I hereby ban ogged in his capacity as commenter.
Ogged's just a living legacy
To the leader of the banned.
I ban myself, because it didn't take when ogged tried it.
now, now Standpipe. If only for the pleasant sound of your handle, I request you stay.
Can we ban the other commenter in private e-mail to you, or does it have to be public?
(Note that I will not be banning anyone in any context, and hereby publicly surrender such a right (anonymous banning) if ogged decides that such a right exists.)
I would also like to note, as a recent member(-ish) of the community, that this makes me anxious in a way I haven't felt in quite a while.
Do I get extra banning powers through having been recently banned twice in quick succession? (And another time only a few months back?)
So err does being banned actually mean anything around here. Or is it a volutary code?
voluntary... but you knew that, right?
I think this is yet another trick thread, where the plan in this one is to ban any commenter who shows his or her self to be unworthy by requesting to have another commenter banned.
No, I'm not paranoid.
I ban everyone.
everyone?
EEEVVVERRRRYYYYONNNNNEE!!!
Thanks, text.
Anyhow, is banning involutive, or idempotent? Are we talking negation or modality here? I would hate to perform an idempotent operation on myself, were I hoping for an involution.
I would like to ban psl, an arbitrary name that might or might not apply to a lurker in the audience (after all we shouldn't forget about the lurkers).
Probably would have been better to ban myself, but that's been tried already.
I hereby authorize any commenter to ban any other commenter.
This seems to rule out the possibility of banning oneself. Therefore I propose banning all IP addresses from which I could potentially comment.
18: I don't get it. Where do the cocks fit in?
20: Your exegesis pleases me. It's clear that self-banning is both idempotent and impotent.
Standpipe Bridgeplate: at the Mineshaft.
Somebody stop me!
21: I was commenting on our fear of idempotence. Reminded me of this though I haven't actually seen it.
But those addresses are not commenters.
1. Wouldn't the post have been better entitled, "You are become Shiva"?
2. I take it that this means that the TiVo has not been reset yet.
24: true
This means I was proposing something that I have not been authorized to do. So I suppose I should have just proposed banning myself and saved the trouble of writing up that comment.
I don't think 19 works, you can't ban lurkers. Ogged's specific grant of authority was to ban "other commenters." If he had granted wider authority, I would propose a ban of all people who have never commented.
If x, then.... i ve seen this already this evening
oh and banning all those who have never commented really would take the biscuit
I knew a pirate named Shiva, once. He fell asleep smoking his pipe, and the next morning all that remained was Shiva meat embers.
Don't everyone ban Standpipe at once... me first.
re: below the update
A bold new attempt at blog design?
Just curious -- this post was, initially, meant as a joke, right?
I'll give odds that ogged is about to leave a comment asking what 32 is talking about.
Everything from "Well" to the bottom of the page was in bold type. It's been fixed.
LB yes, a joke, though I was curious about what would happen and who would do what.
But in the past ogged has taken a jocular, "what are you talking about?" approach to errors after they were fixed. And by in the past, I mean yesterday.
Now I understand your 34; I missed the joke. Does this mean I'm getting to be like w-lfs-n?
If he had granted wider authority, I would propose a ban of all people who have never commented.
I would have banned all people who would never comment in the future.
Which could be meaningful, given certain conditions.
I take issue with your update, sir.
You were rather quick on the trigger there, young Ben.
I take issue with your treating us as lab rats, life-hater.
Nothing is more serious than the abuse of joke authority.
I ban all those who use their power to ban. MAB!