OK, I'm done here.

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by phlogistician, Nov 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    My thread asking for some light to be shed on the allegation of sock puppetry by seagypsy got cesspooled and closed, without the slightest attempt at justification. I'll leave the mods to eat their own entrails, because that's the way this site will end up, a site populated largely by spiteful mods.

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Plazma banned seagypsy while the situation was still being discussed in the modforum.
    Evidently, he made up his mind about her. Most likely (my impression) because she had said that she could talk to a hacker she knows in order to have this forum hacked. That's a threat to the forum as a whole.
    If she did say that, and I assume she indeed did (like I said, I haven't followed this closely except for in the modforum), then I agree with his decision for that reason alone.
    The sock puppet allegation can't be proven, imo, although suspicion is high, unless there is intell that I'm unaware of (which is not unthinkable).
    'Trying to hack the forum' is, as far as I can establish, untrue where her browser modification is concerned. But this could be about the hacker she said she could talk to.

    This is about all I know of this, and I'm certain I don't know everything there is to know, apart from that, in my opinion, seagypsy was being a paranoid and insufferable.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Any mod should be able to prove use of a sockpuppet, Enmos, if the site is set up properly.
    The problem is, of course, that it would be terribly difficult to stop. Sort of like trying to stamp out terrorism and US republicans.

    .. and US liberals.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    which is probably exactly what she will do now.
  8. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Oh, hang on. I forgot something.

    "No, wait please don't go, we need you....."

    Is that what you wanted?
  9. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Well I'll be....
    Thanks Enmos. You did look into it. I didn't here anything as specific as she knew a good hacker. But being a sock puppet I don't buy it. Her IP was maybe similar to Neverfly. They were married. But thanks again for your post here.

    So Phlo you really done? You leaving sci?
  10. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Roll the dice.

    ... Actually, no. dice is far too random.

    It's a poker game. And he's bluffing.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, she didn't. She said that she could set up her browser so it would not display posts from certain people. It's a common browser change; google "killfiles."
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Hi enmos. Thanks for showing some interest in fair play.

    The problem seems to be that certain 'mindsets' may have (expediently?...or for some other reasons which may be unclear/confused as yet) misread what seagypsy posted. This may have been incorrectly interpreted as a threat rather than her explanation of why her intents overall were NOT as they were being mischaracterized/feared by Kittamaru and others because of their own misreading/paranoia getting the better of them.

    The obvious lack of due diligence since then by (seemingly all) those who should have done it before any precipitate action was taken, only served to turn this into another farce where the victim is behind the eightball because of some mods'/admins' negligence/laziness and cavalier attitude to 'due diligence' before taking the word of other mods and/or acting on 'impressions' (rather than the easily ascertainable facts) to drive their 'ban response' trigger finger. To wit:

    Here is what gypsy actually posted in reply to Kittamaru's and others' seeming paranoia based apparently on their own (since admitted, kudos to them) ill-informed ideas about what gypsy was doing with her browser...

    See? Any reasonably unbiased reader of that post, and especially those portions I bolded/italicized will read her as saying she has NO intention of doing any such thing; NOR did she have any respect for the those who would, for any reason; nor did she intend to mention anything to same which would make them act against our site or any other site, not only because of her obvious scruples as stated, but also because it was not worth the aggro/consequences.

    So, in the light of the facts (as opposed to all the false impressions and innuendoes and lack of due diligence before acting), can the above fair reading and facts be brought to the immediate and urgent notice of whoever was responsible for the decision/action to ban her?

    Just want to see justice being done instead of just being presumed to be done, especially when the admin/mod response "behind the scenes" may not be entirely in line with the facts "in open forum" so far.

    MOTION: Unless there is something else "in evidence behind the scenes" that has a bearing on the matter but which has not yet come to light, I move that the ban on seagypsy be lifted forthwith without any stain on her character (again, unless further justification for her banning can be produced which does not depend on the currently incorrect interpretation of the foregoing facts for that justification).

    In the interests of this site's reputation, fair play and good will. Thanks.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat — Closure and redirect

    Mod Hat — Closure and redirect

    Phlogistician has been permanently banned for solicitation. As his complaint in this thread ignores the note on the thread's closure regarding solicitation for other websites, there really isn't any point to continuing this exercise in sour whine.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page