Today on AnimeForum

[Kaleohano]

As some of you may know, AnimeForum has suffered a heavy loss today 31APR13. The member known as WBL_Studios (or something like that) has been banned for being a whining little girl. he/she/it was upset about some extremely trivial things and couldnt handle the fact that no one gave a crap.

This is not funny in any way what-so-ever. He/she/it was a great person and we will all miss him/her/it very much...

[Anime Forum]

As some of you may know, AnimeForum has suffered a heavy loss today 31APR13. The member known as WBL_Studios (or something like that) has been banned for being a whining little girl. he/she/it was upset about some extremely trivial things and couldnt handle the fact that no one gave a crap.

This is not funny in any way what-so-ever. He/she/it was a great person and we will all miss him/her/it very much...

I think he thought this site was like WWE and created his own little gimmick. I mean, he did "drop a microphone" in one post.

[Eris]

Seems to be a thing. People join a forum, and don't lurk enough to figure out what's going on. People call them out on it. They get mad and cause trouble. Mods tell them to pipe down. They antagonize the mods. They get temp banned. They create a sockpuppet and *really* break the rules. They get IP banned.

[Jakiao]

A long, long time ago we used to redirect based on IPs instead of outright IP ban. I wonder how he'd feel if coming here netted him goaste?

[Kaleohano]

A long, long time ago we used to redirect based on IPs instead of outright IP ban. I wonder how he'd feel if coming here netted him goaste?

This option gets the Kaleohano stamp of approval

[Ωmega]

At first I felt bad that he seemed to have been abused and kicked out from his last forum, then I realized that he probably blew up over trivial garbage like he did here.

I tried sooooooooooooooooooo hard to be nice to this kid, told him what to do if he had an issue and he completely ignored me and rampaged on the forums with his butthurt instead. He does it to himself. Maybe getting kicked out of a few more forums will wise him up a bit

[Anime Forum]

At first I felt bad that he seemed to have been abused and kicked out from his last forum, then I realized that he probably blew up over trivial garbage like he did here.

I tried sooooooooooooooooooo hard to be nice to this kid, told him what to do if he had an issue and he completely ignored me and rampaged on the forums with his butthurt instead. He does it to himself. Maybe getting kicked out of a few more forums will wise him up a bit

Same here. I wanted to like the guy, but it grew more and more difficult as time passed. He "may" not even be a troll, hard to determine.

@ Kaitou: He blocked me lol.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

Same here. I wanted to like the guy, but it grew more and more difficult as time passed. He "may" not even be a troll, hard to determine.

@ Kaitou: He blocked me lol.

I think you can still leave him a VM...I done it before in here (the only place where some people are soft enough to block me)

[Albear]

At first I felt bad that he seemed to have been abused and kicked out from his last forum.

That was what I thought of him. Escaping the warzone and starting over..
Ya think you know a guy..

[Kumagawa]

I wonder how he'd feel if coming here netted him goaste?

aroused

[.:neuko:.]

Seems to be a thing. People join a forum, and don't lurk enough to figure out what's going on. People call them out on it. They get mad and cause trouble. Mods tell them to pipe down. They antagonize the mods. They get temp banned. They create a sockpuppet and *really* break the rules. They get IP banned.

Question: What is the threshold of lurking enough?

Because I've never found any clear rule on AF as to how much a member should lurk before posting a thread of their own. While I do accept that each thread should have a fair "grace period", and that therefore one should reasonably do some lurking before starting a thread of their own, at the same time, I do think there should be some expiry date with them as well, something which apparently AF doesn't make clear; that and the fact that it keeps well-outdated threads for years at a time. Seriously, am I expected to lurk all the way back to those threads as well before thinking to post my own?

Suffice to say, I think it's rather unfair that any member should be allowed to claim a monopoly on some topic with their thread for an indefinite amount of time (especially if it's not getting any replies); but that's exactly what seems to happen on AF, as certain members are quick to fire accusations on the lines of plagiarism at a member whose thread exists alongside some other about the same topic, and just as quick to dismiss a long-abandoned, yet nonetheless topically-relevant thread with cheap posts along the lines of, "Who dug this thread up?".

Before starting a thread, I will lurk--sure, but to a point... That point is when some thread with a topic similar the one I'm looking to post (should it exist) has had no replies for over 1 month, or has been outranked by more than 100 posts. You may argue that as non-mod it's not my place to be (self-)imposing such rules, but in my defense, I think it's rather sad that as far as I can see, members are being forced to do what ought to be the job of the mods in the first place.

By the way, I'm not defending or condoning WBL Studios' actions (In the first place I don't know the guy or the circumstances that lead to his ban), and he may well have "antagonised" the mods as you seem to be suggesting. However, I fear that the lack of clarity on how much a member ought to lurk before posting their own thread runs the potential risk of trapping many newcomers into unintentionally breaking AF community "rules" (which seem to be ambiguous at best, and elitist at worst); at least, until they've interacted with the community enough to gain some sense as to what is an acceptable level of lurking.

I didn't know that the forum had an IP banning system, my how the internet has evolved.

A system that can potentially ban an entire family within a household from a forum when only one member was responsible for abusing it? Forgive me, but that doesn't give me any sense that the Internet has evolved at all.

[Anoleis]

Because I've never found any clear rule on AF as to how much a member should lurk before posting a thread of their own.

It isn't a rule; it's just good e-manners. You lurk to find out how a forum runs. It's very similar to approaching a new group of people, or putting a fish in a new tank.

While I do accept that each thread should have a fair "grace period", and that therefore one should reasonably do some lurking before starting a thread of their own, at the same time, I do think there should be some expiry date with them as well, something which apparently AF doesn't make clear; that and the fact that it keeps well-outdated threads for years at a time. Seriously, am I expected to lurk all the way back to those threads as well before thinking to post my own?

Suffice to say, I think it's rather unfair that any member should be allowed to claim a monopoly on some topic with their thread for an indefinite amount of time (especially if it's not getting any replies); but that's exactly what seems to happen on AF, as certain members are quick to fire accusations on the lines of plagiarism at a member whose thread exists alongside some other about the same topic, and just as quick to dismiss a long-abandoned, yet nonetheless topically-relevant thread with cheap posts along the lines of, "Who dug this thread up?".

Yeah, WBL was a general attention whoring, thin-skinned idiot, if not a troll; this is not what Eris was implying when she said new member should lurk more. How you managed to infer that is beyond me.

By the way, I'm not defending or condoning WBL Studios' actions (In the first place I don't know the guy or the circumstances that lead to his ban), and he may well have "antagonised" the mods as you seem to be suggesting.

His threads are still up in Site Issues/ Questions. Perhaps a gander over there might bring you up to date on the situation.

However, I fear that the lack of clarity on how much a member ought to lurk before posting their own thread runs the potential risk of trapping many newcomers into unintentionally breaking AF community "rules" (which seem to be ambiguous at best, and elitist at worst); at least, until they've interacted with the community enough to gain some sense as to what is an acceptable level of lurking.

There is no acceptable time amount that could fill such a need because the amount of time to acclimate to a forum differs from person to person. I haven't seen any new members get shooed because they broke the "community rules." Hell, what are the "community rules"? Don't post a thread unless you've looked back a page or two? Don't make another account to post asinine threads with?

You've got a pointless rant that applies to nothing WBL did. He didn't get banned for posting yet another Meyer's Briggs thread. You really should have looked into this before posting. Also, looking into something before posting isn't a "community rule," it's common sense.

[Ωmega]

Question: What is the threshold of lurking enough?

Because I've never found any clear rule on AF as to how much a member should lurk before posting a thread of their own. While I do accept that each thread should have a fair "grace period", and that therefore one should reasonably do some lurking before starting a thread of their own, at the same time, I do think there should be some expiry date with them as well, something which apparently AF doesn't make clear; that and the fact that it keeps well-outdated threads for years at a time. Seriously, am I expected to lurk all the way back to those threads as well before thinking to post my own?

You dont have to lurk, just read the forum rules and understand them, then act accordingly

Suffice to say, I think it's rather unfair that any member should be allowed to claim a monopoly on some topic with their thread for an indefinite amount of time (especially if it's not getting any replies); but that's exactly what seems to happen on AF, as certain members are quick to fire accusations on the lines of plagiarism at a member whose thread exists alongside some other about the same topic, and just as quick to dismiss a long-abandoned, yet nonetheless topically-relevant thread with cheap posts along the lines of, "Who dug this thread up?".
Before starting a thread, I will lurk--sure, but to a point... That point is when some thread with a topic similar the one I'm looking to post (should it exist) has had no replies for over 1 month, or has been outranked by more than 100 posts. You may argue that as non-mod it's not my place to be (self-)imposing such rules, but in my defense, I think it's rather sad that as far as I can see, members are being forced to do what ought to be the job of the mods in the first place.

Threads have an auto-close function. If they arent replied to in a certain amount of time [I believe three months of inactivity] it auto-closes. This is *not* a job for mods to close old, inactive threads. We're only to watch for post counts and close a thread when it reaches a certain post count and close it for a new one to be opened.

By the way, I'm not defending or condoning WBL Studios' actions (In the first place I don't know the guy or the circumstances that lead to his ban), and he may well have "antagonised" the mods as you seem to be suggesting. However, I fear that the lack of clarity on how much a member ought to lurk before posting their own thread runs the potential risk of trapping many newcomers into unintentionally breaking AF community "rules" (which seem to be ambiguous at best, and elitist at worst); at least, until they've interacted with the community enough to gain some sense as to what is an acceptable level of lurking.

This has really nothing to do about lurking. He came in, was fairly decent until he started having a fit about how Kain was "abusing his chat admin powers" and "keeping him from playing blackjack". When the admins went into the chat logs and saw that he was making wild accusations he started creating threads about how Kain abused his powers, was sleeping with a 14 year old member, and how he was being 'cyber bullied'. After being given a 3 day ban he came back much worse with a sock puppet name while posting some pretty explicit stuff before having a full blown meltdown about how Eris and Kain abused their positions, Ace does nothing but let his mods bully poor innocent members like him and went on to suggest that now they were sexually active with horses too over a change to his user title.

A system that can potentially ban an entire family within a household from a forum when only one member was responsible for abusing it? Forgive me, but that doesn't give me any sense that the Internet has evolved at all.

Yes. Its only done in cases like his, when he was creating sock puppets to spam the forums.

[.:neuko:.]

You dont have to lurk, just read the forum rules and understand them, then act accordingly


Threads have an auto-close function. If they arent replied to in a certain amount of time [I believe three months of inactivity] it auto-closes. This is *not* a job for mods to close old, inactive threads. We're only to watch for post counts and close a thread when it reaches a certain post count and close it for a new one to be opened.


This has really nothing to do about lurking. He came in, was fairly decent until he started having a fit about how Kain was "abusing his chat admin powers" and "keeping him from playing blackjack". When the admins went into the chat logs and saw that he was making wild accusations he started creating threads about how Kain abused his powers, was sleeping with a 14 year old member, and how he was being 'cyber bullied'. After being given a 3 day ban he came back much worse with a sock puppet name while posting some pretty explicit stuff before having a full blown meltdown about how Eris and Kain abused their positions, Ace does nothing but let his mods bully poor innocent members like him and went on to suggest that now they were sexually active with horses too over a change to his user title.


Yes. Its only done in cases like his, when he was creating sock puppets to spam the forums.

Now that I come to think of it, I have briefly heard of this WB guy, but most likely before he did the things that got him banned. I remember replying to a post of his, where he was apparently bragging about his winnings on blackjack. Personally, his bragging didn't really bother me (as I had the option to simply leave his thread) but I did post a general word of advice whilst not resorting to making subjective statements of disgust (as some other members did).

Anyway, having read your post (along with Angelic's) I have come to accept that I was... kinda premature in my last post (understatement). Perhaps I ought to have read more of WB's threads and maybe some of his VMs (if any) before posting my opinion in this thread, and for not looking into the case enough I do apologise.

I will say this though: next to Angelic's, your post is a lot more helpful (thankfully). With Angelic's I'm still left wondering how I should conform to AF in order to be accepted by the community; the statements there seem to be quite opinionated and almost personal (about WB, not me). I do try to conform on AF, but I'm sure that I don't always get it "right". At least with your post I have a much clearer idea as to what is "legally" tolerated on AF and (presumably) independent of the social order within the community itself.

In any case, WB's accusation about the "sleeping with a 14 year old" was not a nice thing to hear (and true or not, there was no justification for posting it), and in a parallel world I would have banned him outright for just saying that alone.

So in light of your quote, it is with dignity that I shall admit, mine was rather... out of context. Now I still stand by much of what I said, as I've always been conscious of community perception of relevance when it comes to making threads of my own, or when replying to threads that are on the verge of being auto-closed for fear of the "Who dug this thread up?" remark; and I still can't help wondering that if I were to complain to a mod about this, would I be told that I'm just behaving like a whining baby, or be subject to communal accusations of attention-seeking? But putting that minor concern aside, thanks for taking the time and effort to reply to my post objectively and in a professional manner.

zat ist hao mah-ch ai keahr...ja!

[Kaleohano]

Question: What is the threshold of lurking enough?

Because I've never found any clear rule on AF as to how much a member should lurk before posting a thread of their own. While I do accept that each thread should have a fair "grace period", and that therefore one should reasonably do some lurking before starting a thread of their own, at the same time, I do think there should be some expiry date with them as well, something which apparently AF doesn't make clear; that and the fact that it keeps well-outdated threads for years at a time. Seriously, am I expected to lurk all the way back to those threads as well before thinking to post my own?

Suffice to say, I think it's rather unfair that any member should be allowed to claim a monopoly on some topic with their thread for an indefinite amount of time (especially if it's not getting any replies); but that's exactly what seems to happen on AF, as certain members are quick to fire accusations on the lines of plagiarism at a member whose thread exists alongside some other about the same topic, and just as quick to dismiss a long-abandoned, yet nonetheless topically-relevant thread with cheap posts along the lines of, "Who dug this thread up?".

Before starting a thread, I will lurk--sure, but to a point... That point is when some thread with a topic similar the one I'm looking to post (should it exist) has had no replies for over 1 month, or has been outranked by more than 100 posts. You may argue that as non-mod it's not my place to be (self-)imposing such rules, but in my defense, I think it's rather sad that as far as I can see, members are being forced to do what ought to be the job of the mods in the first place.

By the way, I'm not defending or condoning WBL Studios' actions (In the first place I don't know the guy or the circumstances that lead to his ban), and he may well have "antagonised" the mods as you seem to be suggesting. However, I fear that the lack of clarity on how much a member ought to lurk before posting their own thread runs the potential risk of trapping many newcomers into unintentionally breaking AF community "rules" (which seem to be ambiguous at best, and elitist at worst); at least, until they've interacted with the community enough to gain some sense as to what is an acceptable level of lurking.




A system that can potentially ban an entire family within a household from a forum when only one member was responsible for abusing it? Forgive me, but that doesn't give me any sense that the Internet has evolved at all.

zat ist hao mah-ch ai keahr...ja!

[Eris]

Oh god

[aether]

Well these things happen

[iLXAke4#P#AW^cEtbz%tB6vV]

Somehow I knew this was gonna happen to him.

[Anime Forum]

AF. We have problems: http://www.anime-forums.com/showthre...65#post3522165 Sorry for ads, but IMO this fits.

[GameGeeks]

Seems to be a thing. People join a forum, and don't lurk enough to figure out what's going on. People call them out on it. They get mad and cause trouble. Mods tell them to pipe down. They antagonize the mods. They get temp banned. They create a sockpuppet and *really* break the rules. They get IP banned.

So was this a temp ban then? Or will we potentially have another zombie like VG.

A long, long time ago we used to redirect based on IPs instead of outright IP ban. I wonder how he'd feel if coming here netted him goaste?

Surprised you guys stopped that.

[Eris]

So was this a temp ban then? Or will we potentially have another zombie like VG.

First it was a temp ban, but then he went full retard and got IP banned.

[aether]

First it was a temp ban, but then he went full retard and got IP banned.

I didn't know that the forum had an IP banning system, my how the internet has evolved.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I didn't know that the forum had an IP banning system, my how the internet has evolved.

You mean in the mid-90s?

Oh aether has his head stuck under a stranded island again.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

AF. We have problems: http://www.anime-forums.com/showthre...65#post3522165 Sorry for ads, but IMO this fits.

It was kinda of obvious. It's the next result when searching Anime Forum.

I stopped going there, I would go again but that requires effort.

[Eris]