Discipline poll for smellslikefishes

[ggiese]

In honor of smellslikefishes most recent bout of asshatedness, it seems to be the prevailing opinion with a significant portion of the Cigarsmokers community that he be subjected to some form of discipline. I offer this discipline poll as a means of bringing our errant brother back on the track to successful membership as I'm not inclined to see him outright banned (he is, after all, a very solid contributor to this community).

Therefore - I ask our membership to carefully consider the choices in our discipline poll and choose wisely. It is in Mr. fishes best interest...

Thanks!

[badwhale]

Lmao! Does he have to write the essay on his Droid? That would suck to read.

Will

[ggiese]

Lmao! Does he have to write the essay on his Droid? That would suck to read.

Will

Sucks even worse for him!!! LOL

[mrtr33]

I don't understand this thread. If we're going to discuss disciplinary action on ilikefishes for this post, then let's vote on that. I don't see the point in discussing disciplinary actions that can't realistically be carried out.

It seems to me that this post clearly defines the steps required pursuant to the issue at hand. Are we going to discuss taking action on this, or let it slide?

[badwhale]

I don't understand this thread. If we're going to discuss disciplinary action on ilikefishes for this post, then let's vote on that. I don't see the point in discussing disciplinary actions that can't realistically be carried out.

It seems to me that this post clearly defines the steps required pursuant to the issue at hand. Are we going to discuss taking action on this, or let it slide?

This thread is for fun. A ban poll for ilikefishes has to be started by a mod, who reviews the reported thread / post.

Will

[ashauler]

snip...

It seems to me that this post clearly defines the steps required pursuant to the issue at hand. Are we going to discuss taking action on this, or let it slide?

Ok, I understand your point, however, in the linked post it says "subject to banning". It could be argued that the specific transgressions in the post could lead to insta-ban by mod or admin, not to polling of the membership.

To my recollection, not everyone that is in the banned list got there via poll.

[badwhale]

Ok, I understand your point, however, in the linked post it says "subject to banning". It could be argued that the specific transgressions in the post could lead to insta-ban by mod or admin, not to polling of the membership.

To my recollection, not everyone that is in the banned list got there via poll.

The only thing that reads insta-ban in the rules to me, is duplicate accounts. Maybe I'm missing something. However, I recall spammers getting insta-banned too, and rightfully so.

too bad tittie-twister wasn't on the above list.

[mrtr33]

Ok, I understand your point, however, in the linked post it says "subject to banning". It could be argued that the specific transgressions in the post could lead to insta-ban by mod or admin, not to polling of the membership.

To my recollection, not everyone that is in the banned list got there via poll.

Agreed. I can think of several instances of both insta-bans and poll bans.

Thought about it, still think my point is valid, but might need some clarifications. There has been an outline defined for this "issue". The "issue" referred to, is meant to imply appropriate disciplinary action towards ilikefishes, not so much the actions ilikefishes has made.

Should any member wish to file such a complaint about the offensive remarks made in the first post that was linked, then it's the duty of those in authority to step in and carry out the actions described in the above linked post. I am not aware if this has been done or not.

Anything other than that is not just feeding a troll, it's pushing his chair up to the fucking buffet.

[cigarsarge]

All the above..

[ashauler]

Agreed. I can think of several instances of both insta-bans and poll bans.

Thought about it, still think my point is valid, but might need some clarifications. There has been an outline defined for this "issue". The "issue" referred to, is meant to imply appropriate disciplinary action towards ilikefishes, not so much the actions ilikefishes has made.

Should any member wish to file such a complaint about the offensive remarks made in the first post that was linked, then it's the duty of those in authority to step in and carry out the actions described in the above linked post. I am not aware if this has been done or not.

Anything other than that is not just feeding a troll, it's pushing his chair up to the fucking buffet.

If you want a poll, report the objectionable post and request it. I'm sure it would shortly follow.

Imho, he hasn't stolen from anyone, posted any physical threats to other members, made racial or religous or any derogatory comment (other than the fag thing...and calling george a name) that approaches a ban worthy offense to me.

He certainly portrays the arrogant, yet virtually clueless, asshole very well, but that ain't against the rules........I hope.

[Paddy]

Sound like anyone we know?

Shit Bird

A completely useless individual who is unaware of his/her own complete uselessness.

Shit Bird

Your above average asshole that usually will do things to piss you off or screw you up so they may further their own perceived wellness. Often also does things not knowing how much they are a screw up but again generally fucks you over.

[ggiese]

The only thing that reads insta-ban in the rules to me, is duplicate accounts. Maybe I'm missing something. However, I recall spammers getting insta-banned too, and rightfully so.

too bad tittie-twister wasn't on the above list.

Ooohhhh... Sorry, Will - totally forgot about tittie-twister.

But - we could ad a bit of that to his swirlie punishment.

[ggiese]

<snip> I don't see the point in discussing disciplinary actions that can't realistically be carried out.<snip>

You can do ANYTHING if you set your mind to it...

[ggiese]

C'mon folks - there's still 6 days left to this poll and there's some very close voting!!!

[ggiese]

<snip> I don't see the point in discussing disciplinary actions that can't realistically be carried out.<snip>

BTW - after giving this some careful thought, I'm thinking this might not be as difficult as it intuitively seems. So - for example - let's say that we decide smellslikefishes deserves a blue raspberry and chocolate swirlie in the woman's restroom. I'm thinking off the top of my head - let's just say the next time smells attends a cigar trade show there was a trail of premium cigars leading into the woman's john - just how long do you think it would take to get him in there?

...I'm just sayin'

[Devil Doc]

Hey George, why don't you drop on over to CP and welcome the little nimrod.

Doc.

[ggiese]

Hey George, why don't you drop on over to CP and welcome the little nimrod.

Doc.

Doc - he'll make himself very apparent to the community in no time at all...

I do believe, though, that he's confused CP for Puff. After all - he's believing he's entitled to his opinion without "judgement".