• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shill amnesty

Started by Architecht,

150 posts in this topic

  • Administrator
Architecht

Architecht

Posted
  • Author
  • Administrator
Posted
BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room. screwy.gif

 

Makes an interesting point, doesn't it?

So, direct question:

Is Wertham your shill?

If it is, then its a tad bit of hypocracy to allow it to continue working.

Also, the custom title is a bit over the top for Wertham as I interpret it to be making fun of the shill situation and not at all becoming of one who moderates this board.

 

No. It's not my shill. I could out him, but I think part of what's funny about it is the sort of anonymous one-trick nature of the shill. The impact of pulling back the curtain would be zero except that he wouldn't be quite as amusing anymore.

 

It'd be kind of like pulling the beard off of the mall Santa in front of the kids. I thought about killing off Wertham as part of this but it seemed like there ought to be room for some humor on the boards. So then I thought about trying to allow some definition of a joke shill, but I realized what a pain that would be to try and determine what's nice-funny and what's mean-funny.

 

I am not bothered by the logical inconsistency of allowing that one shill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nik

nik

Posted
Posted

2. The creator is making an attempt to disguise their identity. This is generally a good indication of a person who wants to be able to post things anonymously to pursue whatever their hidden agenda is. Not acceptable.

 

 

This rule is pretty cut and dry, whether the shill is harmless or not. Either apply it to all or none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arexcrooke

arexcrooke

Posted
Posted
2. The creator is making an attempt to disguise their identity. This is generally a good indication of a person who wants to be able to post things anonymously to pursue whatever their hidden agenda is. Not acceptable.

 

 

This rule is pretty cut and dry, whether the shill is harmless or not. Either apply it to all or none.

Cant agree with you more Nik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted
2. The creator is making an attempt to disguise their identity. This is generally a good indication of a person who wants to be able to post things anonymously to pursue whatever their hidden agenda is. Not acceptable.

 

 

This rule is pretty cut and dry, whether the shill is harmless or not. Either apply it to all or none.

 

Arch once posted a very long piece that is worth reading about applying rules regarding Board behaviour, shills and trolling too tightly and too loosely, and that in the end, both scenarios were flawed. I agree with Arch in this instance, as there is no hidden agenda with Wertham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arexcrooke

arexcrooke

Posted
Posted
2. The creator is making an attempt to disguise their identity. This is generally a good indication of a person who wants to be able to post things anonymously to pursue whatever their hidden agenda is. Not acceptable.

 

 

This rule is pretty cut and dry, whether the shill is harmless or not. Either apply it to all or none.

 

Arch once posted a very long piece that is worth reading about applying rules regarding Board behaviour, shills and trolling too tightly and too loosely, and that in the end, both scenarios were flawed. I agree with Arch in this instance, as there is no hidden agenda with Wertham.

Sorry, but the nature of a shill is a hidden agenda Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nik

nik

Posted
Posted

I'm just rereading the rules that were laid out, irregardless of Wertham being a harmless shill or not.

 

 

He is funny I'll give you that, but if your goal is to stop people using shills whether to attack others, or be amusing, there should be no loopholes.

 

 

You know this whole day was freaky from the get go, and its their boards and their rules so they can do whatever they want, its not worth debating about it anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted

I've been lurking every so often and didn't plan to post but couldn't let this topic slide without input...

 

2. The creator is making an attempt to disguise their identity. This is generally a good indication of a person who wants to be able to post things anonymously to pursue whatever their hidden agenda is. Not acceptable.

 

 

This rule is pretty cut and dry, whether the shill is harmless or not. Either apply it to all or none.

 

Arch once posted a very long piece that is worth reading about applying rules regarding Board behaviour, shills and trolling too tightly and too loosely, and that in the end, both scenarios were flawed. I agree with Arch in this instance, as there is no hidden agenda with Wertham.

 

It's a hypocritical policy regardless. What if some here aren't amused by Wertham and find the posts disrupting? You can't have a policy and decide it applies to everyone but a select few because someone is humored by it.

 

This same discussion happened almost a year ago, with some shills deemed appropriate and I didn't agree with it then either, and look where this Forum is today. I haven't posted much and don't intend to in the near future due to the current state of this Board and as you've already realized there are quite a few others who are doing the same.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted
I've been lurking every so often and didn't plan to post but couldn't let this topic slide without input...

 

2. The creator is making an attempt to disguise their identity. This is generally a good indication of a person who wants to be able to post things anonymously to pursue whatever their hidden agenda is. Not acceptable.

 

 

This rule is pretty cut and dry, whether the shill is harmless or not. Either apply it to all or none.

 

Arch once posted a very long piece that is worth reading about applying rules regarding Board behaviour, shills and trolling too tightly and too loosely, and that in the end, both scenarios were flawed. I agree with Arch in this instance, as there is no hidden agenda with Wertham.

 

It's a hypocritical policy regardless. What if some here aren't amused by Wertham and find the posts disrupting? You can't have a policy and decide it applies to everyone but a select few because someone is humored by it.

 

This same discussion happened almost a year ago, with some shills deemed appropriate and I didn't agree with it then either, and look where this Forum is today. I haven't posted much and don't intend to in the near future due to the current state of this Board and as you've already realized there are quite a few others who are doing the same.

 

Jim

 

frustrated.gif Dammit. I'm fed up with defending Wertham as I only saw him as the exception to the rule, and I mean the only exception. I didn't think he'd become a cause celebre. I didn't find him disruptive (he posts too infrequently and too concisely for that, IMO), or malicious and only thought of him as comic relief. No-one has complained about him except in the context of today's events and this specific thread.

 

If it means that serial shillers/trolls and banned members using shills get thrown out permanently, and I do mean permanently, thus improving the board vibe and therefore resulting in members such as yourself returning to the fold, then fine. Sacrifice Wertham for consistency's sake and the common good.

 

He was the only shill I didn't consider to be petty or irritating, and as someone who finds shilling for trolling purposes the bane of these boards, then it'd be worth it to put down Werthy.

 

And with that, I'm outa here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marty B

Marty B

Posted
Posted

Hey,

 

There is a simple solution. Get rid of the nicknames ...

 

I don't mind if anyone knows my name. I an't said anything on these boards that I am ashamed to attach my name.

 

Martin 'Uberman X' Boruta

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvers24

Silvers24

Posted
Posted
Hey,

 

There is a simple solution. Get rid of the nicknames ...

 

I don't mind if anyone knows my name. I an't said anything on these boards that I am ashamed to attach my name.

 

Martin 'Uberman X' Boruta

People have a fix to call me Butters, so I can't do *spoon* about that. 27_laughing.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted
BTW Arch, no one is going to post their shill accounts in this thread. You do know why people create shills, right? It would be like asking all the people in an AA meeting that would like to remain anonymous to write their full names on a piece of paper that's being passed around the room. screwy.gif

 

Makes an interesting point, doesn't it?

So, direct question:

Is Wertham your shill?

If it is, then its a tad bit of hypocracy to allow it to continue working.

Also, the custom title is a bit over the top for Wertham as I interpret it to be making fun of the shill situation and not at all becoming of one who moderates this board.

 

Wertham was created a long time ago before this shill problem became a "situation" - the character was purely there for satirizing threads, and not to troll anyone, or demean these boards. To ban something as innocuous as him would be unnecessarily draconian.

 

Ditto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deathlok

deathlok

Posted
Posted
Exactly.

 

[frustration on]

BTW Arch, sterlingcomics is my shill. Kill em all. I don't care. This board has seriously degraded in quality posts...include me if you must. I came here looking for comics discussion and all I'm getting is rants and raves on board policy.

[frustration off]

 

I agree Sterling. I pointed this out to Arch, that he has become too hands on, and is basically destroying the boards. His repsonse was that many people thought what he was doing was a good thing.

 

The same thing I told him years about the behavior in the Water Cooler, and why he continues to allow certain individuals to continue to only post in the WC. They contribute very little if anything to the purpose of the boards.

 

I also say that shills should be banned, Wertham included, in order to make the policy apply acorss the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing