Dodaj do ulubionych

The second banning ballot on Waldek and cronies.

18.02.06, 21:43
OK, the way this works is as follows, please read it very carefully.

1. every person who has so far contributed in this forum before today's date
(that is, anyone posting at least once here on or before 17th February 2006)
is eligible to have one vote.

2. If anyone has objective proof that these identities are multiple personae
from the same poster, then if they present that proof the sock votes will
also be disqualified, even if they were active socks in this forum before
17th February.

3. Each person may vote a,b,c or d.

a) means "don't ban him - he has not overstepped the bounds of freedom of
speech"
b) means "don't ban him, but squelch every post from now on in which he makes
a personal attack on Maggie or any other female member, and the same for any
of those we can reasonably assume to be other incarnations of him or member
sof his gang, if they attack Maggie or any other female poster".
c) means ban him for six months.
d) means ban him for six months, and also squelch without further reference
any posts from alter-egos and likeminded persons if they make personal
attacks on posters here following Waldek's established pattern.

The votes for each of a, b, c and d will be added up. There will be one point
for a) two points for b) three points for a c) and four points for a d). The
sum will be divided by the number of votes and the course of action that
emerges from rounding the result (2.49 goes to 2 and 2.50 goes to 3, etc)
will be immediately applied from that time onwards for six months.

Therefore, depending on the severity of action you would like to see taken,
vote either a), b), c) or d). I am not offering to undertake other course of
action at this time.

The vote is open until midnight next Saturday, 25th February Central European
Time. I am inviting all members in Warsaw to join me in the evening. We will
count the votes together in the venue as I have Blue Connect. In due course
I'll give details of where the venue will be, and I'm up to listen for your
recommendations.

Whatever the outcome of this vote is, by voting, you imply that you abide by
the majority decision as explained above to be applied for 6 months. If you
do not vote, I do not expect to hear any post ballot whinges if it does not
go the way you wanted.
Obserwuj wątek
      • usenetposts Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 19.02.06, 00:05
        chris-joe napisał:

        > Here's what I've done: I threw waldek1610 on the grill of the GW forum search
        > engine and glanced over this nick's production. Seems he hasn't been behaving
        > too badly elsewhere lately, so I'm leaning towards giving him another chance.
        >
        > Therefore I'm seconding russh's vote: B.

        OK, CJ, thanks for that. After two votes (Russ and CJ) we are on 2 Bs, and that
        makes the outcome an average of B so far.

        Remember you can change your vote during the week.

        There is now exactly one week minus five minutes to go.
    • yoric Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 19.02.06, 00:13
      d)
      He's just a sad loser that needs to be pitied more than anything else (e.g. hated).
      This, however, does not mean he should be tolerated. "If you tolerate this..."

      I also think that you, usenetposts, should reserve yourself the right to
      overrule our collective decision. For example, so far I've only contributed like
      5 posts (mostly sarcastic ones, at least in intent): may be here today, gone
      tomorrow. You, and many other users, are responsible for keeping this place in
      order...
      regards
    • ms.jones Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 19.02.06, 02:05
      I'll have to think aloud to myself, feel free to skip to the end, sorry, I'm
      tired.

      *First reaction: d
      *on a few occasions, very few, Waldek sounded quite normal; some responses to
      his posts were fun to read; Russ and similar people may have a civilizing
      effect on him; Dave wants high traffic; if it's guaranteed that personal
      attacks are deleted, ok: b
      *Chris-Joe found that he's been behaving himself recently - I think he went
      uncharacteristically quiet and civil for a while when we had the first vote; he
      knows what he is doing, he's not stupid. Ha, ha.
      *I hate 'pyskowki' = slanging matches. I tend not to associate with people who
      engage in this. Internet groups are a breeding ground for free for all - it's
      so much easier to experiment with reactions or let a momentary reaction
      override usual standards and push one's boundaries, if not to lose inhibitions
      altogether under the cloak of anonymity. This group actually has some reality
      to it as going to Poland sooner or later is always on the cards - it would be
      nice to think there is a friendly network of people there, ready to help with
      practical information or whatnot. That's why I'm not indifferent to seeing
      repulsive (verbal) behaviour on this forum. C.
      It's not nice to see gibberish again and again, that's the trouble with an open
      forum, oh well; it's uncomfortable to see people turning things into a joke,
      again and again. A lot of the time it's genuinely funny, but on the whole there
      are better forms of entertainment. c.
      * What he did to Maggie - singling her out of the group, wasn't remotely funny.
      That behaviour would not be tolerated in any real place, freedom of speech
      notwithstanding. Societies that worked their way up out of oppression to
      freedom of speech, didn't do so without developing parallel laws, rights and
      responsibilities to regulate themselves so that the freedoms are not abused.
      Behaving freely without any respect for others - Waldek is much in need of a
      long overdue lesson. - d! BTW, elements of laissez-faire style are said to work
      best in experienced, highly skilled groups. As I'm neither, and you can never
      be sure about passing tourists, I much prefer the safety of clear rules.

      Overall: d



    • hardenfelt Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 19.02.06, 07:40
      Usernetposts wrote:

      b) means "don't ban him, but squelch every post from now on in which he makes
      > a personal attack on Maggie or any other female member, and the same for any
      > of those we can reasonably assume to be other incarnations of him or member
      > sof his gang, if they attack Maggie or any other female poster".

      I’m sorry, but I’ll have to boycott this ballot. Option b) is sexist. I cannot
      understand why female participants should enjoy a special protection.
      • usenetposts Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 19.02.06, 12:36
        hardenfelt napisał:

        > Usernetposts wrote:
        >
        > b) means "don't ban him, but squelch every post from now on in which he makes
        > > a personal attack on Maggie or any other female member, and the same for
        > any
        > > of those we can reasonably assume to be other incarnations of him or memb
        > er
        > > sof his gang, if they attack Maggie or any other female poster".
        >
        > I’m sorry, but I’ll have to boycott this ballot. Option b) is sexis
        > t. I cannot
        > understand why female participants should enjoy a special protection.

        That's OK, Michael. Just for you, I'll make you an honorary female, and we can
        now have it "females and Michael Hardenfelt". If any other males would like to
        be honorary females, in the sense of being protected from Waldek, just let me
        know. Likewise, if any females wish to be honorary males and have attacks on
        themselves left unsquelched, then just say the word.

        If you would like to know more about why the human species protects its
        females, Michael, I suggest you put the political textbook away and take a
        course in basic biology.
      • usenetposts Summary after the first 6 votes 19.02.06, 12:59
        OK, votes so far:

        B was voted by (in order of voting) :
        Russ,
        CJ.

        D was voted by :
        Yoric
        Ms Jones
        Kylie
        Bluteau

        Objections :
        Michael Hardenfelt

        The overall average so far is
        ((2*2)+ (4*4))/6 = 3.333

        If the average is higher than 3.499, then we are in D territory for the
        outcome, as it we are in a strong "c" position, on balance, even though nobody
        specifically voted for that option.

        There are six days and 11 hours left to go.
    • bartis_ervin Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 19.02.06, 12:55

      B, although I would make it more general, like "squelch every post, which is
      offensive". But of course then it becomes a bit problematic how/who to decide if
      a post is offensive.

      Read and write on this forum is a free-time activity and for me it makes sense
      if it's fun and enjoyable. I think it makes it more interesting to have here
      people who have totally different field of interests than me. What is important
      is that we are here for similar reasons: form a community, have fun, exchange
      info. As far as I see, Waldek is not here for these reasons, or simply he has a
      different definition of fun. I am tired to see that lately every third post is
      by Waldek (meaning insulting for some of us) and almost every second post is
      about Waldek. Unfortunately, I think he reached his goal...

      As I wrote in a previous post, between 24-26th I will be in Poznan and won't be
      able to meet with you. It's a pity because would like to meet again with Dave
      and his wife, meet Russ and Varsovian and others as well.

      Ervin

      Thebartiski.blogspot.com
    • waldek1610 You might as well be voting to ban...Kaczynskis :) 20.02.06, 12:14
      ...it would make as much sense. It's like you're fighting to stop waves from
      hitting the costal area, its pointless, guys. You can't stop the history, and
      Waldek is here to herald the new era, the era free of corrupt leftist
      governement, times free from organized crime/SLD.

      If you really want to live in a liberal, socialist and gay and feminist
      dominated country why don't you just move to Holland or Belgium?
        • waldek1610 Re: You might as well be voting to ban...Kaczynsk 20.02.06, 12:28
          First of all, it is your fantasy that I am the only person who wants
          SLD/Organized Crime/left out of bussiness....

          Hello, this is 2006 the President of Poland is Lech Kaczynski and rulling party
          is PIS......... and SLD is gone. Coinsidentally I'm one of some 11 milion Poles
          who voted for Kaczynski. Wake up brother!
          • ianek70 Hypocrite... 20.02.06, 14:04
            waldek1610 napisał:

            > Coinsidentally I'm one of some 11 milion Poles
            > who voted for Kaczynski.

            11 milionów?
            W Polsce jest 40 milionów, a u was ilu?
            Ale i tak jesteś w mniejszości, cokolwiek bym sądził o hipokryzji tych, co
            wybierają prezydentów i rządy krajów, w których nie mieszkają.

            > Wake up brother!

            I'm not your brother, Yankee.
            • waldek1610 simple math 22.02.06, 00:03
              If you consider that only about 50% of Poles voted in the parliment and
              presidential elections, and PIS and Kaczynski got little over 50% of those
              votes....
              That gives you about 11 millions of Poles who voted for Kaczyski.


              It might startle you but in presidential elections I voted for Gore and then
              for Kerry, but congresional election was mixed as I voted for individuals from
              both Democratic and Republican parties. Never the less I support President Bush
              whos views and policies coinsidentally are very allined with that of President
              Kaczynski!
              • usenetposts Tell it to the hand . . . 22.02.06, 00:16
                waldek1610 napisał:

                > If you consider that only about 50% of Poles voted in the parliment and
                > presidential elections, and PIS and Kaczynski got little over 50% of those
                > votes....
                > That gives you about 11 millions of Poles who voted for Kaczyski.
                >
                >
                > It might startle you but in presidential elections I voted for Gore and then
                > for Kerry, but congresional election was mixed as I voted for individuals
                from
                > both Democratic and Republican parties. Never the less I support President
                Bush
                >
                > whos views and policies coinsidentally are very allined with that of
                President
                > Kaczynski!

                Mkay.
              • ianek70 Even simple maths is too hard for Norma :-( 22.02.06, 17:22
                waldek1610 napisał:

                > If you consider that only about 50% of Poles voted in the parliment and
                > presidential elections, and PIS and Kaczynski got little over 50% of those
                > votes....
                > That gives you about 11 millions of Poles who voted for Kaczyski.

                IF 50% of everyone in Poland voted (which they didn't), and IF 50% of them
                voted for PiS (which they didn't), that would make about 9.5 million, but only
                IF people who are too young to vote were allowed to vote (which they're not).

                In reality, a lot less than half of those entitled to vote actually voted in
                the parliamentary elections, Norma, and whatever you may have read in Nasz
                Śmietnik or the Chicago Daily Redneck, only about a third of them voted for PiS.
      • usenetposts Re: You might as well be voting to ban Kaczynski 20.02.06, 15:04
        Well not exactly, Waldek. You're not being balloted over for a banning for your
        political convictions, here, especially bearing in mind that I'm a public
        supporter of Kaczynski myself.

        You are being balloted for banning because you have repeatedly resorted to
        personal ad hominem attacks against members of my forum, making wild and
        baseless accusations about them which border on libel and generally showering
        us with insults. Funnily enough, I don't see President Kaczynski coming here
        doing that, although I could envision Tusk having a go, if he keeps up his
        recent standards. I would have been happy for you to be here getting on your
        political soapbox all you like as long as you could only learn some normal
        debating manners.

        After six months, if you do get banned, as seems likely at the minute, you will
        be able to get the chance to come here again and voice your opinions, as long
        as you have learned by then not to behave like a cyberstalker and break not
        only netiquette, but also United States telcoms laws.

        As a right wing person, I can only say that your behaviour has been an
        embarrassment to me, and I dare say others of the right wing, and the sooner
        you learn to operate within certain common standards of decency, the better it
        will be for all of us.
    • ianek70 Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 20.02.06, 12:15
      usenetposts napisał:

      > d) means ban him for six months, and also squelch without further reference
      > any posts from alter-egos and likeminded persons if they make personal
      > attacks on posters here following Waldek's established pattern.

      I, like most folk here, originally voted against censoring him, but this time
      it has to be 'D', because:
      1. Waldo insults others to get attention. Since he has Internet access and
      obviously nothing else to do with his time, he can simply start up a "Paranoid
      Attention-Seekers" forum. He shows his arrogance and disrespect for others on
      the "Polonia" forum, and the rest of the world shows its total indifference to
      him by ignoring his "Kochajmy Waldka" forum.
      2. He made his point months ago, most people here made clear that this point
      was bollocks, but he has continued to repeat it several times a day since then.
      Recently he has replaced the words "Anglo-Saxon" in his irrelevant, repetitive
      monologues with "SLD/Pruszkowska mafia baron", and some shit about the "5%" who
      have it good. He has nothing new to say, he won't have anything new or
      interesting to say, even the little bitchy comments he writes under other names
      are boring and unoriginal.
      I don't mind the fact that recently he's got so desperate that he's started to
      insult me personally - after all, nobody else reads his posts more than once a
      week, and his ignorance and stupidity are even funnier with that personal
      touch...
      I don't think there's anyone on the forum that I'd agree with 100%, or even
      83%, but everyone else has a sense of humour, interesting opinions, original
      ideas, a cool way of expressing themselves or some sensible arguments.
      Basically, though, Waldo's just an arse.
    • nasza_maggie Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 20.02.06, 21:20
      As far as I am concerned I have already stated my views on this matter here:


      forum.gazeta.pl/forum/72,2.html?f=29887&w=33455776&a=33587499
      forum.gazeta.pl/forum/72,2.html?f=29887&w=33455776&a=33587684


      However, it seems time has passed and nothing has changed. In fact, when it
      comes to Waldeks behaviour, I think it has gotten worse...


      I voted D because it seems when we responded lightly in the last vote, Waldek
      didn't appreciate it. I don't mind people challenging my views. But it seems
      Waldek not only attacks me personally but also viciously attacks views that I
      never voiced.

      ANYWAY.

      I am sorry that you are all involved in this. I feel responsible as Waldek is
      my troll, who has followed me here and thus it has had its repercusions on all
      of you.

      I hope that now we can carry on with normal debates, discussions and arguments
      and not worry about personal insults.

      Thank you Dave for taking care of the users of this forum.

      Maggiesmile


      ps: remeber, do not feed the trolls!!!!!

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
    • ejmarkow Banning a cyber-nick without a profile 20.02.06, 22:07
      This is a very difficult situation to decide, for how do you really know who
      you are actually banning? This poses a true problem. For me, I prefer to know a
      person first by at least their profile, and not only a nick. As you can see,
      for example, my entire profile, full name, village and township, even actual
      photo, are all listed. Dave also has similar information on his profile, and
      several others here as well. I respect that because I feel I am conversing with
      actual individuals who I know something about. The situation, for example, on a
      the former 'deja-news' newsgroups was somewhat similar. There were many more
      serious offensive posts there, hovering on insanity, and yet, those same unkown
      nicks continue to post, because the people reading them know better. Although
      Waldek may have offended many decent individuals here on several occasions, he
      has also made some very good postings. However, who really is this person? We
      are going to decide to ban a person that nobody actually knows anything about?
      For example, Dave, do you see his and our IP address when we post? Since you
      are the leader of this forum, I would think you do have access to it, because
      on Onet Chat, the leader of any given 'chatroom' has access to everyones IP
      address and knows where they are posting from. If so, from that IP address, you
      can conclude where this person is actually posting from..city and country. So,
      right now, it is difficult for me to even think of deciding to ban a
      nick/person I know nothing about. Also, I am of the school of
      thought...everyone deserves a second chance. If I were to submit my vote, right
      now, I would choose a modified (b) "don't ban him" and squelch every post that
      becomes too personally offensive to anyone, from anyone. But, as somebody
      mentioned before, who decides if a post becomes too offensive and what is the
      point of toleration? It's difficult for I am new here, and I don't wish to be
      siding with anyone, for we are all contributing to this forum. Let's just all
      be friends, and try to forgive, and those who have offended another individual
      for no reason at all, should apologize. We should all work together to make
      this a fun, intelligent, forum. Dave started a great forum here, and we should
      help him make it even better.

      Best Regards,

      Eugene
      • nasza_maggie Re: Banning a cyber-nick without a profile 20.02.06, 22:30
        ejmarkow napisał:

        > This is a very difficult situation to decide, for how do you really know who
        > you are actually banning?

        This is the net - you never really know anyone. Unless you meet them en face,
        but then you still don't really know themsmile))))

        This poses a true problem. For me, I prefer to know a
        >
        > person first by at least their profile, and not only a nick. As you can see,
        > for example, my entire profile, full name, village and township, even actual
        > photo, are all listed.

        That is your own personal choice and risksmile))) And even then it is still more
        your imagination rather than that what someone has on their profilesmile)


        Dave also has similar information on his profile, and
        > several others here as well. I respect that because I feel I am conversing
        with
        >
        > actual individuals who I know something about. The situation, for example, on
        a
        >
        > the former 'deja-news' newsgroups was somewhat similar. There were many more
        > serious offensive posts there, hovering on insanity, and yet, those same
        unkown
        >
        > nicks continue to post, because the people reading them know better.

        Well good luck to themsmile However this is a different forum - company - place.
        And a far smaller communitysmile

        Although
        > Waldek may have offended many decent individuals here on several occasions,
        he
        > has also made some very good postings. However, who really is this person? We
        > are going to decide to ban a person that nobody actually knows anything
        about?
        Yes, beacuse it is his choice to attack and offend, rather than wanting to get
        to know us or actually wanting us to understand his POV.

        > For example, Dave, do you see his and our IP address when we post? Since you
        > are the leader of this forum, I would think you do have access to it, because
        > on Onet Chat, the leader of any given 'chatroom' has access to everyones IP
        > address and knows where they are posting from. If so, from that IP address,
        you
        >
        > can conclude where this person is actually posting from..city and country.

        When it comes to net psychology you do not only analyze from an IP but also
        linguistics and in SOME cases phonetics. Waldek has his own style of writing
        and posting which is easily recognisable.

        Onet is extremely liberal and full of system 'holes'. The fact that any given
        moderator can see the IP is a surprise to me, but it is their system.
        But you are talking about chatrooms, which are a different kettle of fish to
        forums. Owners of private forums do not have access to IPs. But can write to
        the admins of the whole forum, in cases of vicious attacks and report spamming,
        attacks and trolling. The admins then take care of it. When you have a provate
        forum such as this one, you are 'renting' a forum space for free.

        So,
        > right now, it is difficult for me to even think of deciding to ban a
        > nick/person I know nothing about. Also, I am of the school of
        > thought...everyone deserves a second chance.

        This was his second chance.

        If I were to submit my vote, right
        >
        > now, I would choose a modified (b) "don't ban him" and squelch every post
        that
        > becomes too personally offensive to anyone, from anyone. But, as somebody
        > mentioned before, who decides if a post becomes too offensive and what is the
        > point of toleration?

        The nettiquette which involves any forum on this portal.

        There was a previous vote and he stayed but this has only caused him to cause
        even more offence.

        It's difficult for I am new here, and I don't wish to be
        > siding with anyone, for we are all contributing to this forum.

        Yes, contributing whereas Waldek tends to insult the person not the views. You
        don't HAVE to vote ejsmile))))

        Let's just all
        > be friends, and try to forgive, and those who have offended another
        individual
        > for no reason at all, should apologize.


        We tried that too. We never heard the word 'sorry'. Here or thru email.


        We should all work together to make
        > this a fun, intelligent, forum. Dave started a great forum here, and we
        should
        > help him make it even better.

        I can say, with all honesty, that all of us, apart form Waldek have tried. And
        many of us have completely different POVs and manage to put them across without
        insulting eachothersmile
        And we have tried to understand him and talk to him and to be nice. What did
        we get? A load of insults and personal jibes. The typical behaviour of a troll
        who only flames in order to seek attention, trash a forum, and not GENIUINELY
        contribute to a forum or discussion.

        My reply to you Eugene is not to make you take any sides or vote in any way,
        but so you know my POV as most of his attacks (and I have explained this to
        every (new) user) are aimed at me and this is why the discussion has come up
        again, finally - where he has now forced it to be 'maggie or waldek'.


        best to you also Eugenesmile
        Hope you are keeping your chickens well hiddensmile))))))
      • kylie1 Re: Banning a cyber-nick without a profile 20.02.06, 22:49
        > Let's just all be friends, and try to forgive, and those who have offended
        >anotherindividual for no reason at all, should apologize.



        That's a great idea Eugene. I absolutely love it. But see, I did ask Waldek to
        appologize to Maggie after the first banning vote. My plan was to bury the
        hatchet and forget about everything. That didn't work. No apology and a steady
        continuum of insults still taking place right up to this day.
        I think many people shy from posting their profiles mainly because they know
        they can be taken advantage of by people like Waldek. Considering he knows
        nothing about Maggie, just imagine what would have happened had she put
        something down in her profile message. He would have had a hay day with her!
        More troll feed for Waldek.

        Thanks for your message, Eugene.



      • usenetposts Re: Banning a cyber-nick without a profile 21.02.06, 15:34
        ejmarkow napisał:

        > This is a very difficult situation to decide, for how do you really know who
        > you are actually banning? This poses a true problem. For me, I prefer to know
        a
        >
        > person first by at least their profile, and not only a nick. As you can see,
        > for example, my entire profile, full name, village and township, even actual
        > photo, are all listed. Dave also has similar information on his profile, and
        > several others here as well. I respect that because I feel I am conversing
        with
        >
        > actual individuals who I know something about. The situation, for example, on
        a
        >
        > the former 'deja-news' newsgroups was somewhat similar. There were many more
        > serious offensive posts there, hovering on insanity, and yet, those same
        unkown
        >
        > nicks continue to post, because the people reading them know better. Although
        > Waldek may have offended many decent individuals here on several occasions,
        he
        > has also made some very good postings. However, who really is this person? We
        > are going to decide to ban a person that nobody actually knows anything
        about?

        I think it is a very good point you make and certainly in the future if, with
        the increased moderatorial mandate that this vote seems likely to deliver me, I
        will take into consideration how much we know about someone before deciding on
        how to treat their posts if they offend. US law makes, as you may be aware,
        exactly the same differentiation now. It is NOT illegal, under the new law, to
        annoy or offend or get full use of your free speech if you are not anonymous -
        the new law in America makes it an offense to annoy people on newsgroups,
        chatrooms and discussion fora ANONYMOUSLY.

        In the future, if I have to decide between two participants, the anonymous one
        is gonna come off worse, unless there are good reasons why not.

        > For example, Dave, do you see his and our IP address when we post?

        I do not. Private forum leaders do not have this priviledge, but since I have
        been officially asked to do something about the state of trolling on this Board
        by the gazeta people, and I have asked them to give me until Sunday to finish
        this vote and not dump my forum in the meantime, it is clear that they mean to
        deal with any forum where Waldek goes unchecked. In fact, there is every chance
        that we will simply lose the forum if we do not vote to ban him and give me a
        stronger moderatorial mandate, as they have already given me the warning,
        yesterday afternoon, but I only saw it today and responded today.

        That means that if I comply with what they ask, and ban this troll, I have
        reason to ask them for updates on all other nicks using the same ISP as this
        one. All I am asking them to do is supply me with info on whether a new nick
        has the same ISP number as waldek 1610.

        > Since you
        > are the leader of this forum, I would think you do have access to it, because
        > on Onet Chat, the leader of any given 'chatroom' has access to everyones IP
        > address and knows where they are posting from. If so, from that IP address,
        you
        >
        > can conclude where this person is actually posting from..city and country.

        That's not available to private forum moderators, but it is available to the
        moderators on GW's own fora.

        > So,
        > right now, it is difficult for me to even think of deciding to ban a
        > nick/person I know nothing about. Also, I am of the school of
        > thought...everyone deserves a second chance.

        Indeed. But this would be his third chance though. Third on this forum, and
        maybe twenty-third on GW as a whole.

        >If I were to submit my vote, right
        >
        > now, I would choose a modified (b) "don't ban him" and squelch every post
        that
        > becomes too personally offensive to anyone, from anyone. But, as somebody
        > mentioned before, who decides if a post becomes too offensive and what is the
        > point of toleration? It's difficult for I am new here, and I don't wish to be
        > siding with anyone, for we are all contributing to this forum. Let's just all
        > be friends, and try to forgive, and those who have offended another
        individual
        > for no reason at all, should apologize. We should all work together to make
        > this a fun, intelligent, forum. Dave started a great forum here, and we
        should
        > help him make it even better.
        >
        > Best Regards,
        >
        > Eugene


        Thanks for that, Eugene.

        Waldek is more than welcome to apologise, and if he does so, then there should
        be no problem in letting him back on in six months when his ban runs out, if we
        ban him.
      • usenetposts Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 21.02.06, 15:50
        OK, with 4 days and 8 hours to go, here are the results of the ballot so far:

        A - no action
        No votes

        B - Don't ban, just squelch Waldek and similar posters as necessary
        4 votes - Russ, CJ, Ervin, EJ

        C - Ban Waldek, don't squelch others (will only be the course of action if over
        25 percent of voters take this line, otherwise it will be decided on whether
        the average is nearer B or D)
        no votes

        D - Ban Waldek and any known socks of Waldek, squelch suspected socks and any
        other similarly offensive trolls and ad hominems against female participants in
        addition to the existing squelch criteria without further reference to the
        electorate
        9 = Yoric, Ms Jones, Kylie, Bluteau, Ianek70, Firemouse, Maggie, Varsovian,
        and this time me also, as otherwise I risk sacrificing the whole forum, and
        this place has helped too many people to be put in jeopardy for the likes of
        Waldek and his ilk.

        Objections
        1 Michael Hardenfelt on grounds of sexism.

        Summary
        13 votes cast,
        ((4*2)+(9*4))/13 = 3.38
        If this continues unchanged the course of action resulting will be D.

        Those who haven't voted yet, kindly do so.

        If you don't vote, then you cannot whinge about the outcome afterwards, because
        you had your chance.
        • firemouse Just one thing here 21.02.06, 16:17
          usenetposts napisał:


          > D - Ban Waldek and any known socks of Waldek, squelch suspected socks and any
          > other similarly offensive trolls and ad hominems against female participants in
          >
          > addition to the existing squelch criteria without further reference to the
          > electorate
          > 9 = Yoric, Ms Jones, Kylie, Bluteau, Ianek70, Firemouse, Maggie, Varsovian,
          > and this time me also, as otherwise I risk sacrificing the whole forum, and
          > this place has helped too many people to be put in jeopardy for the likes of
          > Waldek and his ilk.

          I wonder why haven't you made an arbitrary decision on this.

          First time voting was OK, but when I saw the second ballot I felt this is going
          to be a neverending story and all this democracy really turns the issue into a
          phony threat. Me, I'd block waldek. After a warning of course, but a single one.
          We debated the issue before and he knew already that ice is thin.

          I am especially curious while you blocked somebody's else post (Mwangi?) without
          any consultations, all right, I do not know the issue and he could be offensive,
          but anyway I sense here a double treatment. I wish I am wrong.

          FM
          • usenetposts Re: Just one thing here 21.02.06, 16:24
            I answered about the Mwangi post to Kylie in the thread about where I have
            competition.

            I wouldn't get too hot under the collar about the mwangi post, after all, I was
            making a point and I can always unblock it, you know. The point is, he was
            getting very mouthy about how I should block someone without requiring any
            democratic mandate, but when I did it to him, he stormed off and set up a
            competing group.

            You know, "nie zycz innym, co tobie niemile", that's the moral of that story.
            • bartis_ervin Re: Just one thing here 22.02.06, 08:49

              I see a very good point in blocking Mwangi's post, however I am not sure that I
              would do that.

              I didn't know that people are "watching" the forums. I feel a bit like I would
              be in China, especially after what Ianek wrote.

              On the other hand, if they have problems with Waldo, why they let him set up his
              forum?

              His posts were offensive, but as Dave said in an earlier post, he did not break
              any Polish law. I don't like the guy, but I don't get why they make such a big
              deal? We can handle him.

              Ervin

              Thebartiski.blogspot.com
              • firemouse Re: Just one thing here 22.02.06, 09:47
                bartis_ervin napisał:


                >
                > I didn't know that people are "watching" the forums. I feel a bit like I would
                > be in China, especially after what Ianek wrote.

                You would be surprised. I have some good stories for a meeting.

                > On the other hand, if they have problems with Waldo, why they let him set up hi
                > s
                > forum?
                >
                > His posts were offensive, but as Dave said in an earlier post, he did not break
                > any Polish law. I don't like the guy, but I don't get why they make such a big
                > deal? We can handle him.

                They don't watch all the forums. Just some of them. Waldo's forum is dead
                anyway. They might be watching here, because somebody sent a complaint,
                otherwise they wouldn't give a tihs about it.

                And I don't think we can handle Waldo. We can mute him. But I don't care to
                handle him, unless he begins to understand the expression "acceptable behaviour".

                FM
              • usenetposts Re: Just one thing here 22.02.06, 16:56
                bartis_ervin napisał:

                >
                > I see a very good point in blocking Mwangi's post, however I am not sure that
                I
                > would do that.

                It's been unsquelched already for at least 24 hours, Ervin. All I wanted to do
                was teach the guy a lesson.

                > I didn't know that people are "watching" the forums. I feel a bit like I would
                > be in China, especially after what Ianek wrote.
                >
                > On the other hand, if they have problems with Waldo, why they let him set up
                hi
                > s
                > forum?
                >
                > His posts were offensive, but as Dave said in an earlier post, he did not
                break
                > any Polish law. I don't like the guy, but I don't get why they make such a big
                > deal? We can handle him.

                Your point about why they don't simply ban him centrally but prefer to go
                around the places he posts and ask them to deal wuith him is a very good one,
                and I don't know the answer any more than you do. I was asking myself exactly
                the same question.
                • firemouse Easy 22.02.06, 17:08
                  Central ban would be objected, because not all the posts were abusive.

                  By asking the owner of private forum to deal with the problem responsibility is
                  delegated from Ag.ra to the owner so his position may be put in question and
                  arbitrary decision about the forum existence can be made. Any time.

                  I am sorry for my catastrophic propheties. But they are deeply rooted in experience.

                  FM
          • ianek70 Re: Stupidity knows no borders Dave..... 23.02.06, 14:40
            waldek1610 napisał:

            > Dave,
            > Following your rationale, every male betwee 40-60 years old, who has pitch
            dark
            >
            > hair, trimed mustached and banks combbed to one side should be sentenced to
            > death on the grounds that he might be a German Nazi leader as well....

            Well, I'd be suspicious of anyone 120 years old with an Austrian accent and the
            same phone number as Hitler.
          • usenetposts Re: Stupidity knows no borders Dave..... 24.02.06, 22:59
            waldek1610 napisał:

            > Dave,
            > Following your rationale, every male betwee 40-60 years old, who has pitch
            dark
            >
            > hair, trimed mustached and banks combbed to one side should be sentenced to
            > death on the grounds that he might be a German Nazi leader as well....

            I'm invoking Godwin.
        • usenetposts Final call 25.02.06, 17:19
          OK, with only 6 hours 40 minutes to go, here are the results of the ballot so
          far:

          A - no action
          No votes - even Waldek and chums appear not to have bothered to vote, although
          they have been in here to protest.

          B - Don't ban, just squelch Waldek and similar posters as necessary
          3 votes - CJ, Ervin, EJ

          C - Ban Waldek, don't squelch others (will only be the course of action if over
          25 percent of voters take this line, otherwise it will be decided on whether
          the average is nearer B or D)
          no votes

          D - Ban Waldek and any known socks of Waldek, squelch suspected socks and any
          other similarly offensive trolls and ad hominems against female participants in
          addition to the existing squelch criteria without further reference to the
          electorate
          12 = Yoric, Ms Jones, Kylie, Bluteau, Ianek70, Firemouse, Maggie, Varsovian,
          Russ (changed from B earlier), me this time (as otherwise I risk sacrificing
          the whole forum, and this place has helped too many people to be put in
          jeopardy for the likes of Waldek and his ilk.), bengateau and a_g1.

          Objections
          3: Michael Hardenfelt on grounds of sexism, and Waldek and Drabiniasty,
          although I haven't bothered to check whether he was around before the 17th of
          February or not.

          Summary
          15 votes cast,
          ((3*2)+(12*4))/15 = 3.6

          If this continues unchanged the course of action resulting will be D.

          In fact, in order for the outcome not to involve the banning of Waldek, he
          needs for there to be twelve straight "A" votes, with no further D votes or C
          votes, to take place between now and midnight.

          So Waldek, can you find twelve people who posted on this group before 17th of
          Feb willing to give you an "A" vote in the next 6 hours and 40 minutes?
          • usenetposts Re: Final call 25.02.06, 23:05
            One hour left, and I don't see much rushing going on.

            OK, the curry was jolly good, and of course no-one but me and Elena turned up.

            Oh well, all the more went in the doggy bag, and it's in my fridge now. Guess
            it's curry for breakfast!
          • usenetposts Wrapping up 26.02.06, 00:39
            usenetposts napisał:

            > OK, with only 6 hours 40 minutes to go, here are the results of the ballot so
            > far:
            >
            > A - no action
            > No votes - even Waldek and chums appear not to have bothered to vote,
            although
            > they have been in here to protest.
            >
            > B - Don't ban, just squelch Waldek and similar posters as necessary
            > 3 votes - CJ, Ervin, EJ
            >
            > C - Ban Waldek, don't squelch others (will only be the course of action if
            over
            >
            > 25 percent of voters take this line, otherwise it will be decided on whether
            > the average is nearer B or D)
            > no votes
            >
            > D - Ban Waldek and any known socks of Waldek, squelch suspected socks and any
            > other similarly offensive trolls and ad hominems against female participants
            in
            >
            > addition to the existing squelch criteria without further reference to the
            > electorate
            > 12 = Yoric, Ms Jones, Kylie, Bluteau, Ianek70, Firemouse, Maggie, Varsovian,
            > Russ (changed from B earlier), me this time (as otherwise I risk sacrificing
            > the whole forum, and this place has helped too many people to be put in
            > jeopardy for the likes of Waldek and his ilk.), bengateau and a_g1.
            >
            > Objections
            > 3: Michael Hardenfelt on grounds of sexism, and Waldek and Drabiniasty,
            > although I haven't bothered to check whether he was around before the 17th of
            > February or not.
            >
            > Summary
            > 15 votes cast,
            > ((3*2)+(12*4))/15 = 3.6
            >
            > If this continues unchanged the course of action resulting will be D.
            >
            > In fact, in order for the outcome not to involve the banning of Waldek, he
            > needs for there to be twelve straight "A" votes, with no further D votes or C
            > votes, to take place between now and midnight.
            >
            > So Waldek, can you find twelve people who posted on this group before 17th of
            > Feb willing to give you an "A" vote in the next 6 hours and 40 minutes?

            OK, the time has now come to a close, and the state of affairs I mentioned in
            the above sumary did not change by the close of the ballot.

            It is therefore duly resolved by this Forum that I ban waldek1610, and also
            actively squelch suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets of waldek1610, along with
            other disruptive elements who are guilty of the worse breaches of netiquette
            out of those breaches which would not already have been squelched by me.

            This forum is therefore now changing in its character. For nearly nine months
            and nearly 6000 posts I have not banned a single participant. I squelched a
            couple of posts and then released them again afterwards, but there was in fact
            ZERO censorship on this Board for that space of time. That honeymoon period,
            not through my desire I hasten to add, has come to an end. Participants are fed
            up of waldek1610 and his friends, and both they and the admins of Agora have
            stated to me that I have to take a different line, and so as of this time the
            character of this Forum changes in a way that I personally am not quite
            comfortable with, and therefore I ask participants to bear with me while I get
            used to the new way of doing things.

            Now I would like to address a few words to the malefactor.

            Waldek1610, by the operation of a democratic vote by all the members, you are
            banned from this Forum. I will give you one final last word for yourself after
            this post, after which I will write your user profile in the ban list for this
            forum.

            Your banning from this forum does not mean that you are banned from any other
            parts of the fora of Gazeta Wyborcza, since this is only one private Forum.
            Neither are you banned from any other non-Agora based fora run by me. In fact
            on the contrary right here usenetposts.com/forum/index.php?c=9 I've set
            up a space for you to use if you want to as a consolation prize for banning you
            from this place. You are welcome to use the space there instead of this space.
            Unfortunately, fewer will read what you write over there, as it is a more low-
            traffic group, to be frank, but I've done what I can.

            So, you have one post and one only in which you can take your leave of us
            before going gracefully into that dark night. Please weigh your words. As
            Leszek Miller said, "it is not important how you begin your time in an office,
            what matters is how you finish", and I know you of all people would not like to
            disappoint Mr Miller by not taking his words to heart.

            I would just like to offer a prayer for you, as we part company here.

            Lord God, I pray that Thou wilt bless Waldek, and grant him the humility and
            wisdom that he needs. I pray that Thou wilt lead him to be a Christian, to
            repent and believe in Jesus' death for his sins and to show forth the fruits of
            the Holy Spirit. May his patriotism be ever for the City of God, which
            remaineth after all nations and boundaries be swept away, and may he not be
            banned from Thee, even thou he was banned from this place. May his
            excommunication here help him to have that humility and introspection that will
            draw him closer in the end to God. Bless his health and work, bless his family
            I pray, enable him to channel his energies and emotions into that which shall
            be pleasing to Thee and a good witness to the Truth. I ask these things in
            Jesus' Name. Amen.

            God bless you and have mercy on your soul, Waldek.
            • kylie1 Re: Wrapping up 26.02.06, 00:56
              It's a beautiful prayer, Dave. In all its seriousness it sounds like a farewell
              to an inmate on a death row. But even though one door closes, another one opens
              for Waldek...the door to the unsenet heaven. IN that case he doesn't have to
              worry about his last meal. It's extremely gracious of you Dave and I hope HE
              can really appreciate it.
              Can you do us a favor and say a little prayer for your other forum members
              whose feelings got hurt by Waldo?

              Thank you,

              Kylie
              • russh Re: Wrapping up 26.02.06, 00:59
                kylie1 napisała:

                > It's a beautiful prayer, Dave. In all its seriousness it sounds like a farewell
                >
                > to an inmate on a death row.

                Kylie, you took the words out of my mouth!
              • usenetposts Re: Wrapping up 26.02.06, 01:09
                kylie1 napisała:

                > It's a beautiful prayer, Dave. In all its seriousness it sounds like a
                farewell
                >
                > to an inmate on a death row. But even though one door closes, another one
                opens
                >
                > for Waldek...the door to the unsenet heaven. IN that case he doesn't have to
                > worry about his last meal. It's extremely gracious of you Dave and I hope HE
                > can really appreciate it.
                > Can you do us a favor and say a little prayer for your other forum members
                > whose feelings got hurt by Waldo?

                Indeed.

                Lord God, I pray that Thou wilt comfort and bless all those whose feelings were
                hurt by the behaviour of others on this forum. Send a spirit of forgiveness to
                their hearts and enable us all to remember that we must forgive those who
                trespass against us, if we are to hope for our own trespasses to be forgiven,
                and that at it is written there is none righteousness, no not one. Enable good
                will amongst us to be restored, and send to us a vision of Thy Son, we pray,
                that we may have faith in Him, calling on His name, and seek to follow Him in
                love and obedience, in Whose Name we ask. Amen

                >
                > Thank you,
                >
                > Kylie

                You're welcome.
    • drabiniasty Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 24.02.06, 04:47
      Oj usenetpost, biednys, skad sie bierze ta polska glupota , skad????? Czy to
      genetyczne? wyglada, ze tak. Ale zeby, kazdy z tych Polakow zamieszkalych w
      kraju byl az takim bezmozgowcem, to po prostu strach. Wiec w tym nastroju
      demkratycznych ballotow (ktore sa nic z demokracja wspolnego nie maja),
      wypieprzcie Waldo z forum. Zatrzymajcie wszystkie przyglupki krajowe, ktore
      rowno beda udawaly obcokrajowcow we wlasnym kraju. Nie widzicie jacy jestescie
      durni i smieszni????
      • ianek70 Poor Waldo... 24.02.06, 12:18
        drabiniasty napisał:

        > Oj usenetpost, biednys, skad sie bierze ta polska glupota , skad?????

        Waldo, if you're going to take the trouble to invent yourself new identities,
        you should at least make each of them slightly different, then it'll take more
        than 10 seconds for people to notice.
        And I see you've started writing about Belarussians instead of Pruszkowska
        mafioso in all your posts today. How dull.
        • usenetposts Re: Poor Waldo... 24.02.06, 17:05
          ianek70 napisał:

          > drabiniasty napisał:
          >
          > > Oj usenetpost, biednys, skad sie bierze ta polska glupota , skad?????
          >
          > Waldo, if you're going to take the trouble to invent yourself new identities,
          > you should at least make each of them slightly different, then it'll take
          more
          > than 10 seconds for people to notice.
          > And I see you've started writing about Belarussians instead of Pruszkowska
          > mafioso in all your posts today. How dull.

          He must have worked out that I live on Ul. Pruszkowska, and that my wife is
          Belarusian,and be making broad hints about that.
    • a_g1 D 24.02.06, 11:38
      Only 2 times I have posted on this forum before 17th February but I can vote as I see. Probably not nessesary because the situation is clear - the only solution is D.
      My congratulations to Dave and other participants of this forum - exclusive Waldek - is nice to follow your posts.
      Best regards from Poland - My country is around me and not only in my heartsmile

    • russh Re: The second banning ballot on Waldek and croni 24.02.06, 16:33
      As his posts this week have been anything but conciliatory, despite attempts to
      cajole him to be so, I am changing my vote (for what it is worth, as the
      decision is made) to a D).

      Lets hope that we can create a quality forum without the 66% and more posts that
      are from him, or related to him.

      It's up to us guys!

Popularne wątki

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka