[discussion] metavac

Post by **Edi** » 2007-05-30 10:46am

Does the Senate think that something should be done about the user metavac? He has been violating all sorts of debating rules left and right, namely refusing to address arguments made against his positions, broken record tactics, ignoring evidence and then pretending it was not presented at all and other similar sort of trollery.

Evidence threads:

Trolling, baiting, refusing to answer points
More of the same, this link is to the point where things start heading south in a hurry when metavac's posts start getting dissected in detail instead of being just sideline support for other main debators.

I personally have no use for this sort of useless fuckwits, so I would cut out all the half-arsed, limp-wristed shit about sig and avatar privileges, temp bans and so forth and just have his worthless backside shoved out the door with a big red bootprint on it.

What say the rest of you?

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2007-05-30 01:08pm

In his very short posting history, which I decided to look into last night after this was brought to my attention, I had noticed only one previous flareup like this, and it was hardly of the same magnitude.

Having seen his previous posts, I think there is room for improvement, but only time will tell. This guy is irritating right now, but I think that banning him might be jumping the gun a bit. I like there to be a little more rope for the noose as it were. If he fucks up past that point, we can shove him out the door, sure, but I'm a fan of the "warn then ban" model, particularly in cases that aren't that extreme.

I'd be in favor of a titling, we've been a while without a VI.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-05-30 01:24pm

I'm recusing myself from any discussion or voting on this matter due to a conflict of interest.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-05-30 01:45pm

My bias is obvious, but I don't think he merits banning or anything so extreme. Titling perhaps, but. Being a useless, flaming hatfucker in a flareup generally doesn't merit banning.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-05-30 02:41pm

If being a useless hatfucker in a flareup or two, especially when you're new, merits banning, then I suspect several of the more respected members now wouldn't be here. I need to read the threads a little more carefully than I have time for right now, but my impression now is that metavac is intelligent, if misguided. He may need a reprimand, but I think banning at this point is extreme.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-05-30 02:49pm

Could be I was too harsh.

It's just that reading through all of that from scratch did nothing to endear him to me, especially since the behavior tends to repeat from thread to thread when his claims are challenged.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2007-05-30 03:32pm

I see absolutely nothing that warrants Senate attention here.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-05-30 03:58pm

I'm not seeing anything there either.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-05-30 04:21pm

We've generally allowed people to get much worse than him before doing anything in the past.

Post by **Kuja** » 2007-05-30 04:54pm

I agree. In this case the Senate can take a day off and return to the usual rounds of proper bribery and indolence.

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-05-30 06:28pm

Until I saw this, his posting actually seemed pretty okay. Maybe if something else flares up we can take action, but let's wait & see. Maybe just this thread in itself will be a sufficient bit of "newspaper 'cross the nose".

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-05-31 12:34am

I’ve seen nothing of his posts before now, but he sent me a PM with unsolicited but helpful information regarding the idea of runoff voting. Can’t say I have anything against him. The evidence presented does not raise my eyebrow one bit. Looks to me like people are once more taking the whole senate idea far more aggressively then it needs to be.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2007-05-31 11:38am

A random new user getting a thread HoSed shouldn't automatically mean they get brought up to the Senate for a banning. That kinda defeats the purpose of the HoS.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-05-31 12:04pm

Yawn, just a typical kid...

Post by **Edi** » 2007-07-08 03:11am

I think it is time to resurrect this thread. I may have been hasty in bringing him up before the Senate the first time around, but this thread in the HoS certainly justifies reevaluating his conduct and his absolute refusal to provide any evidence for his claims as well as his broken record tactics and trolling.

Mr. metavac's performance starts up on page 6 and continues up to page 14 (at the time of this typing) with no letup. The depth of trollishness and dishonesty is simply breathtaking. So the discussion on what to do about him should be reopened.

Suggestions?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-07-08 03:16am

I recuse myself, due to my bias. But even still, I would only go so far as a titling. I think he could be a useful contributer if only he grasps that one has to debate logically and honestly. A firm swat from Authority cures that in most people.

Or makes them start screaming the admin are abusing their powers, and that always resolves itself.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-07-08 04:20am

Since I wasn't involved in this debate, I will step in here and say that it seems reasonable to bring up a poll with a titling option, though I don't think there's grounds for a ban poll. There's only one DR violation (DR #7) that should lead to banning as the first punishment, IMO. The others, first punishment, title, second, ban.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-07-08 05:10am

I support titling him, clear cut broken record and refusal to submit evidence. If he did it once and then just gave up I don't think anyone would have really cared but the fact that he kept it up for seven freaking pages...

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-07-08 12:38pm

I agree as well. He's shown occasional signs of something more than pigheaded trolling. Title him and see what he does with the rope.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-07-08 12:43pm

Honestly I jumped completely out of that thread so I'll recuse myself from seconding the motion on the table but if someone would we can post a vote on the matter.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-07-08 01:27pm

Meh, perhaps it's just me, but I don't really see much in there that warrents Senate consideration. Even the 'new thread'. Granted, my eyes started bleening around page eleven but...

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-07-08 03:30pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Honestly I jumped completely out of that thread so I'll recuse myself from seconding the motion on the table but if someone would we can post a vote on the matter.

Seconded

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-07-08 03:32pm

I'll do it... since I'm online now.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-07-09 02:05am

title poll

Post by **Edi** » 2007-07-29 04:39pm

It seems that we constantly need to bring up Mr. metavac for re-evaluation.

The latest and greatest from metavac, and that's not counting the several cases of obstinate refusal to address points, broken record tactics and hatfuckery that he has engaged in on the various forums. Knowledgeable as he might be in some of the things related to his own profession and can make useful contributions related to that, it is clear that he also considers himself clearly above the rules on his own determination to the point of in the course of a single thread ignoring three supermods and one regular mod laying down the law for him AND justifying their decision for his benefit.

Since titling him the last time did not help at all, I think it is high time for a poll with the options of

permban
temp ban
no punishment
abstain

Is there anyone here willing to second the mostion?