rigorousintuition.ca

elfismiles' profile pic and signature are both jokes about our own Hugh Manatee.

I'm leaning towards asking him/her to change them to something less provocative.

What do you all think?

My personal opinion? I think it winds up being free publicity for the manatee. I don't see it as breaking a rule, and I'd be very surprised should HMW request any action regarding it. It's personal equity for him. The closest it comes to violating principles around here is in terms of directly calling out individual posters, and even in that regard it's sketchy.

While I'm here, I'll make note that I feel Hugh needed to be more effectively shut down in that thread, rather than simply permitted to continue his various responses and further disrupt the thread. He gets one shot at it, and that's it. If the mods aren't willing to keep him penned up, his tactics will be expansive in nature. He's currently in process of testing the limits of the new moderators to see what will happen as he violates the KWH rule. Expect him.

If he'd been sufficiently corraled during that exchange, elfismiles would have had no justification for his action. Instead, we were treated to nearly a full page of discussion about Hugh. Again.

barracuda wrote:My personal opinion? I think it winds up being free publicity for the manatee. I don't see it as breaking a rule, and I'd be very surprised should HMW request any action regarding it. It's personal equity for him. The closest it comes to violating principles around here is in terms of directly calling out individual posters, and even in that regard it's sketchy.

While I'm here, I'll make note that I feel Hugh needed to be more effectively shut down in that thread, rather than simply permitted to continue his various responses and further disrupt the thread. He gets one shot at it, and that's it. If the mods aren't willing to keep him penned up, his tactics will be expansive in nature. He's currently in process of testing the limits of the new moderators to see what will happen as he violates the KWH rule. Expect him.

If he'd been sufficiently corraled during that exchange, elfismiles would have had no justification for his action. Instead, we were treated to nearly a full page of discussion about Hugh. Again.

I get what you're saying, but I just don't want the profile pic and sig to lead to another full page discussion about ... Hugh.

Again.

I think if you have a problem with it causing problems, it's within your job scope to pm elfismiles with your concerns. Go for it.

But if you really don't want Hugh to be a problem, you have to deal with... Hugh.

barracuda wrote:I think if you have a problem with it causing problems, it's within your job scope to pm elfismiles with your concerns. Go for it.

But if you really don't want Hugh to be a problem, you have to deal with... Hugh.

I'm going to pm elfismiles. I just wanted to see if there was any precedent for this particular issue.

As for Hugh, I really don't want him to be a problem, and I will deal with him just as soon as I happen to see him rolling out his dog and pony show, which in my short tenure as a mod hasn't happened yet.

There are precedents. We recently asked Canadian Watcher to change a signature which was mocking Norton Ash, and she did so. The sig in question was a quote from a personal message, though, so the circumstance was a bit different. But I think you ought to proceed as you see fit, because elfismiles sig is definitely somewhat provocative, and might wind up causing trouble.

barracuda wrote:There are precedents. We recently asked Canadian Watcher to change a signature which was mocking Norton Ash, and she did so. The sig in question was a quote from a personal message, though, so the circumstance was a bit different. But I think you ought to proceed as you see fit, because elfismiles sig is definitely somewhat provocative, and might wind up causing trouble.

Thanks, barracuda.