[Discussion] Nikolay 1

[Coyote]

HoS Thread

Are there any further threads out there in which this misanthropic, issues-ridden lamprey has gone above and beyond the call of normal assitude?

[Sea Skimmer]

As far as I’m concerned animated avatars are grounds enough for banning, but I can’t say I ever even noticed him before now

[Edi]

I hadn't even noticed this asshole before, but now that I have, I'll also recommend an immediate ban for him. Being an immense arsehole to start with and using nothing but broken record debate tactics and refusing to accept evidence from people who actually do know what they are talking is enough in my book. Booting him out the door can only improve the board.

[Spin Echo]

You know, I was feeling sympathetic. Considering what he said about his father, I thought it might have been a subject that touched too close to home. But really, he's just being an ass now.

[Spyder]

For some reason a diabetic school teacher that seems to love kids had it coming because she doesn't look like a super model.

The kid's a sociopath. I don't know if we have anything established that we can pull him up on but I think people would be hard pressed to argue that he's going to in any way be missed.

[seanrobertson]

The kid's a sociopath.

Yep. 'Nuff said.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No need to mar the board with his presence.

[fgalkin]

He's done it before, too.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Connor MacLeod]

1.) is being an asshole enough to warrant banning?

2.) If not, has he broken any actual rules that would warrant or merit banning? (in addition to him being a complete dick.)

My problem is, and I've been considering this for some time, is that we're possibly arguing for banning on the grounds that we simply dislike what he said rather than him actually having done anything meriting serious punishment. At worst, him being a dick would warrant titling, if that (Because to be blunt, this forum is full of dicks. I even include myself in that category.) I'm not entirely sure being an asshole by itself (at least not anymore) is enough to warrant banning (and if it is, I can think of dozens of people I personally would like to see disposed of. Which kinda in my mind underlines my aforementioned concerns.)

[Ghost Rider]

True, being a dick is not enough for banning. But the precedent of being enough a dick did get set by Ted in this particular.

As such, it creates an interesting circumstance in the matter, given his level of rule breaking is basic trolling(as in literally baiting and wanting responses) akin to what Shep or Ted used to do. That and at this point he's brought up little to nothing to defend his actions which can be seen as literally bitching and moaning that people do not care for him.

[Connor MacLeod]

True, being a dick is not enough for banning. But the precedent of being enough a dick did get set by Ted in this particular.

I could bring out Velthuijsen as an example of someone who was probably a dick who did not get banned or punished (a rather large "abstain" as I recall.) even though his problem was reputedly more of a logic/rule related one.

If we go with more of the "Asshole" quotient I can bring up people like Stark, Superman, or (of course) Shep. There are people I've previously mentioned who I personally think are assholes, but opinions aren't facts.

He may or may not deserve a title, but if he warrants punishment, then titling is probably it.

Let's face it. Being an "asshole" (within limits) is something of a privelege on SD.net (as is calling out or flaming assholes for being assholes, within limits) The nature of the board kind of makes it inevitable - we're a very confrontational, plain spoken, and even downright nasty board at times (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that), but that sort of behaviour can lead to being assholish from time to time. As I see it, people have a right to be assholes, just as other people have a right to come down hard on them for being assholes.

But simply saying something that is perceived as insensitive or rude isn't really enough. As I said, that's kind of inherent in the board (within limits, eg - racism and sexism obviously are a different matter.) Even being insensitive or rude about a death (or many deaths) isn't all that shocking for the board either.) I'm sure the harsh aspect can be applied to statements about religion too (I bet alot of other posters get offended by it too even if they don't mention it) but again, there's no reason to suppress it simply because its harsh - people have a right to be harsh about it, or to be harsh to those who say the things (and vice versa).

As such, it creates an interesting circumstance in the matter, given his level of rule breaking is basic trolling(as in literally baiting and wanting responses) akin to what Shep or Ted used to do. That and at this point he's brought up little to nothing to defend his actions which can be seen as literally bitching and moaning that people do not care for him.

I'm not really sure it warrants actual banning though. As I just pointed out, alot of other "assholes" get away with saying stupid shit without all that severe punishments (Superman is a prime example of this, I believe.)

On the other hand, it does look like he may be engaging in some potentially logic-breaking bullshit, so it may not be long before a punishment is due anyhow.

[fgalkin]

If he is engaged in general trolling that does not warrant a ban, well, that is why we have the WTPF title.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Surlethe]

To be frank, I don't think what he's done warrants a ban. Title, perhaps, but certainly not a permaban. Two known instances of being a total asshole? Not enough for the biggest punishment, in my opinion.

[Spin Echo]

I'll agree with the previous sentiments. While I think he's working himself towards a title, I don't think his behaviour is ban worthy.

[Ghost Rider]

True, being a dick is not enough for banning. But the precedent of being enough a dick did get set by Ted in this particular.

I could bring out Velthuijsen as an example of someone who was probably a dick who did not get banned or punished (a rather large "abstain" as I recall.) even though his problem was reputedly more of a logic/rule related one.

If we go with more of the "Asshole" quotient I can bring up people like Stark, Superman, or (of course) Shep. There are people I've previously mentioned who I personally think are assholes, but opinions aren't facts.

He may or may not deserve a title, but if he warrants punishment, then titling is probably it.

Let's face it. Being an "asshole" (within limits) is something of a privelege on SD.net (as is calling out or flaming assholes for being assholes, within limits) The nature of the board kind of makes it inevitable - we're a very confrontational, plain spoken, and even downright nasty board at times (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that), but that sort of behaviour can lead to being assholish from time to time. As I see it, people have a right to be assholes, just as other people have a right to come down hard on them for being assholes.

But simply saying something that is perceived as insensitive or rude isn't really enough. As I said, that's kind of inherent in the board (within limits, eg - racism and sexism obviously are a different matter.) Even being insensitive or rude about a death (or many deaths) isn't all that shocking for the board either.) I'm sure the harsh aspect can be applied to statements about religion too (I bet alot of other posters get offended by it too even if they don't mention it) but again, there's no reason to suppress it simply because its harsh - people have a right to be harsh about it, or to be harsh to those who say the things (and vice versa).

All of it is valid, up to a point.

And really at this point, he starting to enter wall of ignorance territory. Literally it's less about him going "Die fatty!" at this point, it is much more him going "Die fatty, who gives a fuck why and no, your logical explaination is stupid."

If it was just die fatty, and he just mumbled some half assed apology when finding her condition or just simply left the thread? It would've ended. Now, he's perpetuating the whole mock debate because he doesn't want to admit outside circumstances. Anything and everything that deters from his thought that her death was her fault is not accepted.

So this is more of the religious wannabe who after being proven wrong wants to continue saying what he/she was saying because they think if they say it loud enough it will be right. That has lead to more then a few instant bans.

Will this happen to Nicky here? Maybe, maybe not...but unless he's stopped where he did, it is not looking good.

So I do agree with you, it's that it's not entirly his insulting I find annoying, it's what is afterwards with his debating.

[Connor MacLeod]

All of it is valid, up to a point.

And really at this point, he starting to enter wall of ignorance territory. Literally it's less about him going "Die fatty!" at this point, it is much more him going "Die fatty, who gives a fuck why and no, your logical explaination is stupid."

Him starting WoI nonsense and other logical dishonesty is a separate issue, and I don't deny THAT would get him into serious trouble. My point merely is being an "asshole" is hardly sufficient cause for major punishment unless he's actually infringed upon the rules. At worst, its titling, if that. (We let alot more assholish behaviour slide.)

If it was just die fatty, and he just mumbled some half assed apology when finding her condition or just simply left the thread? It would've ended. Now, he's perpetuating the whole mock debate because he doesn't want to admit outside circumstances. Anything and everything that deters from his thought that her death was her fault is not accepted.

Again, I understand that. but there are clearly people who are fixating on the manner in which he expressed his opinion as much as (if not more) than what he said. That sorta stumbles a bit too close to "style over substance" for my taste. Hell, look at the fucking title of the split off into the HoS!

I mean, if we're going to go by the "he's a sociopath becuse he's being insensitive or not showing sympathy", that kinda makes ME a fucking sociopath as well, because I didn't really pay much attention to the topic either (or have much interest in it.) And I can't really gather up much real sympathy for a stranger save in an intellectual way (ie he's got to be in alot of pain, and that's horrible, but its not really disrupting my day to day life. It feels kinda hypocritical to me to pretend at sympathy I don't really seriously feel in any major way.) For that matter, I'd pretty much be an asshole for not caring about any other deaths that happen around the world equally (Like in Iraq, and damn knows America has some fault there.)

If/when he starts actually breaking rules and/or abusing logic, then I think we have more serious grounds for something like banning.

So this is more of the religious wannabe who after being proven wrong wants to continue saying what he/she was saying because they think if they say it loud enough it will be right. That has lead to more then a few instant bans.

Agreed, but again my point was that the emphasis should be on his logic/debating style insofar as severe punishment goes, rather than the style/manner of his speech. Again, being a dick is not sufficient to warrant major punishment, if at all.

My viefw is that SD.net does and always has had an adequate mechanism for dealing with assholes that the board finds annoying. Namely, you get other people calling them on it, debating them, or outright insulting them back. After all, while nicky has the right to say what he wants, other people have just as much right to call him an asshole when he clearly is one. I have no problem whatsoever with people calling him on it.