its administrative minutes.

If -- having followed the progression, over many months, of what I would consider to be the unjust vilification of one member, despite their conduct remaining far more restrained and mature than that of some of their detractors, culminating in what I would have to further suggest is an unfair banning -- I am somehow lacking some key facts, then please -- as the person most privileged to know -- enlighten or correct me with extreme prejudice, in public, without locking this thread.

 

If people are unable to conduct themselves within normally acceptable parameters of social behaviour, then they should be banned.

Silverfog's comment on equity, however, is a valid one. The same standards should be applied to all.

 

Anyhow, here's my opinion ... I don't know if this is a recent trend going on or something but there is an ever online issue every since the internet became somewhat public that people get over-involved of what it is.

At the end of the day, if you don't like what you're reading simply just turn it off or ignore it rather than getting really personal about an issue that seems to bother every bit of your functioning life. I know there are alot of cases like that and it seems that there is a certain pride or certain level of point someone tries to bring across and will get that across at all costs.

Not to comment who is right or wrong, at the end of the day. Some administrative control has to be put in place to end the drama. After all, is that necessary? If one stops, the other will automatically stop. It's just like getting into a fight with someone you hate.

Okay, today Man 1 gets even with Man 2. Then obviously Man 2 will be unsatisfied and unjustified, so Man 2 gets Man 1 someday again as well and the cycle goes on and on untill one party either dies or decides that's it's enough.

That's the same basis applied and at the end of the day, someone has to be loosing out more than the other. This happens in real life and I don't see why it has to continue online. Besides, isn't online the world of being immunity? Who the hell is on the other line? Do you really know from deciphering the words, texts, phrases, pictures, multimedia etc?

No, it doesn't end. After all, even if one decides to be persistant. They can always sign-up with a new ID and become a whole new different person and no one will know unless the original person speaks about it. But what for? There's no point after all at the end of the day.

If this is an information media, keep it that way. If it gets outta line ... Just ignore it. I've been with the whole online business for too long. This is just another day online, you should see people tracking down the other and really killing them for what goes on online.

 

I've been here since the founding of the board and it has been a long time since I have posted. Without offending anyone, here is my take on it: Don't let it get under your skin and don't take anything here personally. It's just that plain and simple... Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it.

 

Takashi and saliv8 have the same idea I do. Don't let it get you. Flaming has been an issue with online discourse since about five minutes after email became possible, the length of time it took for people to figure out they could insult each other anonymously without risk of getting punched in the mouth.

Besides, to see the value of staying cool, check out Nick's short message (in that locked thread) responding to accusations of taking his Mugen chip out in order to get a warranty fix. His lack of retaliation was devastating. There's nothing that irritates a flamer like your refusal to get angry (or to take him seriously).

As for the question on the table, IMO no one should be banned unless their messages threaten people. (Many of us will remember this is how the late, unlamented S2000Chris was finally expunged from the old board.) Anything else is harmful only to those who let it harm them.

 

I wouldn't ban anyone. Focus people, these are just WORDS. No one ever got hurt because of something they read on the internet.

On AintItCool.com the talk backs are *COMPLETELY* uncensored and to my knowledge no has been killed.

Leave it alone.

 

** As a direct result of their conduct in this thread, one of these participants was banned. If, in fact, both were banned -- which of the two may have been less deserving? **

That sounds like speculation to me. It is also speculation that the issue has been "swept under the rug" as you put it. Perhaps you should speculate that a situation was perhaps, theoritically and hypothetically handled with dignity and tact rather than posting an annoucement "Rejoice! X had been banned, X has been banned!"
[QUOTE]
So, you are speculating that my information is from a single source?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by saliv8
[B]I've been here since the founding of the board and it has been a long time since I have posted.

 

While I can't say I'd agree to Bieg being banned based solely on what is in the various threads he has participated in, I suspect there is a lot more to this then we are seeing (PMs, e-mails, etc). I'm sure that cthree had his reasons to ban him (if this is the case) and we should respect that.

And, if you're really bothered by it, it should be pointed out that 1) you're not (directly) paying for this site and 2) nobody is forcing you to read it.