Au contraire. There are Rules and they are implemented. That's mainly why threads get removed, edited, etc (either because in themselves they break the rules or they're deleted to prevent the thread degenerating further). I wonder with regret how much of your post is honest frustration and how much is a pointed effort to 'stir things up'?

To make a comment (opinion), I do have a idea who you're talking about as you started this thread; as you've mentioned him vendetta style in multiple threads. I can't help but think this if mentioned at all should be kept off the board via PMs toward the powers that be and also (believing I know whom you're talking about) I haven't seen ANY posts from this screenname any more objectionable than posts a massive list of other GC'ers might (and do) make. But you do not bay for their blood nor call for action against other current users who have perhaps been banned (I can think of a few) :(.
I see many posts which are questionable... by many users. Often those users complain vehemently at other users for their posts; it does make me think 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

As John Hammell once said, re the site rules 'The site rules are not that difficult to understand, and we don't even enforce some of the rules strictly since this is a site for adults which is taken into consideration'. Contrary to what some people think the members (as opposed to moderators/administrators) do not call all the shots and John is not "at their mercy". :rolleyes:
There are bans by username, email address, even IP address/range. Each has advantages & disadvantages. There are even add-ons (hacks) for the bulletin board software which will add a member to everyone's ignore list so s/he'll post away invisible to all others except him/her plus admins and mods and no one will see him/her. To the best of my knowledge, this forum doesn't use an add-on code hacks but even without those there's a lot that can be done. So... don't push the powers that be too much, they might just have an arsenal at their disposal. :)

As an aside (purely in interests of debate), in the case of genuine trolls (which I wouldn't really say this person is). Some forums do this - First time: they ban 'em. Second Time: They mass delete their posts. They'll get a simple email explaining that, while it may have taken them several hours to generate their 96 posts, it took the system 30 seconds to delete every word they ever typed. This tends to take the wind out of their sails. This conveys to the problem member that dealing with trolls is a simple exercise in the normal admin duties.

In the ChitChat forum the Rules on the first page do suggest putting someone on ignore whom you dislike. I still think this is the best idea. I have one or two people on ignore myself. Think back to when you'd "Ring and Run" on someone's door. If no one came to the door, you wouldn't hit that house again. But when someone came to the door and started screaming at you.... well, 'Hey, that was fun, let's do it again' ?

That'll be the Rules being implemented. ;)

holy cow...someone ban this clown ASAP.

hell has officially frozen over. I agree 100% with Rudey on something :)

Rudey...
 

best. post. ever. :D

Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me?

I don't think there's any need to be nasty GeekyPenguin :(

Not only am I lost, but I am miles from the next exit...

I have no idea what any of y'all are talking about. I will just be happy in my ignorant bliss :)

is that like Cliffs Notes?

I presumed that was what she meant in her uncalled for attack, yes mu_agd.

Wow!

Kath, I just have to give you props for the most non-insulting attack ever.

She was just saying you are long-winded :confused:

if that's an attack, i'd hate to see what other things that are said that are much more nasty would be called......

CHAPTER ONE: "the erudition"

Richard sucks up, by making the most salient point possible: there are, in fact, rules to the site! and they're even enforced!!! Never mind that this ignores the actual point; strawmanning has always been an effective way of throwing an argument.

CHAPTER TWO: "the sermon"

Richard proceeds to ask Rudey to keep the dirty laundry behind closed doors - which is exactly the opposite of how a mature community handles things - and then accuses the vast majority of members of being hypocritical in their attacks on certain posters, using a tired cliche and setting the irony meter into the red zone.

CHAPTER THREE: "the false prophet"

We then move into the "solutions that wouldn't really work" portion of the presentation. Here he discusses things that work at other sites, but doesn't apply them to the situation at hand (which, in Richard's defense, was never made clear for the masses).

----

Hope that helps - and can we please stop speaking in generalities, and just address the topic at hand? That'd be sweet.

thanks for the link, Lady Pi Phi. I hadn't heard of those before.

and wait, how was that an attack?

eta: thanks ksig rc! definitely saved some reading time...

Cluey, she could've asked me via PM for me to clarify or even posted in the thread asking me about it. I would have very happily responded.
But to post a message "Can somebody do a SparkNotes on decadence's post for me? " which suggests my postings = impenetrable without being "translated" :confused: is rude and personally insulting.:( :(