board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 21 Nov , 2018 11:08 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Please vote to either Ratify or Reject the Ranger’s decision to impose a six month ban on hal.
Poll ended at Thu 11 Jun , 2009 10:31 pm
I vote to ratify the decision of the Rangers. 89%  89%  [ 40 ]
I vote to reject the decision of the Rangers. 11%  11%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 45
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun , 2009 10:31 pm 
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Posts: 8748
Location: UK
As of June 4, 2009, halplm has been put on a 6 month ban by the current Rangers for violating the terms of his prior Jury ruling and continuing to post in a confrontational manner. The following section of the Charter gives hal a means of contesting this decision:

Quote:
Any member who is restricted from posting in one or more forum for longer than two weeks time can request that the action be ratified or rejected by a vote of the whole membership, with a simple majority prevailing.


The Rangers have received an email from hal asking for such a vote.

You are being asked to either Ratify or Reject the Ranger’s decision to impose a six month ban on hal. Please vote accordingly:

1. I vote to ratify the decision of the Rangers.
2. I vote to reject the decision of the Rangers.

Per the terms of the Charter, this vote will remain open for a period of one week. The poll will close on Thursday June 11 at approximately 23:30 GMT Standard time. At that point a simple majority of votes will prevail.

Thank you for your cooperation.

B77 Rangers.

_________________
Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun , 2009 11:14 pm 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
Ok this is going to sound weird coming from me, but I find myself in the position of not being able to support this decision.
I have had a long contentious history with hal and I am fully aware of what he is capable of. I have witnessed his recent behavior and I could easily see he was heading off the cliff once again. Of all people, I would expect myself to be the last one to go against this decision, but I want to vote how I think is fair.

The trouble I have is I think the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I think it is too harsh for what he actually did.
I've read all of the back and forths he was involved in again and I did see the way he tried to skirt around his conditions of reinstatement.
I also saw many willing people become involved with his back and forth instead of just ignoring his rants. Certainly I have been very guilty of the same in the past, so I do understand.

The whole thing just seems a bit heavy handed at this juncture. Granted I think it would have happened eventually and I know full well people have had their fill of that type of behavior from him, so I don't expect much in the way of benefit of the doubt. It just seems to me he is more being punished for his aggregate behavior than anything he did recently and I think the 6 month term is too harsh.

I didn't want to just vote no without some type of explanation, so there it is.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun , 2009 11:17 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
I'm through with mercy and second chances for hal. He's had plenty. The outcome never changes.

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun , 2009 11:21 pm 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
I understand that and I wasn't trying to be merciful. I was just trying to base my decision in this specific incident.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun , 2009 11:24 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
At the same time though, he had terms laid down for him by his jury. He tried to weasel around them and showed no signs of correcting himself when his hands were slapped. I doubt that this second banning is going to teach him anything either; I fully expect that in six months he'll come back and we'll be doing this all over again. But it'll be six months without having to do the halplm tango and I'm all for that.

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 12:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14176
Holbytla wrote:
It just seems to me he is more being punished for his aggregate behavior than anything he did recently


Correct. And exactly appropriate IMO.
Real courts often do the same, if I'm not mistaken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 12:09 am 
Unlabeled

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Posts: 1646
Location: San Francisco
Holbytla wrote:
It just seems to me he is more being punished for his aggregate behavior than anything he did recently


I think this is correct. I don't think that his recent behavior, taken out of context, would justify a six month ban. Put differently, if any member of this board with no disciplinary history posted as he did, I think six months would be excessive. However, I don't think that we have to view hal's recent behavior divorced from context.

By analogy: Someone with no driving violations who is over 21 in the United States may drive with a BAC of 0.06 (for instance). However, someone who has had a DUI will not be permitted to drive with ANY alcohol in their bloodstream for a period of time; because they broke the rules once, we consider it fair to hold them to a higher standard for a period of time (usually a year, in many jurisdictions.) After they've completed that "probationary" period, they are again subject to the same standards as the rest of us. But, if they again drive >0.08, they're going to face much stiffer penalties than a first-time offender. If they do it four or five times, their license will be revoked for ten years.

hal is like a tenth time DUI offender who has been arrested for an eleventh time for driving with some alcohol in his bloodstream, after being ordered not to drive after drinking period. Sure, he's in trouble for 0.06, where the rest of us would be allowed to skate with that BAC. But that's the downside of repeatedly breaking the rules. Those second, third, fourth, twentieth chances come with stricter conditions attached.

hal will come back in six months, and he will do exactly the same thing again, and the Rangers will be foolish if they do not seize that opportunity to ban him permanently. hal will be satisfied with no less.

ETA LOL, cross-posted with yov and River, who made both of my points in fewer words.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 12:37 am 
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 6642
He was banned one other time.
He had a forum ban way back when for a month.
IMO 6 months for that is too harsh.
But I didn't really want to get into all of this and debate or try and sway people.
I just just didn't want to post a blank no without an explanation.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 5:02 am 
Just keep singin'!
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 1729
Location: UK
Holbytla wrote:
I just just didn't want to post a blank no without an explanation.


Well, somebody did! ;)

I do not think the terms are too harsh and of course his prior behavior is going to be taken into consideration. Repeat offenders get a harsher sentence.

Hal made absolutely NO effort to change the behavior that got him banned in the first place. On the contrary, he came back with both guns drawn and lookin' for bear. And when people tried to engage him, he continued his antagonistic behavior. Given his history, I think the 6 months ban is lenient.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 5:40 am 
Triathlete
User avatar

Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Posts: 2638
Location: beachcombing
At vison's request, I have removed my comments about hal.

_________________
Well, I'm back.


Last edited by laureanna on Fri 05 Jun , 2009 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 7:48 am 
Try to stay perky
User avatar

Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
Posts: 2589
I'm not going to vote in the poll because I simply have not seen Hal's posts anywhere - and that is a function of where I hang out and how far (not) I wander around B77. I would not have known that he was back, or that he has been posting, or that he has been posting disruptively, if I hadn't happened upon this very thread. And...I think I've still got Hal (and SF, for that matter) on my list of 'don't let me read'.

I realise I could do some research on recent happenings and thereby acquire enough information to make an informed decision on this, but that would require me to read objectionable material - which is something that I've studiously been avoiding for months (that's why I don't know what's been going on in the conflict zones).

So, I don't object to the action, or the poll, or the discussion, but I don't feel qualified to vote on it.

I just felt the need to explain that, in case there is any debate on the statistics later. I'm not a conscientious objector, I'm just ignorant (deliberately so).

_________________
Image

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 8:50 am 
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 6910
Location: Silly Suffolk
Let me come in here, not to defend my or the other Rangers' decisions but to say that I don't have any problem with anyone who disagrees with it. Everyone is entitled to a view about it and to express that view.

_________________
Image
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 3:02 pm 
Best friends forever
User avatar

Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
Posts: 6546
I wish people would just vote. I respect Holbytla's reasons but see no point in him posting them. If he hadn't told us how he voted, we'd never know. Same for everyone else.

I really hope this thread doesn't evolve into one where everyone says what they think of the poster in question. First, he can't respond, and second, it's divisive to the board.

_________________
Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun , 2009 5:56 pm 
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 8258
Location: Gibraltar
Wow. That was tricky.

_________________
Image
Screenshot from the upcoming ROTK: EEE. PJ, I love ya and all you've done to put us Tolkien geeks into the mainstream, but this crosses a line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 07 Jun , 2009 6:31 pm 
Milk and kisses
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 11:03 am
Posts: 4417
Location: lost in translation
Voted. Thanks!

_________________

"The most terrifying day of your life is the day the first one is born [...] Your life, as you know it... is gone. Never to return. But they learn how to walk, and they learn how to talk... and you want to be with them. And they turn out to be the most delightful people you will ever meet in your life."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 09 Jun , 2009 7:48 pm 

Joined: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 209
Location: the vortex of complacency and bad service
Easiest Vote Ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 10 Jun , 2009 8:29 pm 
Unlabeled

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 4:01 am
Posts: 1646
Location: San Francisco
Just wanted to post a quick thought here re: the optional two-part process for bans - i.e. that someone subject to a Ranger-imposed ban may decide whether or not to put it to a boardwide vote. I remember some people asking, "Why not cut straight to the vote?" I think the current system is better. I don't expect a lot of us will potentially be subject to bans. However, if I was in that situation, I would prefer the discretion of a quiet, Ranger-imposed ban rather than a week in which every member of the board got to weigh in on my status. I suspect that others may feel the same. I think it's better to give the "ban-ee" the option, as the current system does. /two cents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 11 Jun , 2009 1:21 am 

Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2420
Location: Queensland, Australia
I agree, and I'd add that it also prevents a week of drama.

_________________
[Space for Rent]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 11 Jun , 2009 9:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14176
Can this be taken down now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 11 Jun , 2009 9:33 pm 
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Posts: 5205
Location: at a safe distance
Please?

_________________
"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group