RFC: Permanently Ban Churchill

Insulting your family and your parenting … Mocking other posters kids

UP hyperbole in full effect :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

2 Likes

He’s done this once. He’s been trolling the thread for like a year and he’s been banned/silenced 20 times over it. How many times should one poster get to cross the line warranting a ban before enough is enough. If you agree it’s not a okay then what, exactly? Obviously he’s not responding to the moderation in a constructive manner.

What MUDs did you play? They were really fun imo.

1 Like

Do you think that’s one of the 5 most deserving of a permaban posts in the history of UP?

I think a lot of his previous bans were borderline. And may have been specifically designed to create this scenario where evidence has been “built.”

2 Likes

I think his lifetime behavior is in that range, top 5 most worthy of a ban, yes. Not counting spammers, and with the caveat that if somebody names 5 or 6 worse and he’s actually #7 in my mind, that’s not some gotcha.

The idea that one post must cross the line so egregiously on it’s own and that track record doesn’t play in just sets us up to get trolled forever right up to the line.

That may not be his worst post, iirc he had a horrible one at superuberbob once too that may be even worse.

1 Like

He has a contrarian opinion that he posts in a snarky way. If you remove the contrarian part that describes a common posting style seen here and everywhere.

2 Likes

I don’t think that’s an accurate description of his behavior or his motives.

3 Likes

So is it just the kids that are off limits or mocking the health of anyone? Because again, you literally have a thread about mocking the deaths of right wingers so I know certain factors are allowed here.

So. Theres been a number of similar comments about riverman being transphobic. Often as a hit and run incidental to the main conversation, so I’ve never picked them up.

I was right in the thick of that thread, and called him out at the time, but I dont think it’s fair or helpful to attack RM like that months later for a couple of comments on an issue that lots of people have gotten very wrong.

It feels much more like weaponizing to score points rather than as a legitimate discussion of transphobia with an acquaintance.

1 Like

I mean I think poster’s families should be off limits for negative attacks/mocking unless it’s in a joking/friendly manner.

Famous people are different, politicians are different, and if you referring to anti-vaxxers in news coverage I think that’s different too. But if someone posted that their anti-vaxx relative died then I’d say that should be off limits.

1 Like

I’d agree with that. If Churchill came hard after Ike’s kid then I’d agree that he’s a problem. I guess that I will take your word for it that those posts exist and that it isn’t because he is was just disliked for other reasons.

I would say he posts some stuff that is contrarian, snarky, and acceptable, but he also posts some stuff that comes across as trolling and he gets temp-banned by mods because of the latter, which the record suggests he does more than anyone else.

For the “Churchill is persecuted” crowd, here’s a relatively recent post:

Informative and on topic. It received zero trolling from anyone and no moderation.

He even follows it up with obvious bullshit and receives zero abuse:

But when he spreads misinformation and fires shots about American tests being faulty and can’t back up his own claims, yes, of course he draws heat:

The above was basically the last time churchill did anything in the covid thread other than pop in guns blazing.

IIRC, at the moment, this is an RFC just like any other w/ the same process as passing any rule. We haven’t approved any separate process for permabans, have we?

I lost a ton of time in my teen years to Vampire Wars. (I also credit it for helping me learn a shitton about programming when they released their source code)

Seems fine to me.

This is exactly correct. What’s more, if everyone who can’t resist getting baited into endless battles with Churchill would just ignore him, he would probably actually post better.

1 Like

I voted no. I’ve only had limited exposure to him and based on posts itt he seems to troll a little but imo not worthy of a permanent ban.

It’s odd Sabo gets brought up in every one of these discussions. I guess he makes a useful yardstick given he was 100% troll having never made a single good faith post in his time here. I think permanent bans should be reserved for his level of trash posting.

1 Like

I’m grunching here but who don’t people just mute Churchill if he bothers them so much?

3 Likes

Yes please.

389mdw