In reply to:
Thank you for clarifying this point. Your previous post gave the impression that the thread dated from before b_mardle's banning.
My mistake, then.
Regarding Ohro, I'm not the person qualified to make any decisions on her regard. Of course I can talk about this with her but since we're if equal status I can't force her to do or not do something.
Regarding my rather heated post about Dogz... first of all, I wasn't being serious about banning people. I realise people might take it literally but that was not my intention, and I believe the points I made later against banning Dogz also gave a hint to that direction.
I feel that Dogz is being made into scapegoat here. TW isn't as active as it has been, we've lost some good posters and there aren't many new ones coming in, and people need to blame this on someone... so they pick the most obvious target, the mass-posting guy who seemingly isn't as intelligent as the majority of posters*. So people start bullying the weak, doing their best to have him ejected because they think this will solve all the problems. And of course it won't.
I realise that the best counter-argument to this is saying that Dogz has caused a lot of posters to leave. But I ask you, in the name of all honesty, is he really that annoying that all by himself he has caused a mass exodus from TW? Or is his presece just a contributing factor (and in some cases the straw that breaks the camel's back)?
For the record, I'm not saying that you shouldn't dislike Dogz, and that even if you do you should behave nice to him. But you should stop talking about him all the time, because that accomplishes absolutely nothing except hasten the decay of these boards.
* = Before I get another angry PM: I'm not saying Dogz is stupid, just that he does sometimes comes across as such. And that he perhaps is percieved to be stupid by a number of posters. Hence making him an easy target.
In reply to:
All posters who were ever banned were banned because they pissed somebody off.
If we get into this conversation, I'll lose. I know it. Never the less I'll adress your points and then watch you shoot them down.
b_mardle: He was annoying people, yes, but by trying to steal their passwords he also could have locked out people from TW, if a poster had an e-mail adress that is no longer active listed on the fan registry (as was my case for a while). In this case they would have never recieved the new password and hence could no longer access their account.
Altoid, Tumble 'n' Twirl and all the other one-liners: The difference between these and Dogz is that Dogz sometimes actually contributes something to the site. Unlike a poster whose all posts just say "That's Fantastic!".
Dogz: As has been stated several times on this thread, before his first ban he was hostile towards other users and really flooding the whole forum. Although he still posts more than an average (active) poster, he's nowhere near the numbers he was in before his ban. Personally I don't think he posted too much even before his recent restriction. That said I don't read everything that goes on Coffee Shop so a lot of his posts might pass me by and hence I admit I'm not the person to judge his conduct in that forum.
With Alex I could not say because what took place with him happened before my time (or when I was absent otherwise).
The final point stands however: Dogz contributes something to the site, at least the Bowie Talk section. To the best of my knowledge the other posters who have been banned either did not or (in the case of Billy Mardle) were actually trying to harm other posters in some way.
This post is far too long. But to wrap things up: people are not being fair on Dogz. He certainly isn't the best poster on these boards, but for all his flaws he certainly does not deserve to be banned, for the reasons outlined above.
"Are we making any progress?"
"None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting."