Anonymous wrote:
I have to agree with the PP -- this seems like it just gives the Panty Sniffer a giant megaphone: a locked thread named for him that draws everyone's attention. You may not be aware of how effective it's been to just delete his posts, but honestly, I had no idea that d-bag was still around until today. He had absolutely no effect on me or, as far as I could tell, on DCUM's discourse or environment. I'd suggest continuing to delete, if you don't mind the hassle.
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Aren't you just encouraging PS to post more by giving him his own thread? It's like creating a shrine to his creepiness. Why not continue to delete or all out block?
He mostly posts over mobile networks so it's impossible to block him without blocking other legitimate users. I don't know if the thread will help or hurt. But, it's worth finding out which. I'm sort of hoping that having the spotlight shined on him will eventually shame him into a change of behavior. Probably won't work, but only time will tell.
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:Aren't you just encouraging PS to post more by giving him his own thread? It's like creating a shrine to his creepiness. Why not continue to delete or all out block?
He mostly posts over mobile networks so it's impossible to block him without blocking other legitimate users. I don't know if the thread will help or hurt. But, it's worth finding out which. I'm sort of hoping that having the spotlight shined on him will eventually shame him into a change of behavior. Probably won't work, but only time will tell.
Anonymous wrote:Aren't you just encouraging PS to post more by giving him his own thread? It's like creating a shrine to his creepiness. Why not continue to delete or all out block?
Anonymous wrote:PS, do you know the first time PS was christened "Panty Sniffer"?