Making an example of "Dumb"

[Richard Tanner]

Of late a poster by the name of "Dumb" has imerged (and by of late I mean like this morning), and of the three posts of his I have seen (2 politics and 1 here) he has been almost unilaterally told off by the posting public.
So I pose the question to OOT, what is to become of Dumb. His posts thus far have added little to the collective "worth" of either forum, and yet I was one of those saying that no one should face reprisal on these forums due only to taste (i.e. I don't feel he's useful but others might).
So I ask again, what is to be done. Is he to be banned for bad posting or is he allowed to continue, even though it would seem that he is unwanted, or at very least, his opinions unvalued.
Personally I don't care either way, but his emergence presented itself as a good way for me to get a litmus test of the general OOT public and their feelings in situations like this one.

Lastly, I know I'm breaking a rule in posting about another poster, but I ask that this be overlooked in this case in favor of the usefulness of my post.

Cody

[MMMMMM]

I just went and read all ten or so of dumb's posts.

My take is that he sounds plenty dumb, all right, but he actually manages to make some decent points. I think posters may have been a bit too quick to jump on him.

If dumb sticks around for a while, maybe I can learn something from him.

[Richard Tanner]

I would tend to agree (although in the interest of full disclosure I should say that I made a joke in his other thread). So we'll put you in the "give him more time" column. Thank you for the input

Cody

[sublime]

he seems ok from what i have seen. probably likes to think a litte different from others, and isnt mature enough to get his points across without looking silly yet.

[Richard Tanner]

Good point, from the brevity of his posts I got a little of this feeling away. Thanks.

Cody

[RacersEdge]

I would say his post in this forum was more interesting than this thread.

[Richard Tanner]

Interest wasn't my purpose, this thread was completly self centered, as I said it was to be a litmus test that I was interested in. I'm sorry if you aren't curious about the same things I am, and thus can't get anything out of this. I'm sorry also to waste your time, but even in your response I can find something of interest to myself.

Cody

[Brainwalter]

Who the [censored] do you think you are?

[Richard Tanner]

Haha easy. As I said in the original post, I don't care either way, but in his early posts it seemed as if people were either using the Taco Bell tatic (including me after a second in a Politics thread) or calling his arguments stupid and the like. Now usually posters like this are simarliy banned, as per [cens] new clean up OOT plan, but I was always aganist said plan, so I was curious as to the general feeling of the forum on it for my own knowledge.

Cody

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
7.Threads about others posters are almost universally stupid. Especially nasty threads. Unless you are 100% sure that is it a good or funny story or something similar don't do this.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, I know I'm breaking a rule in posting about another poster, but I ask that this be overlooked in this case in favor of the usefulness of my post.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.Threads about others posters are almost universally stupid. Especially nasty threads. Unless you are 100% sure that is it a good or funny story or something similar don't do this.




[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you don't get any usefullness out of this, I apologize for wasting your time, it wasn't my intent. I, however, am getting something from it.

Cody

[daryn]

Of late a poster by the name of "Dumb" has imerged

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Of late a poster by the name of "Dumb" has imerged

[/ QUOTE ]


Is that an IPod term? If not maybe it should be.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, I know I'm breaking a rule in posting about another poster, but I ask that this be overlooked in this case in favor of the usefulness of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[LBJ]

Is the idea that one bad post or one post that breaks your rules gets a person banned, or have you been looking over Richard Tanner's posts in the last couple weeks and thought he has sucked? Just wondering.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the idea that one bad post or one post that breaks your rules gets a person banned, or have you been looking over Richard Tanner's posts in the last couple weeks and thought he has sucked? Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is some give and take involved. If a poster is otherwise very strong then I'm going to be much more leniant when it comes to breaking a specific rule. But if all a poster can do is manage not to suck but isn't otherwise a standout then that will probably not be the case.

In this case it was a clear and willful violation of the rules by a poster who at best is so so.

I hope this answered your question in this specific case as well as in general.

[LBJ]

Gotcha.