Disciplinary - DoctorHunt/Gryff

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:16:11 +0000

Block lifted.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:08:50 +0000

Message sent:

+ show block

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:18:44 +0000

Agreed — 24.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:04:42 +0000

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:30:15 +0000

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:47:58 +0000

Suggesting 24.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:35:24 +0000

At this point it's been four days and there continue to be insufficient disciplinary / admin votes for (or against) a ban.

If you are Disciplinary, or an administrator, please vote. Thank you.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:13:19 +0000

You have a point there. I guess it mostly that "Not to trying to be offensive but [OFFENSIVE CRAP]" really, really, really ticks me off. 24 it is then.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:50:59 +0000

…But we aren't in the habit of 24 houring for "I didn't know". That's generally warnings territory, unless it stacks up to be too much.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:45:02 +0000

As the original advocate for a 72 hour ban, I would also be okay with a 24. I tend to err on the side of dropping the hammer because in case no one's noticed yet, I really hate this "prey on the weak" horse shit. Also, I have to admit that I find people who pull that "no offense, but [some incredibly offensive thing]" business to be completely moronic.

I feel like there's been a case pretty thoroughly stated in a variety of venues about why users should maybe consider not being dickbags with their feedback, and those who haven't gotten it by now deserve an escalated kicking, but I won't complain if it's a 24 instead.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:35:16 +0000

Because this isn't a case of "woops, you guys frown on this? I didn't know." The user knows what is and isn't acceptable and chose to ignore that. Look, I'm fine with 24 too, but I'd rather reserve that for an actual honest-to-god first-offender. Is that even hyphenated?

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:05:42 +0000

Why?

I'm asking why specifically because our tendency to accelerate the disciplinary track on an ad hoc basis tends to lead to a lot of confusion. So if there's specific reasoning, that would help.

Also, for clarity for the rest of the thread: One more admin/disciplinary vote is needed for a 24 hour ban. Hence why I'm asking this question instead of actually doing anything.

(More votes, obviously, needed for another option, as the votes for 72 hour are both advisory votes.)

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:27:16 +0000

I really think the history coupled with a blatant personal insult (which is then mollified by the incredibly sad "I don't mean to insult you") should warrant more than 24.

Re: DoctorHunt

Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:52:34 +0000

Supporting 24. Honestly, would've let it slide with a warning if it weren't for the history.

Re: DoctorHunt

Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:31:38 +0000

Seconding Gaffsey on the 24. He's been officially warned as his only disciplinary action prior to this, and all things being equal, this is actually an improvement on his past behavior; even if he didn't exactly clear the bar on good critique, most of that looks valid.

Re: DoctorHunt

Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:11:58 +0000

Eh, I say 24. They've been warned before, but other than the shitty and inexplicable first line, it's actually not shit crit.

Re: DoctorHunt

Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:41:06 +0000

Seconded.

Re: DoctorHunt

Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:21:19 +0000

User is now known as Gryff, and posted the following in the not-long-for-this-world SCP-2325:

This seems like it was written by an eight year old. Not meaning you any offens,e but I'm guessing you're on the younger side of life. So lemme give some tips.

Proofread, proofread, proofread. Send it to someone, let people see it. Also the story here is fairly… Weak. A good amount of downvotes could have been fixed if you fixed the grammatical errors, which are rampant. Really, this needs just a major rewrite, and even then I don't think it would be salvageable.

(Excuse any grammatical errors, for I'm on mobile.)

Going to staffpost on this in a second. Recommending a 72 based on prior warnings and continuing idiocy.

Re: DoctorHunt

Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:58:32 +0000

…and now they've been posting a lot about SCP-231.

There's a lot of this, actually.

At this point, I'm not sure if there's much we can do except call attention to the fact that the user in question just doesn't seem to understand the site. Keep an eye on them, I guess.

Re: DoctorHunt

Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:23:35 +0000

Noting here that they backseat modded: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1050399/questions-about-scps#post-2162483

Unrelated to the question, but maybe you want to pull back on your amount of posts. I see three started by you on the main page of the forums.

Staff called them out (non-staff post), but keep an eye on them.

Re: DoctorHunt

Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:40:31 +0000

I recognize this user as someone who has left objectionable or otherwise poor critique as well.

DoctorHunt

Tue, 18 Nov 2014 01:54:24 +0000

User DoctorHunt stopped by the thread for SCP-2067 in order to post the following:

Ooh, itsa scary lookin' monster. Now don't show it no emoton, childen, cuz it'll get angry.

This is the entirety of the post. I responded with an official warning, kind of because I recall a pattern of this particular user toeing the line of acceptable conduct, but mostly because it says "don't be an asshole" pretty clearly in the Criticism Policy.

Made it a link, because convenience is nice. ~Zyn