Should Believer be banned? - Page 7

Frazod · 01:07 AM

The charge - endless spamming of the BB with religious drivel.

Yes or No.

And yes, this is a public poll. IMO, if you're going to vote to ban somebody, you shouldn't do it anonymously.

acesn8s · 01-30-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

He hasn't done anything other than be annoying.

He hasn't threatend anyone. He hasn't posted pics of men with a louisville slugger in their anus.

He's overzealous and annoying, but thats not illegal here. It would be nice if he'd choose to cut down on the threads, at least in number.

Bvr is not helping his cause here....its not the message, its the delivery that I find offputting, even as another religious person.

Its not unlike having some Mormons outside my door shouting at me all day after I've politely said "no thank you, I'm good here".....eventually, they're going to catch some wrath.

It's the reposting of the same thread. Was the last thread not good enough? Go spam Yahoo! with that crap and get a larger audience. What would happen if he were a Broncos fan continuing to post threads about how great Elway was? What ever happens to Believer should happen to others that do the same annoying crap.

**DaFace** · 01-30-2007, 08:35 AM

I voted yes, though I think banning is a bit strong of a punishment. I'd definitely vote yes if asked if his thread-making capabilities should be revoked.

siberian khatru · 01-30-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

I voted yes, though I think banning is a bit strong of a punishment. I'd definitely vote yes if asked if his thread-making capabilities should be revoked.

Same here.

greg63 · 01-30-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acesn8s

It's the reposting of the same thread. Was the last thread not good enough? Go spam Yahoo! with that crap and get a larger audience. What would happen if he were a Broncos fan continuing to post threads about how great Elway was? What ever happens to Believer should happen to others that do the same annoying crap.

Ignore him; much like you're doing me right now.

ingoring I mean.

Groves · 01-30-2007, 08:37 AM

Exhibit A: Believer hasn't shown himself to be able to think outside of black and white terms.

Exhibit B: Believer hasn't (to my knowledge) even conceded that he's been a jerk or inappropriate in any way at all.

I think we've all known someone who can't "take the hint". Lump that in with A & B and you've got a recipe for someone who isn't listening to our (reasonable and) increasingly specific requests for him to change his method.

End Result: Words aren't getting through, time to utilize some technological tools. Give him 2 posts per day, and he can reply or start whatever he wants. Do we have that feature?

keg in kc · 01-30-2007, 08:39 AM

He or she is a troll (and probably a regular in a halloween mask) and should be treated as such. It has nothing to do with religion.

crazycoffey · 01-30-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groves

Exhibit A: Believer hasn't shown himself to be able to think outside of black and white terms.

man, uncool to bring race into this.

JK

greg63 · 01-30-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groves

Exhibit A: Believer hasn't shown himself to be able to think outside of black and white terms.

Exhibit B: Believer hasn't (to my knowledge) even conceded that he's been a jerk or inappropriate in any way at all.

I think we've all known someone who can't "take the hint". Lump that in with A & B and you've got a recipe for someone who isn't listening to our (reasonable and) increasingly specific requests for him to change his method.

End Result: Words aren't getting through, time to utilize some technological tools. Give him 2 posts per day, and he can reply or start whatever he wants. Do we have that feature?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...1&postcount=94
Ahem, speaking of technological tools.

**Bugeater** · 01-30-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acesn8s

It's the reposting of the same thread. Was the last thread not good enough?

That, along with the fact he was deceptive with one of his thread titles, is why I feel he should lose his thread starting privileges. Let him have his one thread for his preaching, he can bump it when he wants and those who give a crap can read it.

crazycoffey · 01-30-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg63

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...1&postcount=94
Ahem, speaking of technological tools.

greg63 · 01-30-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I laughed out loud at your sig!

crazycoffey · 01-30-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg63

I laughed out loud at your sig!

give the credit to rainman, he said it. I laughed out loud to, so I thought I would share it with everyone, at least for the time being that the religion topic is still so strong.

Groves · 01-30-2007, 09:01 AM

I've got it, we need the "partial ignore" button. The full on ignore button seems the same as banning to me.

We just want things to tone down in frequency and fervor, and tone up in awareness and common senseness....it's like adjusting the "suck" button on a sound board. Do we have THAT capability?

htismaqe · 01-30-2007, 09:06 AM

I voted no only because I'm considering revoking thread starting privileges as a "first step".

View Poll Results: Should Believer be banned?
Yes, ban him.	35	41.18%
No, don't ban him.	50	58.82%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

01-30-2007, 01:02 AM
Frazod Did you hear what I said? Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $-756615	Should Believer be banned? The charge - endless spamming of the BB with religious drivel. Yes or No. And yes, this is a public poll. IMO, if you're going to vote to ban somebody, you shouldn't do it anonymously. Last edited by Frazod; 01-30-2007 at 01:07 AM..
Posts: 121,769

01-30-2007, 08:35 AM	#92
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $-1853101	I voted yes, though I think banning is a bit strong of a punishment. I'd definitely vote yes if asked if his thread-making capabilities should be revoked.
Posts: 53,153

01-30-2007, 08:37 AM	#95
Groves Turning the Corner Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Springfield, Missouri Casino cash: $-911459	Exhibit A: Believer hasn't shown himself to be able to think outside of black and white terms. Exhibit B: Believer hasn't (to my knowledge) even conceded that he's been a jerk or inappropriate in any way at all. I think we've all known someone who can't "take the hint". Lump that in with A & B and you've got a recipe for someone who isn't listening to our (reasonable and) increasingly specific requests for him to change his method. End Result: Words aren't getting through, time to utilize some technological tools. Give him 2 posts per day, and he can reply or start whatever he wants. Do we have that feature?
Posts: 2,390

01-30-2007, 08:39 AM	#96
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	He or she is a troll (and probably a regular in a halloween mask) and should be treated as such. It has nothing to do with religion.
Posts: 58,682

01-30-2007, 09:01 AM	#103
Groves Turning the Corner Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Springfield, Missouri Casino cash: $-911459	I've got it, we need the "partial ignore" button. The full on ignore button seems the same as banning to me. We just want things to tone down in frequency and fervor, and tone up in awareness and common senseness....it's like adjusting the "suck" button on a sound board. Do we have THAT capability?
Posts: 2,390

01-30-2007, 09:06 AM	#104
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $8129900	I voted no only because I'm considering revoking thread starting privileges as a "first step".
Posts: 104,379