Disciplinary - DoctorHunt/Gryff

Summary:

Shitposting, backseat modding, creepiness (lots of 231 posts)

DoctorHunt

(account deleted) 18 Nov 2014 01:54

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

Last edited on 18 Nov 2014 04:23 by Zyn Show more

Re: DoctorHunt

ProcyonLotor 18 Nov 2014 02:40

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

Re: DoctorHunt

Zyn 21 Nov 2014 03:23

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

Zyn 22 Nov 2014 21:58

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

There's a lot of this, actually.

They made a forum thread asking about 110-Montauk: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1055568/ideas-about-procedure-110-montauk prefaced with the description "WARNING — EXTREMELY GRAPHIC". Crayne staffposted and locked that.

They then went to 231's discussion page, and posted the following: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-94525/scp-231#post-2163278

So, my idea on what 110 is.

Some sort of brutal abortion-rape combo. Presumably highly painful and emotionally scarring.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

Crayne, ProcyonLotor, and RhettSarlin posted in the resulting discussion to provide damage control.

And then on kaktus's tale about an alternate non-torture method of 110-Montauk: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1038785/fear-alone#post-2163356

This… Is makes me happy. I belonged to the rapetorture logic of thinking with Montauk, but this is what I'm glad it is.

Kaktus mentioned that it creeped him out.

After all that, they went to the SCP-RP site and posted a character: http://scp-rp.wikidot.com/forum/t-1055697/new-character:dr-dylan-s-hunt#post-2163635 which included the following:

He had shown marked interest with SCP-231. Often casually starting conversations about what procedure 110-Montauk is.
He appears to prefer hands on work, directly observing SCPs rather than sitting behind glass taking notes. He has had tendencies to sympathize with many SCPs.

Given that the rest of the character details included generic PhD/Harvard/picked by Foundation for "high GPA", I was unsettled by how the character seemed to just be an attempt to indirectly talk about 110-Montauk rather than a genuine interest in the RP site.

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

(account deleted) 12 Feb 2015 17:21

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

Crayne 12 Feb 2015 17:41

Seconded.

Re: DoctorHunt

(account deleted) 12 Feb 2015 18:11

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

Eskobar 12 Feb 2015 18:31

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

thedeadlymoose 13 Feb 2015 01:52

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

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Crayne 13 Feb 2015 07:27

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.

Last edited on 13 Feb 2015 07:27 by Crayne Show more

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

thedeadlymoose 13 Feb 2015 19:05

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

Crayne 13 Feb 2015 19:35

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?

Last edited on 13 Feb 2015 19:36 by Crayne Show more

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

thedeadlymoose 14 Feb 2015 00:50

…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

Crayne 16 Feb 2015 11:13

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

thedeadlymoose 16 Feb 2015 11:35

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.

Last edited on 17 Feb 2015 11:02 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

SoullessSingularity 16 Feb 2015 13:47

Suggesting 24.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Drewbear 16 Feb 2015 14:30

24

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

AdminBright 16 Feb 2015 15:04

24

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Photosynthetic 16 Feb 2015 18:18

Agreed — 24.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

thedeadlymoose 17 Feb 2015 11:08

Message sent:

+ show block

Gryff:

You have received a twenty-four hour ban from The SCP Foundation wiki. Your account has been removed from the site, and you have been blocked. This block will be removed in twenty-four hours, at which time, you will have to reapply to the site.

The reason for this is your pattern of negative behavior, combined with the following post from last week:

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.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this message.

Regards,
thedeadlymoose
SCP Foundation Administration

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

Photosynthetic 25 Feb 2015 02:16

Block lifted.

Re: DoctorHunt/Gryff

(account deleted) 13 Feb 2015 19:45

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.