Why not treat shills with kindness?

submitted by LarrySwinger2 from (self.SaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Relaying a message from /u/socks:

BTW - others banned from IRC occasionally are usehername, ShalomeEveryone (though he's not here in IRC), weegsspeegs, skank (Ed), Jackalope, and others, depending on the drama

These are the people I'm talking about. (Although I didn't know Jackalope gets banned too.)

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Fuck socks.

Don't entertain him, don't be a voice for him, don't feed the asstroll.

You started this lame post which is bad enough, but don't serve them and perpetuate their bullshit-drama disruption campaign.

Focus man.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't ban anyone; you did. It's worth addressing, so that the people you've banned can continue to have a voice in one interesting aspect of Saidit - so that you won't kill that aspect of Saidit for other users. You'll of course continue your dumb obsessions, but others shouldn't be excluded from Saidit because of them. You fucked up. Cut it out.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I didn't ban anyone; you did. It's worth addressing, so that the people you've banned can continue to have a voice in one interesting aspect of Saidit - so that you won't kill that aspect of Saidit for other users. You'll of course continue your dumb obsessions, but others shouldn't be excluded from Saidit because of them. You fucked up. Cut it out.

Your concern troll shtick doesn't fly with me.

I'll chat-ban you again shill, but now I'm making it a mission to do it every chance I get. And even then, non of this bullshit drama for a <6 hour ban serves anything but your timesuck agenda.

You said you blocked me. You're a liar, again.

Go fuck yourself.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course - more ad hominem from you. Continue enjoying your abuses of the POD. You have no credibility.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oops - I forgot to mention that Mittens and Theizukoguy were also banned

[–]LarrySwinger2[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By the way, I don't know the details regarding everyone in this list. Obviously weegsspeegs is a different animal. Others, such as socks and usehername, seem well-intentioned. It can be argued that a repeated ban is warranted, since permanent bans are impossible. But still: don't ban people based on a mere suspicion that they're an alt of a banned user. Distinguish between banning someone based on trolling, suspicion, and a different set of values. And only do the former.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know the details regarding everyone in this list.

Yet you've opined on it.

But still: don't ban people based on a mere suspicion that they're an alt of a banned user.

Some "mere suspicions" are certainties in others' minds (I'm not just taking about last night's anomaly). Who will arbitrate that? Fuck this whining. A <12 hour ban is a nothing burger. Get over it.

There's nothing well-intentioned about bad faith socks.