Can Admin shed some light on what actually happened, please, since obviously we’re not going to get a straight, untwisted story from Keith. I can do without K’s presence here, though I suspect that it would be better to give him all the rope he needs by letting him in. He’d soon hang himself on one of his many hot buttons. That is if we decide to institute a three strikes and out rule for persistent bad behaviour; something which I whole-heartedly recommend. I don’t believe that he would be able to abide by it for long. Then we have the factual argument that he got his go, and he blew it. Or alternatively, he might behave, in which case his undeniable strengths would be at work here as well. That would be a plus.
Keith-on-the-bridge is slagging at TLN about being denied access here. rippon fears that looks bad -
1 Like
[I see Rhis has now edited his post, and has now said much the same as me, using about a tenth as many words. So, once again: “What he said.”] 
It was bound to come sometime! We have to debate the question of who gets to be “in” here and who is “out”. I’m out of my depth (just as I am with the COVID-19 stuff - sorry I’ve been lagging behind - partly because I’ve had some practical things to deal with in the last couple of days), but for what it’s worth, my feeling about this particular case is that it comes down to a choice between two options:
(a) Keith should be rejected, because most of us here vaguely “know” each other and “know” Keith, and it’s obvious from many years of experience that he won’t even pay lip-service to the value of civil debate;
(b) there should be a “law” that is applied, and is seen to be applied, to everybody, meaning everybody who applies to join, so long as they plausibly have a legitimate interest in joining, as Keith (in particular) clearly does.
I lean towards (a) - in spite of the obvious danger of rule by a clique - because (i) I’m personally almost sure that Keith is just taking the piss, (ii) he already has the Lifeboat, in which he is free to swear at people as much as he wants, so why should we allow him to throw turds around in another forum (especially one formed specifically to allow the kind of civil conversation that the Lifeboat renders impossible), (iii) he’s already boasting about having been “banned” from here, (iv) he often boasts about his bans from other places as if they were badges of honour.
(To be fair to him, they at least sometimes are! I’ve congratulated him on one such ban myself. Indeed, I regard my own banning from the Lifeboat in exactly the same light.)
It’s a problem in lots of ways. For one thing, it’s in bad taste to discuss an individual case in public like this - like I’ve just been doing. But Miss, he started it! I mean Keith started it, not Rhis. And I’m certain Keith doesn’t mind the attention. So in this special case, there are special reasons for not being too scrupulous.
I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded that (b) is the right option. I’m a wishy-washy liberal, so what else would you expect of me? But seriously, I think we can easily survive allowing even a known “troublemaker” to belong, just so long as we don’t make Dan’s disastrous mistake of actually encouraging people to be abusive, most unforgivably by blaming and punishing those who are victims of abusive behaviour, and/or those who complain about it, on their own behalf or on behalf of others.
Playing Devil’s advocate, then:
Let Keith (or anyone, except penis enlargers and carelessly rich Nigerian princes) join, and subject him/them, if necessary, to a progressive series of suspensions for any progression of offences. This must be done in an open and above-board way. (Utterly unlike Dan’s capricious rule of the Lifeboat - he said with feeling.) It might bring out the best in him. Never mind that I feel that this is naive and stupid, and he’ll only be laughing at us. We’ll survive.
Just to be clear: I still favour (a). (I’ve been taken for a ride too many times.)
But I honestly won’t object to (b), if we want to give it a try.
Either way, we do need to take the decision openly - preferably without paying too much attention to any one case, like this one, which is too much like “trial by tabloid”.
There probably needs to be a new category created for this sort of discussion.
Keith’s request to join is under consideration. It was a more complex issue than any other person so far, as we had already witnessed his ban from a previous board for misogynistic trolling (which had caused many other posters on that board to leave). His persistent trolling on TLN is also clearly visible to all who visit there.
Given that the purpose of this place is to encourage discussion and discourage trolling, it is not clear to the moderators here that his admission would particularly benefit this community. In that regard, he can consider himself pretty special (you know that he already does ), and in fact in a club comprising only two members.
If people feel strongly about this then we are all ears and are happy to consider all comments. Keith, if you are reading this and feel like discussing your case further, you can reach us at
5filters at protonmail dot com
In the meantime, we are continuing to mull over his request.
Cheers
So - typically - he’s alleging a ‘ban’ when no such thing has happened, then? That’s the real state of things? I should say, since you reminded me, that any person who we know from past painful experience is going to cause other, actually more civil and worthwhile, actually-adult posters - especially women - to leave at once needs to be kept at arm’s length. It is a complex issue. And if it implies any wilful disruption, such as other posters up and leaving at once, then I’d say a prophylactic ban is appropriate.
Keith himself has removed any uncertainty, in much the way I thought he might:
The Lifeboat News: Re: You’re not : apparently…
Of course I don’t want to join a board with a dishonest ******* like you.
Mysoginistic trolling indeed!
What really happened was that a clique of feminazis forced a choice on The Daves three times and at third attempt they bottled it. Liberals!
But it seems he wasn’t “taking the piss”, as I imagined. He just didn’t know who we were:
The Lifeboat News: It took a while to realise who’s behind that board.
[quote from Rhis’s most recent post on this topic]
Passive-aggressive tosseur.
So the awkward situation has resolved itself.
1 Like
Evidently. It was inevitable I suppose, with such a bile-filled temperament. So - we can ignore him and his - pretend - effort to join up here, and get on with the business of this site free of bile-sprayers. Good. I imagine that will be a relief to some already contributing here.
1 Like
There’s the expected sneering thread at TLN today. I guess it will all peter out as the usual yakkers realise it’s going nowhere, and no-one is attending to their bile. And of course, there’s always the unintended consequence of others being tipped to take a look here, and forming different estimates of us…
1 Like
He applied to join a board that he really didn’t want to join and a group who really didn’t want him there nevertheless gave consideration to the proprieties. The deciding factor should be that the board was set up to have discussions of a civil and hopefully constructive nature. There is a place for other kinds; we’ve all been there, and don’t want to be doing that. 
Thanks for all the comments over the last day or so. Keith has withdrawn his request to join, and has indicated that he never really wanted to join in the first place, so we have decided to respect his wishes and deny his initial request to join.
I think it’s probably best that we close the public part of this discussion at this point. If anyone wants to discuss any aspect of this further, then just drop me a private message on the board, or send me an email.
Regards
2 Likes