Ccc

[ABakker]

no, and I agree.

Yet you must ask, do we let the past make our future, or do we take the future into our own hands? I mean this whole situation can be related to World Wars. You don't spend the effort to correct what is wrong, larger conflict comes along later. You must live and forget (to a certain degree). The past cannot be changed, but we must look to the future and stop the atrocities there.

[ABakker]

Like I said, overall, do I like what he does? NO!

But, I want to try to change it, and all the bannings do is perpetuate it making things worse for innocents.

[Skirata]

no, and I agree.

Yet you must ask, do we let the past make our future, or do we take the future into our own hands? I mean this whole situation can be related to World Wars. You don't spend the effort to correct what is wrong, larger conflict comes along later. You must live and forget (to a certain degree). The past cannot be changed, but we must look to the future and stop the atrocities there.

Perhaps this will be the largest conflict in the OTD. Perhaps the decision on CCC could have a profound effect on the rest of heavy spammers on the OTD. Of course there is a possibility what is decided will not deter him but I am not willing to go down without a fight.

[Wildor]

I'd say no, all the way.

CCC is an irritating individual, with the mentality of a lion cub. He's not happy, so he tries to beat up the older lions, who just cuff him aside, which makes him angrier, which makes him try and try again.

If you allow him to remain, I'm fully confident that he will await a point where no mods or reps are online and then start again with his usual song and dance.

Entirely right!

Alex, what your advocating is tantamount to giving your money to the school bully in the hopes it will make him a better person.

[pialpha]

I see it this way:

You can let him stay, and hope he does good, and if not ban him again.

If he stays and becomes a decent member of the community, you win.

If he goes berserk again and is banned, and you have to deal with him the same amount you have to do normally, and you break even.

There is no lose.

[TheEclipse]

is it really so hard to give someone a second chance? i'm going to assume that he never apologized for what he did in the past. taking that into consideration, i don't consider the mods banning him whenever he made a new account a "second chance". when he did make a new account that he DIDN'T use to flame one or more people, he was banned anyways. some people change. maybe ccc did.

[ABakker]

Wildor, that is a horrible analogy. no offence.

Its more like ignore the bully because he acts out for attention, he gets bored and leaves. (he almost wants to be punished)

Every time he is banned, he'll come back and spam the living hell out of everything with horrible remarks.

here, is the basic truth


You can let him stay, and hope he does good, and if not ban him again.

If he stays and becomes a decent member of the community, you win.

You ban him immediately, he goes beserk, and trashes the forums.


Since its impossible to stop him from coming onto the forums with new names, perhaps a different approach from the past 2 months is needed.

[Skirata]

I see it this way:

You can let him stay, and hope he does good, and if not ban him again.

If he stays and becomes a decent member of the community, you win.

If he goes berserk again and is banned, and you have to deal with him the same amount you have to do normally, and you break even.

There is no lose.

But you are bending the rules for ONE individual. That, my friend, is wrong.

[ABakker]

the question is, bend the rules so that an infinte number of rules aren't broken everyday and the mods can do more then ban ccc all day long? Or, enforce the rules to the same degree all the time so that nothing ever progresses.

Look, I'm a person that considers rules more as guidelines then absolute. Its all about a person judgement with how you go about maintaining order.

[pialpha]

But you are bending the rules for ONE individual. That, my friend, is wrong.

That rule has been bent before.