A Ban

[Error]

The opinion has been put forth - a number of times - that hyperlite, a meme-ber here, contributed little, if anything, to the forum.

An unofficial motion was made, indicating he should be banned; I'm conflicted on this.

So, a poll.

[Professor Fenway]

In favor. Hyperlite hasn't really contributed anything useful since he came back from his absence; 1 or 3 letter posts necroing the oldest of threads do nothing.

[ACH0225]

Nah. First of all, if you banned hyperlite, you'd have to ban everyone because everyone is hyperlite. Secondly, while he did necro a ton of threads for no real reason, I doubt he'll do it again. If he does, then you can ban him.

[Ivan2006]

Hyperlite has made it obvious that he is no longer interested in being a productive member of this community.
His "return" and his necros likely only serve the purpose to annoy and/or troll us and I do not think we need someone who actively tries to spread conflict in the community without contributing.

[Chairman_Tiel]

'productive'

'contributing'

You people really are full of yourselves, aren't you?

[Ivan2006]

'productive'

'contributing'

You people really are full of yourselves, aren't you?

Tiel, are you having a bad day?

[Chairman_Tiel]

Not really. I actually have a short shift today.

But this whole scenario just made me realize (again?) what a bunch of pretentious farts you are, if not in general than at least when it comes to matters like this.

Listen to yourself for a moment.

He's not CONTRIBUTING!

He's not PRODUCTIVE!

HE WANTS TO TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL USSSSSS!!

BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN

Of course helpfully disregarding the fact that most of you do absolutely jack that can be called 'productive' on a daily basis toward any cause I'm aware of and that you willfully irritate each other as a matter of course. It's all very hypocritical, and I don't think I'd be alone in finding that distasteful.

[Ivan2006]

Terms like "productive" and "contributing" are always in relation to what is considered as "contribution" in the respective environment.
But tbh, I mainly used those words because I tend to start using officialspeak when trying to politley phrase something I would actually like to fill with swearing.

[Chairman_Tiel]

being incited to swear about internet people posting in old threads

g4u

[Iv121]

I listen ... and I agree, but not as far as going for a perma ban, I merely suggested 3-4 days of to get the point across with further violations just leading to further bans. Being productive doesn't mean to help develop the mod or something, in fact all you have to do is to contribute to the topic at hand or at least make good humorous comments, the stuff he posted was a waste of energy not really worth the reaction put into it, as I said in numerous threads Im just in favor of ignoring the necros themselves while giving at least a 3 day ban.

[Error]

Tiel, while it may seem pretentious, the rest of us do things other than troll.

Hyper seems to do nothing but. He could contribute things other than necros and aggrivating comments, but doesn't. People like that tend to Go Away on most forums; I'm asking people here, given that we're more community-controlled than most (Dear lords, are we ever).

[Chairman_Tiel]

@Iv

That's the thing. What hyperlite did is the equivalent of letting one rip in a public place. It's not this 'crime against society' until someone takes it upon their him/herself to make it such. At the end of the day an effective necro requires two to tango, and so often the other catalyst are the people whining about it to begin with.

[ACH0225]

That's the thing. What hyperlite did is the equivalent of letting one rip in a public place.

Since everyone is hyperlite, everyone let one rip in a public place.

[҉]

@Iv

That's the thing. What hyperlite did is the equivalent of letting one rip in a public place. It's not this 'crime against society' until someone takes it upon their him/herself to make it such. At the end of the day an effective necro requires two to tango, and so often the other catalyst are the people whining about it to begin with.

If what hyperlite does is like farting, then he's the forum equivalent of the huge dude who apparently eats nothing but Mexican food, has never heard of deodorant, never says anything, and double-dips his chips. If the rest of the room is having a (usually) enjoyable conversation and this guy is just sitting in the middle contaminating both the air and the salsa, eventually he's going to be shown the door, because he worsens the overall experience for everyone else.

That said, I don't really approve of the Athenian method of ostracism; while I understand what's going on here, and I do totally support hyperlite's banishment, popular vote is a poor way of running a justice system.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Not really. To go with your analogy, sure, maybe he does do all of those things, but it's not what's on display here. A whiff of aerated fecal particles is something that any 21st century AC unit or even our natural wind patterns will resolve by itself. What you should get out of that is that the environment fixes the problem. It's not a possibility, or a probability, but something that's inevitable. Likewise bumping a handful of threads, however old, is honestly beyond benign when you consider that unless people make a big deal of it (similar to a fart), it's quickly going to be buried under recent and relevant threads. The environment fixes the issue without any of the drama that has been drawn into being here.

So in practice, it's not even the necroer that "worsens the overall experience"; it is the people that "would actually like to fill with swearing" responses to the alleged offense. They are the ones that continually bump these old threads to the surface. They are the ones that create this unnecessary conflict out of virtually nothingness (making a mountain out of a molehill due to collapse anyway). Effectually they are the necroers, guilty of cluttering the forum just as much as the initiator, and any punishment you see fit to award to hyperlite should also be bestowed upon them.