The rules that JWL breaks frequently are:

# You are to behave polite and friendly here (just adding a lot of smilies is not enough). Use netiquette.
# When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike.
# We promote one of the most difficult "martial arts": BYT - Bite Your Tongue. It is easy to snap back at someone, but much more effective to rise above them.
# If what you have to say is not constructive and positive, then there are many other places on the 'Net for you to post it. Or you BYT.

The rule he's broken at least once is:

Post your own original words and don't forward text you can easily link to. Make a web page and link to that in your post if you need to repeat something - or if what you feel you must say is not suited for OCMB.


The proof's in the pudding. He's said more than once that he's only here to annoy, distract, and generally tick off everyone on the board. The relevant quotes are:



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199738



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199700



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199645



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199637



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199636



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199623



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199550



http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... ht=#199503


AND THAT WAS JUST FROM TODAY.


In dredging through this person's posts stretching back to DECEMBER 2005, I found not ONE of value or interest; all that JWL seems to be interested in is entertaining himself, annoying others, and generally acting like a troll. He has claimed on all three distinct usernames (Ender, JWL, and OSA Goon) that each one is his sock puppets, and each username has also failed to provide anything of value or interest to the forum.

Please, PLEASE get rid of him. I know you have a policy of not banning people unless they've shown themselves to be disruptive - and this fool HAS, several times, and has shown no remorse or interest in being anything BUT disruptive.

A fair amount of funning and debate is important, especially when the foe is as impossibly serious and closed to new ideas as Scientology.

But is that any reason to tolerate jackasses like JWL on a consistent basis?

Wow, the intolerance on this forum just grows and grows!!

FBTG, who made you the judge of what other members of this forum find "of value and interesting?"

And isn't calling someone a jackass, as you did in your post above, a personal attack -- one of the violations of the ROC?

Since you seem to find others' opinions and comments upsetting and "disruptive" to your cozy little world where everyone agrees on everything, I'm curious:

how's that working for you in the real world?

Or are you safely ensconsed in a CULT environment where people are not permitted to express any differing opinions or thoughts or unpopular views?

Simply flicking one's finger on the aquarium wall makes Olska retreat into her shell for another few days.

Q

From inside the aquarium, I could see how it might look that way to you; but in fact, life here on the outside is full of many more interesting and wonderful things to see and do than hang out here ...

... and as this forum becomes more and more crowded with an increasingly intolerant and sycophantic population, the space "inside the acquarium walls" (good metaphor, btw), along with its relevance and usefulness as a discussion forum, shrinks and shrinks.

Have fun in your cozy little tank where everyone is of the same mind. Tap tap.

Olska wrote:


Respectfully Olska, I'm sure that some found the antics of someone that said in their own words they were only on OCB to cause confusion and 'have fun' trolling amusing - I doubt you can find anything 'of value and interesting'.



There was no opinion and no comments other than childish trolling. You did read the comments of the troll, didn't you?

Olska, shall we get a room?

Jeez. Where does the time go!



If I'm reading Olska's comments as I think she meant them, she's talking about free speech and how it can ever so gradually be diminished in any public space in order to preserve a standard that, in my experience here and elswhere I've visited in real life or on moderated internet boards ultimately incorporates exclusionary practices, conscious or not, and is always selective, conscious or not.

It's the selectivity and whom its performed on that holds a mirror to any public space from the day we're born, IMO.

When the ROC are designed to apply to all participating posters equally, and then are selectively not applied, I can also see where fanboy is coming from.

For example, if I said to my partner, I'm a little bit faithful to our vows (R'sOC) and I'm also a little bit not, I think that would more than confuse him. I think he'd want to know to what extent and precisely which scenarios I was selectively reinterpreting from the meanings we agreed existed in our public ROC (of marriage).

Wherever "rules of engagement" are stated to be universal, I expect them to be applied "across the board." When they are broken for some and not others, then the whole premise is open to question.

Don't Have rules if you're not going to equally "distribute" them. Tough ask, yes.