[Full-disclosure] Voting for bans
kevin at tux.appstate.edu
Tue Mar 23 15:37:58 GMT 2010
On 23 March 2010 11:18, Jan G.B. <ro0ot.w00t at googlemail.com> wrote:
> We all know that the email address he used to use is banned.
> We also know that our inboxes are filled with crap since he returned some weeks ago.
Yep, with a large amount of that being from narcissists that just
*have* to get their jokes or jibes in and can't either ignore him or,
better yet, just hit delete.
> What can we do?
> Not much. He showed us several times, that "talking" to him makes no sense.
Kill-file or ignore. It works, and it works for *anyone* you don't
want to deal with. It's great.
> He is struggling for reactions on his topics, and he will always get some
> reactions (Yes, even if I don't respond). The noise in the last days was
Yes it has been. Again, though, it's been mostly from folks that want
to get in their snide comments or make themselves look good with their
jabs and pokes; the signal level would again go up if they'd let it
rest and just hit delete.
> We have the freedom to ban him from your inboxes. Let's do it!
Like I said, kill-file. It really does work.
Seriously, Jan, I do understand where you're coming from but banning
account after account does no good in a world of unlimited email
accounts. What *does* work is to let someone post at will and simply
ignoring what you don't want to reply to. The problem isn't that we
have one person that posts a ton of crud, it's that we have one person
that posts and fifty that insist on commenting about how it's crud -
and then continue to harp about how that single poster needs to go
away when he replies to each of them.
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.