in reply to A New Respect

I was hesitant to reply to this, but I think you deserve a direct indication of how I will respond to various behaviours.

If you don't want me to support you getting permanently banned from PerlMonks, then don't keep doing things which violate clearly stated rules such as inventing new user-names when you are borged and publishing CB logs offsite without permission of those quoted.

If you don't want me to support you getting borged, then don't swear at other monks in the CB. (A part of yesterday's log and something that I've personaly witnessed twice previously and that I see you conveniently omitted from your postings.)

If you don't want me to use the CB to criticize your behaviour, then don't insult and berate newcomers for their lack of knowledge of perl or of PerlMonks and don't publish voluminous put-downs of monks you dislike or ignore.

If you want me to respect you, then do as I have seen you do on many occasions - help people with technical questions, give advice to lovelorn monks, send good wishes to fellow monks in bad health or career binds, share interesting tidbits you've garnered in your studies of world culture, throw a bad pun or bon mot into the conversation at the right time ...

Intrepid, somewhere in there is a guy I like and respect, but if you insist on hiding him, you are the one who will have to live with the consequences.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A New Respect
by ysth (Canon) on Mar 12, 2006 at 03:29 UTC
    don't keep doing things which violate clearly stated rules such as inventing new user-names when you are borged and
    It's not clear to me that there is such a clearly stated rule.
[reply]

      Is that the only criticism you have of his comments? I gave jZed a ++ for them, because I think he summarized the situation very well, and in a reasonably humane fashion.

      There is a clearly stated rule about creating multiple nicks without consulting the powers that be. The rule says that you don't do that. It's pretty bleeping obvious that if one of the gods IMO correctly removed someone's ability to use a site facility for a period of time, and that person then then creates new accounts in order to flout that restriction, then that person has broken a (clearly stated) site rule. Unless, of course, that person also received permission to create new nicks from the same people who banned him.

[reply]
        It's pretty bleeping obvious that if one of the gods IMO correctly removed someone's ability to use a site facility for a period of time, and that person then then creates new accounts in order to flout that restriction, then that person has broken a (clearly stated) site rule.
        This is now a clearly stated site rule: Site Rules Governing User Accounts.
[reply]
        The clear rule is that you can only use one account to vote with, and must notify the gods of (not "receive permission" for) any additional usernames.
[reply]
      I thought you weren't supposed to do it period (ala metaperl)

      -Lee
      "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion