This is a thread for discussing whether the identity "Sheila Rangslinger" should be banned from the forums here.

As you know, we don't like to ban users here and rarely do it. Dozens of Christians with points of view heavily critical of "The Beast" have signed up and posted here with no censorship. We like it and we encourage it. That's what this place is for.

We don't ban for opinion. But we DO ban for behavior.

Here is the behavior alleged on the part of "Sheila Rangslinger": "Sheila" is really a person named J.P. Holding. J.P. Holding signed up as "Sheila Rangslinger" and has posted about 30 posts per day, most of them supportive of J.P. Holding. The author referred to himself in the third person and did not disclose that he was really talking about himself. The term for this kind of shill is "sock puppet":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

Status of the allegation: True. Sheila has been given an opportunity to deny the allegation and has not done so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Also, it appears that on his own website, Holding has admitted to being Sheila.

Proposed action: Ban the "Sheila" identity and append a disclaimer to each post by Sheila revealing its true authorship. J.P. Holding would be allowed to re-register and post as himself.

I believe this is the only action we can sensibly take. To knowingly allow Holding to use a sock puppet here would require us to allow anyone else to do the same. This would erode the value of the forums. Also, encouraging J.P. Holding to post as himself might make his tone more civil ("Sheila" is a rather nasty character, given to insults and condescension).

Original post revealing the "Sheila" sock puppet:
http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1552

Please post your thoughts specifically on whether Sheila should be banned in this thread.

Request to all: Please keep the discussion on topic. Address only the question, "Should Sheila Rangslinger be banned?" A "yes" or "no" followed by your explanation would be the ideal form.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

Eddie your a coward, your scared of someone who's educated and can whoop your butt!

This is as low as low can get!

Afraid of the TRUTH?

Let them stay and say their peice!


I want to hear both sides and all I seen was one side since being on this forum, along comes someone who knows what they are talking about and you take the cowards apporach, banning them!


Jughead

__________________
\"A lie told often enough becomes the truth\"
Lenin

My answer is 'no' given that there's a key point in your argument that is incorrect. To wit:


Sheila originally mentioned "my liege" several times in early posts, together with admission that she had been vested with Holding's authority. This implies Sheila=Holding.

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/forums/...07&postcount=8
She would post links to Holding's site. The admission on that site that Sheila=Holding adds to the evidence that this is indeed so, and banning her amounts to "I can't refute her arguments, get rid of her".

I can only suppose I am next...

Jughead--

J.P. Holding can post here. I'm only proposing to disallow the use of a "sock puppet" shill identity -- by anyone, not just Holding.

Everyone else -- PLEASE don't take the troll bait here and also descend into name-calling, etc.

This is a thread with one topic: Given the facts, should "Sheila" be banned. If not, why not?

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

Punkish--

We don't ban so easily here. You have to try pretty hard. Three people banned since August 2004. I believe that record speaks for itself.

I see your point that someone *could* have figured out that Sheila = Holding. But clearly most people did not. There certainly was not much transparency.

So that would still leave the problem -- if Sheila stays and posts about J.P. Holding, people reading this forum will most likely not know that they are reading J.P. Holding posting about himself (and promoting his own website).

I don't see how we can knowingly do this to our readers.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

I admit that I would like JP Holding on here as (though I don't agree with him) it would be good to get some of the other side on here as well that have a formulated opinion.

It would be a shame to lose him so I would propose the mods just rename the account to JP Holding and be done with it: both sides win, and jughead gets to see comments from both viewpoints, even if his bandstanding is sort of cheezy.

__________________
I love the WWW. With the advent of the Rock Paper Scissors Forum, and the Zombie Preparedness Initiative Forum, I\'m ready for whatever life decides to throw at me.

I kinda second bishop.



On one had, MOST of us, have pseudonyms here on the internet.
The only difference between JP holding, and the rest of us, is that we can identify Holding by his other works.

However, punkish's support is inadmissable, considering that the issue isn't weather or not sheila had authority to speak for holding, but that Holding IS sheila. Vesting authority has nothing to do with it.

I think it's of relatively minor consequence. Yes, there was a charade involved. I won't make assumptions about the intent of this charade.
But I think that a re-name of the account is acceptable terms.

Everyone knows, that I myself, am FAR from polite, *a great deal* of the time. But it's typically not without reason.

If sheila/holding turns to brow-beating his opponents, then I say ban.
But if those ad-hominems are scattered within reason, and backed with supporting evidence, I hardly see the problem.
It's human. Maybe not very scholarly, but human nonetheless.


[[snap judgement removed]]]
I say re-name the account, and watch. If things get knocked about later down the line, then ban.

In closing, Jughead, one ban, and a potential other, are HARDLY justification for freaking out like this. Consider this: despite the animosity between holding and flemming, the moderators asked our opinions.

This is rare around here. VERY rare.
Don't be so quick to assume predjudice.
Contrary to what you might beleive, many of us have been waiting for a person capable of defending the scriptures in an intelligent manner.
Thus far, it's only been A-christian leading the assault.

If holding shows himself to be capable of conceeding when wrong, attacking when right, and not going with the "god said it, thus it's true" bullcrap that so many pull, then GOOD.


I think it's too early in the game to ban.





Love,
Goth_Slut

__________________
My favorite universe analogy:
A circle has a finite diameter, and a finite circumference, yet the ratio between the two is infinite.

I agree with Goth and the Bishop too. Change the name and see what flys. I honestly don't understand why a pseudo name would require a pseudo name but hey, this is the innernet.

__________________
Do you know that "if" is the middle word in Life?

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



Any renaming will result in my immediate depature, my dear, and Holding will roast select participants on tektonics.org itself and perhaps even on theologyweb.com where no doubt many more can see it.

Of course, an even easier way to stop the wrecking ball is for Brian to come out of his roach hole and debate Holding directly. It can even be a dually hosted debate (here and TWeb) if preferred, with both boards making posts.

Of course, the side with the bankrupt arguments usually does resort to fussing over trivialities instead.

Thanks to all for your feedback. Renaming "Sheila" to "J.P. Holding" does seem to be a possible solution here, although obviously Sheila is opposed.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls