How to Opt Out of Pranks--The Don't Prank Me List

[odeon]

i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".

[Calandale]

i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".

This is obviously NOT the case. I don't like pranks,
in general. I do like silliness. But, liking them doesn't
really test one's toughness, does it? It's feeling a bit
of the bite, and not crying about it that is a sign of
toughness.

[odeon]

i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".

This is obviously NOT the case. I don't like pranks,
in general. I do like silliness. But, liking them doesn't
really test one's toughness, does it? It's feeling a bit
of the bite, and not crying about it that is a sign of
toughness.

i don't see that it's anywhere near obvious, care to enlighten me?

[Calandale]

i think it's mostly funny, too. sadly, it seems that either you have to like it or you aren't "tough enough".

This is obviously NOT the case. I don't like pranks,
in general. I do like silliness. But, liking them doesn't
really test one's toughness, does it? It's feeling a bit
of the bite, and not crying about it that is a sign of
toughness.

i don't see that it's anywhere near obvious, care to enlighten me?

Toughness isn't about enjoying something which might
hurt others. It's about handling what hurts you, gracefully.

[ozymandias]

I'd join this debate if I thought it would do any good or be worth my time and since I have already made my opinion known about pranks, why should I bother!

[renaeden]

Well, I'll tell you what pisses me off,
more than anything, is people NOT
engaging in debate, when they disagree.
So, I try and provoke them - which probably
pisses THEM off. But, none of us has the
secret of how to interact properly and
gracefully all the time. Personally, much as
I dislike certain pranks, I find this issue far
more annoying. We all have to deal with
what bothers us. And someone here
is pretty likely to dish it out.

Indeed.

Learning how to deal with these sorts of situations gracefully (as you said calandale) is a pretty important life skill. I am dismayed at how GA dealt with the pranking.

But as I said before, messing with someone's ranking and their account so that they can't log on to the site is going a bit far.

[purposefulinsanity]

This thread is ridiculous. My pranks were meant to provide a lot of laughs in this place (and they have done, mind you), not intentionally harm a person. If they're easily offended, fuck off. I already allowed the membership to vote me off over this prank business, but the majority decided to keep me in. What does that tell you?

If this list ever comes to pass by the WC, I do think that we should discuss whether it's worth this site being called "IntensitySquared" when we're too busy trying to keep everyone happy in fear of losing members. Quite frankly, we're becoming soft over this nonsense -- it's tantamount to weakness. You are all in a panic because a lot of users (Willow's leaving, omg!) are supposedly unhappy, which to me shows the current lack of backbone this site has.

wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like you? here's news for you, P: most people aren't, and you can unintentionally cause people real harm.

If people are going to be really harmed by the pranks ask yourself should they really be on a site like Intensity in the first place?  Even if we stop some of the pranks we can never stop people taking the piss out of them, aping their profile details or, shock horror, being mean to them.  How do we protect them from all that?

you're (deliberately?) misreading what i'm saying. i'm replying to P's attitudes, not saying that the pranks in themselves necessarily harm people. i'm specifically opposed to his view that that if it isn't one's intention to harm anyone, then it's ok even if someone is harmed.

No- I wasn't deliberately misreading what you were saying.  My point is that unless people could be harmed by the pranks then the point is moot.  For it to be a problem, one that requires us to start introducing rules disguised as a courtesy anyway, the potential for harm would have to be there, otherwise all we're doing is protecting people's feelings from getting hurt and if that's the case it makes no sense that we stop at the pranking.  You, yourself have already started laying out the standards for what you see as bullying behaviour as a result of this no prank list.  Yes, there just your own personal opinions but it illustrates perfectly the slippery slope we're on if we start introducing any kind of 'rules' to protect the more sensitive members (and if this isn't about protecting them what is it about?).

look, we only accept adults as members because we believe that the members should be responsible for themselves. they should be old enough to see a porn picture or two without us getting sued. but we also accept anyone. in spite of what some say, we don't have labels warning the weaker ones off. this is what we say:

We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate , and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.

As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.

I would have thought that the phrases I bolded do serve as a warning to the 'weaker' ones, in fact you thought so yourself when RobertN was claiming he was being bullied.

yes, i'm sure some n00bs should probably not join, but since when is there a new criterion stating that you should accept some "harmless" pranks where admins repeatedly change your private data, in spite of you asking them not to? since when are we saying that unless your opinions on this are similar to the "in" group's, you should either "grow some skin" or leave because that particular criterion is the one defining how tough you are?

Hang on a minute- what happened to the 'there is no clique' argument?? Is there only a clique when you don't happen to have been lumped in it?   If there is in fact an "in group" I think a lot would argue that those opposing the no prank list aren't in it since they generally tend to be on the side with the lowest number of people in a debate.
     I agree that there never has been anything warning members that they may get pranked, but neither the less pranks have always happened to some extent, and if we start bringing in rules against them where do we stop?  Its the slippery slope to becomming Intensitylite again,

i'm not saying that we have to "protect" them. it doesn't work like that here. i don't want moderation more than you do. i'm saying that we don't all have to be arseholes just because we can.

But who decides what behaviour is someone being an arsehole?  It could be argued that a lot of what is said on here could be interepretted as an arsehole thing to say, including some of the things you say yourself.  If we say that one set of arsehole behaviour isn't ok, then how can we then say that another set is?  I am not saying whether the pranks are an arsehole thing to do, what I'm saying is that we don't moderate people for being an arsehole because if we did there'd be a hell of a lot of work for the admin staff to do.

[odeon]

this is going in circles, so let me try to make my points clear, if possible:

1/ i'm NOT advocating rules and i don't want a moderated intensity.

2/ i have NOT "started laying out the standards for what see as bullying behaviour". i have repeatedly stated MY OPINIONS. you claiming that i'm doing it doesn't make it true.

3/ i'm not in a position to define any such standards or rules.

4/ i'm talking about the people that did *nothing* to deserve the repeated pranks (note that i'm still talking about the pranks). thus, i don't consider it fair to generalise what i've said and apply them into past examples such as RobertN (who, in fact, wanted to sue you and Dunc), scrap, and others i've been arguing against.

5/ the "in" group i mentioned was more about those whose responses were "grow some skin", etc, rather than an actual clique, but you have a good point there. i wasn't being very clear.

6/ in my book, you are on your way to be an arsehole when you repeatedly get on the case of those that have asked you not to, when you attack those that have done nothing. notice the "in my book" phrase. there are other ways to make it into that list but i'm trying to stay on topic here.


and finally.........................

7/ i'm against rules and moderation at intensity. i don't want a moderated intensity. i've said this i don't know how many times, and therefore i don't really understand why you wish to make it appear as if i was advocating a moderated board.

that, however, doesn't stop me from commenting on what i see as wrong.

[purposefulinsanity]

1. I never said you did, but unless we bring in rules to prevent the pranking aren't we really just giving the more sensitive members a false sense of security since we can't actually guarantee that they won't get pranked?

2. Yes I know you're stating your own opinion, everything that's been said on here is just someone's own opinion I thought that was already clear.  It doesn't change the fact that people are already starting to say what they feel is bullying behaviour and my worry is that its the first step to laying down standards for 'acceptable' Intensity behaviour.

3.  I never said you were- that's the point, no-one can enforce these rules unless we allow the site to become moderated.

4. But from his point of view Robertn did nothing to deserve what he saw as the bullying behaviour that made him act in such a way that it was suddenly alright to prank him.  How can we start saying its ok to prank some people because they deserve it but not others?  Who decides who has done enough to deserve pranking.  BTW- my robertn point wasn't that people said pranking him was ok, it was that people felt the warning on the front page was enough to warn the 'weaker' members what kind of place this is then, but now you don't think it is.

5.I really don't see the difference between saying that people agree on other issues simply because they're in a clique and people being in an in group because they agree on this issue.    Perhaps you're still not being clear but I don't get how one assumption can be incorrect and the other isn't.

6. Again that all depends on where you draw the line at what constitutes both 'attacking' and 'nothing to deserve it'- its subjective.

7. I'm not trying to make it appear that you wish Intensity to be a moderated board- what I am saying is that if we claim that there are members who can be harmed or feel bullied by the pranks, we also have to accept that there are other aspects to Intensity that could have the same effect on them.   Who decides where we draw the line?

[odeon]

there's no way to clearly draw that line, PI, not if we want to remain unmoderated. the one way i know of is that those of us who would prefer not to be pranked have their wishes respected. it has to be a voluntary thing, and it has to be about respecting that member's wishes.

so maybe we should all learn how to respect and listen to other people better. that hasn't been my strong point, i know, but maybe it's not too late to change?

[Calandale]

1/ i'm NOT advocating rules and i don't want a moderated intensity.

As long as this is the case, then we have no danger. Sadly, a do not prank
list may make some think that they ARE protected by some rules. And some
members may actually desire such rules.

4/ i'm talking about the people that did *nothing* to deserve the repeated pranks (note that i'm still talking about the pranks). thus, i don't consider it fair to generalise what i've said and apply them into past examples such as RobertN (who, in fact, wanted to sue you and Dunc), scrap, and others i've been arguing against.

Purely a subjective manner. And, where the 'prank' is of
malicious intent, it's a lot less that, and closer to bullying,
or worse.

7/ i'm against rules and moderation at intensity. i don't want a moderated intensity. i've said this i don't know how many times, and therefore i don't really understand why you wish to make it appear as if i was advocating a moderated board.

There's a point about this that I tried to bring up
before though. If one of the staff is pranked, by
having their profile changed, they can change it
back. Up to, and including, the custom tag (why
is this only accessible from the admin panel?). Worse,
they can reverse someone else's prank, done in their
own profile. Something the rest of us certainly cannot
do. So, pranks don't fall upon everyone equally, even if
they are equally skinned.

[Randy]

Its more than toughness, its about knowledge.  You know how to deal, your tougher.  I carried 100 cans in a ripped bag on my bike to the recycle center for $10.  I wasn't mine, but the neighbor was in jail, and is evicted.  That was partly knowing how to cope.  My shoulder hurt after.  I do enough exercise for christ sakes.  I can't remember the last time I did one session a day.  Sometimes both are extra long.  Part of what would make me give up is the power of suggestion, so I imagine myself full of energy that makes me stronger.  I have more energy to do the job.  I have had a flat tire from walmart, and had to drag/carry my bike 6-12 miles home, because I had no minutes on my phone.  Staying in shape protects me.

[Callaway]

1/ i'm NOT advocating rules and i don't want a moderated intensity.

As long as this is the case, then we have no danger. Sadly, a do not prank
list may make some think that they ARE protected by some rules. And some
members may actually desire such rules.

4/ i'm talking about the people that did *nothing* to deserve the repeated pranks (note that i'm still talking about the pranks). thus, i don't consider it fair to generalise what i've said and apply them into past examples such as RobertN (who, in fact, wanted to sue you and Dunc), scrap, and others i've been arguing against.

Purely a subjective manner. And, where the 'prank' is of
malicious intent, it's a lot less that, and closer to bullying,
or worse.

7/ i'm against rules and moderation at intensity. i don't want a moderated intensity. i've said this i don't know how many times, and therefore i don't really understand why you wish to make it appear as if i was advocating a moderated board.

There's a point about this that I tried to bring up
before though. If one of the staff is pranked, by
having their profile changed, they can change it
back. Up to, and including, the custom tag (why
is this only accessible from the admin panel?). Worse,
they can reverse someone else's prank, done in their
own profile. Something the rest of us certainly cannot
do. So, pranks don't fall upon everyone equally, even if
they are equally skinned.

You were not a member here then, but RobertN, egged on by Omega and Ascan, threatened to sue Duncvis and PI personally because he was upset by a picture that someone posted of him here anonymously, I believe.  The person who posted the picture took it down quickly, of his own accord, but RobertN found other things to be upset about, if I remember correctly.  He dragged every grievance he had ever had with Duncvis, Purposeful Insanity, or Intensity into it and he said that he wanted to shut Intensity down and make them homeless and have their children taken away from them.  A lot of people, including me, were highly outraged by his behavior.  Some people might see the "Happy Birthday, RobertN" thread as me bullying him, but I saw it as an effort to make him see the truth about his "sweetie" and her boyfriend, when RobertN thought that he was her boyfriend.  She had been stringing him along and manipulating him for quite some time.  She begged the people who knew about her duplicitous behavior to keep it a secret so she could tell RobertN the truth herself, but it dragged on for many months.  Somehow she never quite got around to doing it until after I started the birthday thread.

[Calandale]

  Some people might see the "Happy Birthday, RobertN" thread as me bullying him, but I saw it as an effort to make him see the truth about his "sweetie" and her boyfriend, when RobertN thought that he was her boyfriend.

A perfect example of subjectivity. But, I meant lesser issues.
For example, someone might be so upset by a prank, that they
might step over some line. But see what they did as less offensive.
I'm sure that QM thinks my insinuating that he was homophobic
is far worse than the pure vitriol he was spewing - if only because
I know not to show what hurts. Likewise, in the case of a recent
prank against you, the fact that you were able to immediately reverse
it COULD have been seen as just cause for making you incapable of
logging in. We all have our different levels, and thoughts about what
is fair play - and these change due to immediate happenings.

[Callaway]

There's a point about this that I tried to bring up
before though. If one of the staff is pranked, by
having their profile changed, they can change it
back. Up to, and including, the custom tag (why
is this only accessible from the admin panel?). Worse,
they can reverse someone else's prank, done in their
own profile. Something the rest of us certainly cannot
do. So, pranks don't fall upon everyone equally, even if
they are equally skinned.

That is an excellent point, Calandale.  Administrators don't really have to keep the pranks that are imposed on them by members, so even if the member asks that the administrator be pranked back or something, he or she could just reverse it and prank the person who asked for the prank even worse, so it doesn't really affect them in the same way, so I think that may be why they can't understand it. 

It's still annoying to me to have my profile changed over and over, against my wishes, and I was quite upset to have my password and profile changed.  I was also very upset to have been de-adminned.  I'm sure that some people might see all this as a "harmless prank" but I didn't see it that way at all.  I'm equally certain that some members don't consider repeated changes to their profiles as "harmless pranks" either, and I think that their wishes concerning their own profiles should be respected, once these wishes are made clear.  After all, administrators are here to serve the community and people who don't want their profiles altered are part of this community.

  Some people might see the "Happy Birthday, RobertN" thread as me bullying him, but I saw it as an effort to make him see the truth about his "sweetie" and her boyfriend, when RobertN thought that he was her boyfriend.

A perfect example of subjectivity. But, I meant lesser issues.
For example, someone might be so upset by a prank, that they
might step over some line. But see what they did as less offensive.
I'm sure that QM thinks my insinuating that he was homophobic
is far worse than the pure vitriol he was spewing - if only because
I know not to show what hurts. Likewise, in the case of a recent
prank against you, the fact that you were able to immediately reverse
it COULD have been seen as just cause for making you incapable of
logging in. We all have our different levels, and thoughts about what
is fair play - and these change due to immediate happenings.

I see what you are saying, but why should the administrators who did these things to me think that their "right" to "prank" me superseded my "right" to be left alone?  After all, it was my profile, not theirs.