Originally posted by Lieutenant Fatman on the Harper Collins board
[quote:149c485eb8] Hey, I'm back!
Ah... quite a few people gone eh? oh well. It's for the best I'm sure.

You can go hang out with them, if you don't mind the few people who are particularly arrogant and twist what everyone says and does; into something terrible if they want to, which I couldn't take any more. I wouldn't bother.

As a few people have said, the people here are a lot nicer and less, well you know, argumentative for one thing:
http://www.discworldstamps.co.uk/forum/

Or if you want a very friendly atmosphere but which is less crowded:
http://doughnutvalley.proboards33.com/
where you can talk about most things, as long as they're not offensive.

Not a lot of point being here now it seems. Although it does seem a little nicer, there's hardly anyone here. [/quote:149c485eb8]

The full thread is here:
http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/u...877;p=1#000002

edit: What do people think of I_Have_Come_For_Thee's post on that thread? IHCFT is a registered member here, but hasn't posted yet.

Cat Clash

I don't think we have to deactiviate anyone who thinks bad things about us. If they cause trouble then, we'll do it. I don't care what they think of us. I don't think that highly of them either. Deactiviting there account will just needlessly aggrevate them. If they start causing trouble *here* then we'll do something. But until they start causing trouble here, I say we leave it.

I think bannning and blocking people before they've really done anything wrong here reflects badly on us.

If people think we're wankers, blocking/banning them will only really prove thier point.

Well, thats what i think anyway.

Yeah what Rinso said.

() ()
( ' ,') "don't eat green potatoes"
(> >) Last words of Mrs. Bertha Sperling
@( )_ )_

I think we should count that as their first official warning. In the event that they do come here, we inform them of that fact and are wary of them.

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

Ban them. flat out.

We're not looking at banning people who think poorly of us, we're looking at banning people who ADMIT TO TROLLING US. one of those over on the harper colins site claims he only started to troll us to encourage us to move.

there IS no morla justification for trolling, and if we knew who it was, i think it'd be worth pointing out to the mods of the Stamps forums.

I urge an absolute zero-tollerance approach to this sort of thing.

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

Streewulpeter admitted to trolling us. I'd be happy to put him up for ban striaght away, if he ever shows up here.

Fatty, didn't troll us, but he did post in a 'comic' alter-ego who was in the character of death. But other than that he was an ok poster.

Ihavecomeforthee, hasn't trolled us or really broken any rules. He was a slightly anoying, but no more so than other posters.

I'd say Struwelpeter is on an insistant ban (pending a vvote, of course)
Fatty is on an offical warning.
I have come for thee isn't on an offical warning, but if he starts posting we'll tell him we're wary of him and not to be a cock.

Fatty was deliberately, and by his own admission, trying to anger us. that is TROLLING, rinso. You know that.

Whether or not he was actually steve is unprovable, but the implications were made by fatty, steve, and death.

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

Ok, fair enough.Your right. He was beening a prick on purpose. ban him.

edit:rather put him up for banning. or if this is a voting thread. my vote for him is yes.

I agree with banning Strudel straight off, I wasn't including him in my previous post.

Leiutenant Fatman I might bump up to two warnings. For Death and for his recent post. (I'd forgotten about the Death thing when I made my previous post).

IHCFT, one warning. For calling us wankers.

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

Actually, I'm with Garner on this one now. i was beening too soft. he should be up for banning. For these reasons.

1. He created a second account and posted in it without imforming anyone as to this real idenitity. (Mutiple accounts is banned unless you have good reason-e.g Roman K losing his details.)

2. With this alter account, he posted in character even though he was repetely (about 5 times) asked not too.

3. He posted in caps, even though he was repetely asked not too. He then lyed and said that his caps key was broken (even though it was working fine for his fatty account).

I think thats 3 strikes.

I'm not sure if Icome should have a warning for saying we're sometimes wankers. Whats the rule on this? Becuase If using insulting language is reason for a warning half the board will be up for monitation in a month.

If he came here and posted 'Sometimes for wankers but i'll stay' I think he could get one for 'unneccessary insults'. Maybe, but how many times has Garner or Doors insulted someone when it wasn't strictly needed? How many times have I called someone a retard, when we know i'm capable of getting my point accross without insult? How many times has pepster or saccrissa said something rude? or Mynona or roman k?

We'll can't say 'if you insult us, you get a warning. But if *we* insult you, we don't'


Espiecally, considering, he didn't even say in on this board (though he must know we're looking at the old board). I say if he starts posting him, quote what he said about us, and say 'look, if you want to post here don't be a twat and don't break the rules, you ain't mr popular'

In my opinion, identity fraud (ie use of multiple accounts to hide your identity) is grounds for an immediate ban. Perhaps I'm just being extreme.

I don't think that all those who left in a huff should be banned - they should be given a chance to come back. If they then came back feeling the same way, they should politely be told that their account was being banned. This does not go for Tony and SWReader, who made extreme accusations and threats and declared an intention never to return. Tony's account should be banned, in my opinion. I imagine he would be quite happy with that. I do not think it's petty.

Annoying posters do [i:f5d6a29ab8]not[/i:f5d6a29ab8] warrant banning. Posters who repeatedly and flagrantly defy the community rules do. Fatman is one of them.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

Also, I agree with Rinso about the 'wankers' comment. It's not grounds for anything other than being slightly cool with him.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

I agree with Grace on this one.

I'd like thank Garner for giving me a bit of a kick up the arse with fatty. I think I'd acciently left my bluegarbil hat on.

I think we really need to sort out what are rules actually are. Right now, the horse is pushing the cart.

Also, I'd like to reenforce my earlier point:
NO-ONE SHOULD BE BANNED WITHOUT A COMMUNITY VOTE.


edit: oh, that was an ealier point on a different thread.

[quote:e392e71099="IHCFT"]Although they acted like wankers sometimes, I laughed at all the arguements.
[/quote:e392e71099]

He seems to be saying that he doesn't like us, and came to our community to laugh at us whilst we tried to remove trolls. As Grace has said before, it's not the word wanker, it's the way it's being used (with the rest of the sentence) to denigrate our community

As for Fatman, I think you've convinced me of that extra strike. But it should still go to a vote. Shall we turn this thread into a poll for him?

edit1: bad quotage
edit2: replaced "is ues" with "has said before"... it takes real genius to typo that bad
edit3: 'takes' not 'take'

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!