ePlaya

by **spectabillis** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:23 pm

Crossposting x3

viewtopic.php?t=9623&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9622&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9621&highlight=

Somehow I am thinking there should be a modification to just enter the topic number on a seperate page and a submit button to make it much easier for you. In this case it would just be 9623-9622-9621.

I noticed how they are quickly sequential.

by **emily sparkle** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:11 pm

thanks! i left the one in the theme camps folder.

by **Kinetic IV** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:13 pm

Crossposting X3

viewtopic.php?t=9742
viewtopic.php?p=171980&highlight=#171980
viewtopic.php?p=171978&highlight=#171978

by **emily sparkle** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:52 am

thanks! i left the one in the theme camp section.

by **spectabillis** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:28 pm

crosspost

viewtopic.php?t=9760&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9759&highlight=

by **spectabillis** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:18 pm

multi-thread creation x3

viewtopic.php?t=9781&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9779&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9776&highlight=

by **spectabillis** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:18 pm

crosspost/topic creations by two different peeps

viewtopic.php?t=9807&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9806&highlight=

viewtopic.php?t=9805&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=9804&highlight=

by **Kinetic IV** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:16 pm

Commerce:

viewtopic.php?p=173490#173490

But....this is the second violation from this poster. Here's proof from only a page or so back in this very thread.

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blatant Commerce by someone named Meager:
viewtopic.php?t=7447&start=210

by **spectabillis** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:11 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:Commerce:

Ok, so I went through three links and...

posted before? there is only one post listed for that user and I dont see the previous referance, just links to topics with posts from you.

but yes, its commerce.

by **Kinetic IV** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:38 pm

spectabillis wrote:
Kinetic IV wrote:Commerce:

Ok, so I went through three links and...

posted before? there is only one post listed for that user and I dont see the previous referance, just links to topics with posts from you.

but yes, its commerce.

You don't see the other one because Emily took care of it! It was struck out...about like the KC Royals everytime they take the field.
emily sparkle
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 259
Location: boston, ma
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:39 am Post subject:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinetic IV wrote:
Blatant Commerce by someone named Meager:
viewtopic.php?t=7447&start=210

got it. thanks!
_________________
emily sparkle
eplaya administrator

by **spectabillis** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:07 pm

ok, but there is still only one post from that user, is the site being referred to the same as previously?

i dont get how this is a repeat offender.

by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:20 am

Of course there's only one post. Emily deleted the other one and now he's posting again so...we'll break this down. He posts = 1 on the message count. Emily deleted the post so that = 0, he posts again = 1. It's really simple! And I remember the other one....I can go through my archive stuff later tonight and see if I still have the full content. And yes it's for the same darn thing.

by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:33 am

ok, i thought the post count was incremental - not based on a query of existing posts.

if this person was contacted before - i will contact the webmaster/admin of thier site, maybe the company if i have the time.

by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:42 pm

Double thread madness

viewtopic.php?t=9912&highlight= (probably delete this one - in tips and such)
viewtopic.php?t=9911&highlight=

Self request for deletion
viewtopic.php?t=9908&highlight=

by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:34 pm

self request for deletion
viewtopic.php?t=9919&highlight=

by **spectabillis** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:32 am

Cross topic creation x3

viewtopic.php?t=10111&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=10110&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=10109&highlight=

Cross topic creation x2

viewtopic.php?t=10108&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=10107&highlight=

by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:14 am

Nasty troll thread reared its ugly head.
viewtopic.php?p=175774#175774
can we freeze or is it not politic?

by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:35 pm

I saw your post. I too was hoping it would stay a zombie at the bottom of the pile since this was also the same posting of a topic on tribe at the same time - obvious troll from someone who has a personal issue. It would be a different story if they had a specific instance in which to discuss.

Locking/Deleting it? Got my support.

by **Chai Guy** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:39 pm

Agree, delete and delete the poster.

Might I also suggest not feeding trolls and bumping their posts back up to the top?

by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:44 pm

I also agree that the thread should be frozen at least and allowed to sink if it's not deleted.

But here's the flipside. This was an attack against an LLC member that was hosted on an LLC funded webserver. If this thread is frozen / deleted could the same precedent be used to squelch the Stop BM people who use the same LLC funded webserver to launch their attacks against the event? Not long after the Stop BM folks came on board and started their ruckus I felt they should have been frozen out...could that issue be revisited?

by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:11 pm

Chai Guy wrote:Agree, delete and delete the poster.

Might I also suggest not feeding trolls and bumping their posts back up to the top?

Just want to say that it got to the top again because someone wanted to support the work that Crimson and LadyBee had done for them over the years. I suppose that's one reason why I'd prefer freezing to deleting. So that the censorship thing doesn't come up too strongly and with that thread we now have at least one (I didn't reread all the old posts) spontanious rebuttal from someone who's not a high posting board member. I think that speaks well of us. YMMV.

by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:26 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:But here's the flipside. This was an attack against an LLC member that was hosted on an LLC funded webserver. If this thread is frozen / deleted could the same precedent be used to squelch the Stop BM people who use the same LLC funded webserver to launch their attacks against the event? Not long after the Stop BM folks came on board and started their ruckus I felt they should have been frozen out...could that issue be revisited?

I'm okay with leaving them as they are. I think we're stuck with them, they have a bee in thier collective bonnet and I don't think they're going to go away even if we do firmly show them the door. Also new people coming in don't seem to have a problem going to the website and seeing through its agenda. They're kind of like the Keystone Protesters, not quite competent and worth keeping an eye on.

Now, WSPR and Larry Harvey's Hat were both poisenous and deliberately so. Those I think were justly booted. Would not be surprised if ECR was a sock of theirs--same focus on an LLC member and usage of name.

Remember what a problem we had with Black Rock Ric--he kept popping up and he's posted (once) this year. I have to assume that he still reads the board, but isn't posting. Unless of course, his doctor told him to aviod needless stress and he's finally stopped torturing himself. I'd really like never to see that CarMan12 (not his real name, used to prevent him finding these comments if he searches his name) thread again. But if it doesn't come back up then I'm fine leaving it to die rather than give him energy by giving him something to get his teeth into. Just my thoughts on the matter of course.

by **spectabillis** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:35 pm

Well, no one seemed to rise too much to the bait so far - thats a damn good testament to an improvement of how people are reacting to this sort of stuff.

*sniff* You make me so proud.

Deleting the user account would make it harder to trace future posts. I am thinking if someone this stupid wants to troll again, they would'nt be smart enough to sign up another account.

But then again, allanon proved that intellectual capacity theory wrong. OH NOOOO - I am going to hell for that one!

by **Kinetic IV** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:20 am

I want to express my objections to this thread created by Allanon02:

viewtopic.php?p=176039#176039

This is nothing more than a personal attack thread. Now the eplaya sees quite a bit of sniping and I've put out my share of it. But to devote an entire thread to the effort? Puhleeze. This thread has no reason to be kept on the eplaya, it's offensive, and I would like to request that the admins review it and see if it can be purged. It seems to violate the Terms of Service and the spirit of the Community Guidelines. I have been spoken to by the admins in the past for similar transgressions when I had my head up my derriere, I'm calling for equal admin treatment here for Allanon02. If the thread can't be deleted the poster at the very least should be warned about this sort of thing.

Thank you for considering my request....

by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:09 am

yeah, I can see a warning and a thread freeze with a strongly worded explination.

I'll have to round up all of Hageymon's cross-posts. (He's beside himself, poor man.)

Is admin even here or spanky? I'm guessin they're in Washoe/Pershing by now.

by **Kinetic IV** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:56 am

never mind....

by **spectabillis** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:12 pm

I completely missed - viewtopic.php?p=176039#176039

Posting something like that on anothers behalf, obscuratron?

Is this different than allanon's previous rants?

by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:38 pm

Well, I think on one level we let allanon get away with alot. Maybe it's enough rope to hang himself maybe not. (Has anyone ever been persuaded by him anyway?) I'm not sure we want to get into an arguement about his being suppressed because we cannot bear his truth. But kinetic is right about the specifics of the thread's title and intent. Is someone with those rights around to do anything or are we going to have to wait till after the event when the point will be less pressing? And do you me and kinetic make a legitemate quorum in the lighter presence of eplaya as people leave town and head to the playa?

by **spectabillis** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:22 pm

viewtopic.php?p=176039#176039
viewtopic.php?p=175774#175774

Both have been noted and will probably get locked when Emily gets a moment. If the creators wish to step forward and make a case they can do it here, thats what the intention of case studies is partially for.

Since it can be locked and not deleted, it gives people the opportunity to debate in absence of people trucking off for the event. Although if any action is agreed on during the event - like un-locking - it cant get done until later.

I dont think allanon has convinced anyone of anything, so far. But my previous comment referring to him was out of line in the case studies thread where personal comments are strongly discouraged - I apologize for that.

by **swampdog** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:45 am

might be desirable to merge the utah rave threads, if anyone is around who can do such a thing.

ePlaya

case studies

Who is online