posted
C'mon, guys. There are so many people more worthy of expulsion than John, and so few more worth keeping.
I humbly submit my request for the ban on Leto II to be lifted. I fully support whatever decisions or actions he's made, and many of the more upstanding members of Hatrack have openly expressed their support for John's picture of Cedrios (who made, may I remind you, death threats against other members of this forum) -- I find it difficult to condemn the man.
I won't ask for an apology, since truth be told, John was out of line to a modest degree; though, really, John's nowhere near petty enough to desire one in the first place. I ask this favor for Hatrack's collective benefit, not John's.
Few people have not been annoyed by the man in some way or another during his too-short Hatrack career. And yet, I hold that fewer people would support his forced absence. Lift the ban, please. You won't find many like John. And more to the point, neither will we. Don't rob us of the one we have.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if it was me posting a photo of you, you might see the principle of the thing shine forth. That said, this is the first I've heard about any of this.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
He posted (as John L) just this morning. The thread is still there (near the bottom of page 2) and his profile says nothing about being banned.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I let you do a picture of me, can we get John back? Seriously, this is open to anyone if we can get the approval of the mods.
Seriously though, I do consider this a great loss. And while I didn't see the image in question, I don't see how it could be worse than some of the other links or comments posted in the past. The major members of this forum are prone to becoming celebrities, whether they like it or not. John and Cedrios are good examples. When that happens, and it is a choice you make, you accept the possibility that you are a public figure, and likely to suffer the same ups and downs that said figues suffer in the real world.
Can I get dibs on this event being what ends Hatrack? If I go looking for that thread, someone will beat me to it.
posted
Guys, please, be sensible about this. If your upset, then be upset. But don't ask to be banned. If kacard explains why, then listen to why, but until then, just voice that you are upset about it. Please.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to make myself clear on this thread -- this thread is of my own invention and thought, and has nothing to do with John's wishes. In fact, he's contacted me requesting that I remove it.
I resisted. You're not punishing John by banning him, moderators -- you're punishing us. He's relented to allow me to keep the thread alive, provided I make it clear in no unequivocal terms that John has no participation in the creation or endurance of this thread, nor any hand in the conspiracy to drop this nonsensical ban against one of Hatrack's highest quality members.
This is coming from us, moderators, not John. Do it for us.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a matter of privacy. Unless we are talking a cartoon of some kind. But linking to someone's photo is the same as publishing their phone number etc. against their will.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the pic is against Ced's wishes? If so, where did John get the image in the first place. Any images that make it onto Foobonic or web galleries are open to public domain. The line of privacy at that point becomes dang fine. If you post a photo of yourself online, I think it's obtuse to think that there is no possibility that it may get edited into a joke (in good taste or bad is not the debate here, just that it is entirely plausible)
posted
I don't know. I'm just replying to Lalo. Hatrack could be sued if it's resources are used to stalk someone, so those who are saying this could be the end of hatrack are right but not for the reasons you think.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, until someone in a position to know tells me different, I'm happy to go with the latest potential violation.
Besides, privacy (or lack thereof) on the internet really is a valid topic, even if it wasn't the cause of all this. The timing for some other trangression would be ironic at best.
posted
John L wasn't a newbie, he was previously Leto II and GreNME. Okay, well if it was the words on the picture and they constituted what would look to a jury like a threat, we are still looking a something Hatrack could be liable for.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
No threats were made, no stalking (?) was committed. Cedrios' picture entered the public domain, thus it's perfectly legal to save a copy yourself -- adding an insult, no matter how juvenile, has no connotations of a crime, much less legal action, much less legal action Hatrack would be responsible for.
I'd suggest reading up on the subject.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I don't know how you get away with the crap that you do. I really think that is the biggest consequence of your age. You get away with a lot because of it.
Don't be so rude to pooka.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that any info will be forthcoming from mods, in the past they haven't addressed why a particular person was banned.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, Katharina... Did you not include me in that statement to Lalo becuase I phrased it more kindly, you were being kind to a fellow Texan, or am I really that ignorable? His comments, as much as I hate to say it, had context.
I don't expect the Mods to divulge any information really. They did with Baldar, and stated they would not make a habit of it. I expect them at most to tell us to play nice, let it be, and stop makin pains of ourselves as I'm sure the whistle icons is being punched a good bit right now. But when a many year member of the forum is removed, human curiosity and connections get the better of us, and we really want to know.
posted
I see. So, he got banned some time today? As someone already mentioned, he just posted this morning.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the past they've at least emailed the person being banned, haven't they?
Dunno. Never been banned.
Myrddin, yeah, I'd have to say, thinking back, I've agreed with every decision to ban. In one case I was upset that it took them so long, they gave someone many more chances than I would have if it had been my forum - I think our mods are pretty fair.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have to admit, I'm at a bit of a loss regarding your accusation. It must be a consequence of my age that I'm incapable of following your thought processes. Until I'm trained in higher education, however, I'm utterly at your mercy as regards comprehending your accusations. Could you provide some evidence and reasoning to enforce your charge, if only for the sake of expanding my limited understanding of the concept of rudeness?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Nothing enters the public domain until either (1) the owner says it does, or (2) the term expires. It's not like trademarks.
That's not to say that banning someone for what was apparently a silly if crude Photoshop is good policy. Frankly the underhanded, closed-room administration of this place is starting to remind me Anandtech. (That's not positive.)
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think Lalo was unforgivably rude. But I'm pretty sure that the terms of use doesn't protect Hatrack if the site is used to stalk or threaten someone. Never having seen the picture, I was just trying to come up with possible reasons. If it's harmless, Lalo, why don't you link to it so I can see how wrong I am?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to apologize for all offenses made, real or imagined -- however, I'm afraid all the offenses you've read into are imagined. I certainly meant no rudeness. If you're intent on charging me with a crime, I'd much appreciate your help clarifying your reasoning for doing so.
Or do I ask too much?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really not see how even your last post is incredibly rude? I don't want this to turn into a bashing session. I promised somebody I'd be careful.
To be general, your posts are rude when they drip with disrespect for the person to whom you are talking. Begin with the assumption that the person you are talking to is intelligent and your equal. I believe that if you do, many of your posts will change.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I'm undecided about whether your post to pooka was rude. I can see it both ways.
However, your two subsequent posts to kat have been unquestionably nasty. Is being blatantly rude really the best you can do when countering an accusation of rudeness?
C'mon, you're better than that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, it's okay. If Lalo has the same respect for me as himself... well, I'll just say I'm not offended.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it. The rudeness is a well-known posting style. It's a signature posting style. I'm wondering how he gets away with it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
