Eugine isn’t your reason for doing something you don’t want to do, Eugine is your excuse for doing something you want to do.
Consitency in enforcing a bannning decions against Eugine is the impetus for the action.
Then I looked at other consequences of the action and I don’t think they are hurtful for the community.
Consitency in enforcing a bannning decions against Eugine is the impetus for the action. Then I looked at other consequences of the action and I don’t think they are hurtful for the community.
By all means, put it up for a vote, propose it to the rest of the community. See if the community agrees with you that the anonymous account should be shut down to avoid these kinds of issues.
Somebody with your attitude has previously killed the anonymous account by changing the password. The community didn’t agree then, and created a new one. Engaging in sabotage of the account’s purpose is no better, and perhaps worse, because it’s far harder to recover from. You don’t get to decide for the community what is and isn’t harmful for the community; you’re not even a leader, much less a king.
There is a difference between a single known account and a free-for-all, however. (I personally care neither way; the implication that ChristianKI knows what is best for the community, and would force his/her views upon everyone else, however, irritates me.)
Somebody with your attitude has previously killed the anonymous account by changing the password.
Actually I did put up the question of deleting the old account up for a vote and myself didn’t change the password. Afterwards someone did change the password.
In a case like that I’m not sabotating the features of the account by using them. There no vote indicating that some of those are supposed to be used while others don’t.
You don’t get to decide for the community what is and isn’t harmful for the community; you’re not even a leader, much less a king.
The question of what’s harmful is a factual one. It’s not a leadership decision. Deciding what to do does happen to be a leadership decision. In the case of deleting posts everybody of the username2 account everybody has the right to do so. That’s how the account is constructed.
If you disagree with a particular post, feel free to vote it down or argue against it. Till now you haven’t provided an argument why you think my position is wrong besides the strawman of it buring the community.
I’ll dryly note that as soon as I started being specific again, you started equivocating again. You’re not worth the time of arguing with.
For the audience, as I no longer have sufficient respect for my opponent to address him directly:
If ChristianKI’s goal is to prevent Eugine Nier from posting/commenting, this solution fails immediately for reasons that are transparent: Eugine can simply create another account.
Assuming my respected opponent has half a brain cell to him, that motive is off the table as an explanation. He’s stated he sees no value in having an anonymous account, and moreover he called for the deletion of the last one; it’s clear his true motive has nothing to do with Eugine Nier. He asserts his own views and values as being objectively true (“The question of what’s harmful is a factual one.”), equivocates when challenged, is disingenuous about his motives, and promotes sabotage of what the community as a whole regards a useful institution.
Given his attitude towards the use of administrative function to “improve the community” without regard for long-term consequences or precedent, personally I think it would be poetically appropriate to ban him, but I fear that I do, in fact, care about long-term consequences and precedent, so cannot actually advocate that course of action.
So I suggest anybody so inclined to, instead, laugh quietly to themselves over this self-important blowhard. Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my stating that, particularly in that context, so I encourage everybody to laugh at me, as well, because this entire post, and the response to it, is eminently farcical, and deserves to be laughed at.
Consitency in enforcing a bannning decions against Eugine is the impetus for the action. Then I looked at other consequences of the action and I don’t think they are hurtful for the community.
By all means, put it up for a vote, propose it to the rest of the community. See if the community agrees with you that the anonymous account should be shut down to avoid these kinds of issues.
Somebody with your attitude has previously killed the anonymous account by changing the password. The community didn’t agree then, and created a new one. Engaging in sabotage of the account’s purpose is no better, and perhaps worse, because it’s far harder to recover from. You don’t get to decide for the community what is and isn’t harmful for the community; you’re not even a leader, much less a king.
You cannot “shut down” anonymous accounts while maintaining open registration of new accounts.
Anyone can create a new account and make its password be known.
There is a difference between a single known account and a free-for-all, however. (I personally care neither way; the implication that ChristianKI knows what is best for the community, and would force his/her views upon everyone else, however, irritates me.)
Actually I did put up the question of deleting the old account up for a vote and myself didn’t change the password. Afterwards someone did change the password.
In a case like that I’m not sabotating the features of the account by using them. There no vote indicating that some of those are supposed to be used while others don’t.
The question of what’s harmful is a factual one. It’s not a leadership decision. Deciding what to do does happen to be a leadership decision. In the case of deleting posts everybody of the username2 account everybody has the right to do so. That’s how the account is constructed.
If you disagree with a particular post, feel free to vote it down or argue against it. Till now you haven’t provided an argument why you think my position is wrong besides the strawman of it buring the community.
I’ll dryly note that as soon as I started being specific again, you started equivocating again. You’re not worth the time of arguing with.
For the audience, as I no longer have sufficient respect for my opponent to address him directly:
If ChristianKI’s goal is to prevent Eugine Nier from posting/commenting, this solution fails immediately for reasons that are transparent: Eugine can simply create another account.
Assuming my respected opponent has half a brain cell to him, that motive is off the table as an explanation. He’s stated he sees no value in having an anonymous account, and moreover he called for the deletion of the last one; it’s clear his true motive has nothing to do with Eugine Nier. He asserts his own views and values as being objectively true (“The question of what’s harmful is a factual one.”), equivocates when challenged, is disingenuous about his motives, and promotes sabotage of what the community as a whole regards a useful institution.
Given his attitude towards the use of administrative function to “improve the community” without regard for long-term consequences or precedent, personally I think it would be poetically appropriate to ban him, but I fear that I do, in fact, care about long-term consequences and precedent, so cannot actually advocate that course of action.
So I suggest anybody so inclined to, instead, laugh quietly to themselves over this self-important blowhard. Yes, I’m aware of the irony of my stating that, particularly in that context, so I encourage everybody to laugh at me, as well, because this entire post, and the response to it, is eminently farcical, and deserves to be laughed at.