DiscussMormonism.com

When Eric Cartman went through and ate all of the skin from a bucket of KFC fried chicken, causing Kenny to start crying, Kyle, Stan, and Kenny decide they've finally had enough. They decide to ignore Eric, causing him to think that he has died and is now a ghost.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... es-cartman

Perplexed by his current state - stuck on Earth as a ghost - Eric soon learns that he must make all of his wrongs right and repent for his bad behavior before he can get to heaven, where a $10,000 cash prize awaits him.

It's really hard for me to think of a more pathetic specimen than someone who trolls the Internet as the self-ordained picture Sheriff and defender of images-nobody-gives-a-shit-about. Even the guy who buys a fancy camera, takes a black and white picture of an old barn, photoshops a watermark on it, and then claims to be a photographer with his own business is much less obnoxious than Officer Joseph. So what can we do with a person who thinks like this? A person who thinks that amateur pictures that no one would ever pay for have some kind of monetary value, and he is somehow not being a tool by pretending otherwise.

I have to admit, the thought of re-posting his gay little airplane avatar picture to see him compare it to Grand Theft Auto crossed my mind, but what would that accomplish? Joseph is a troll, for sure. He's also posted some embarrassingly racist and bigoted stuff in the past, so trolling him back or counting on him to feel embarrassed about his own behavior isn't going to work. If we ban him from the forum, he'll probably just act out even more (like LDS pornographer T. Berman). If we continue to ridicule him for being an Internet Sheriff and comparing pictures on the Internet to vaults of cash in a bank or stolen vehicles, he'll probably just stick around longer.

I must recommend the Eric Cartman treatment for "joseph." If everyone acts as though he is a ghost, including Simon, and totally ignores him forever, he may just disappear -- or at the very least repent and try for that $10,000 cash prize.

What exactly was Joseph's role in the fiasco over the weekend?

Eric wrote:I must recommend the Eric Cartman treatment for "joseph." If everyone acts as though he is a ghost, including Simon, and totally ignores him forever, he may just disappear -- or at the very least repent and try for that $10,000 cash prize.

I wholeheartedly agree, Eric. I have been perhaps the most vocal Joseph-hater for many reasons, and this "Internet Sheriff" business is just icing on the cake.

I will give him the "Eric Cartman treatment," but this will only work if everyone participates.

Buffalo wrote:What exactly was Joseph's role in the fiasco over the weekend?

From Dr. Shades:

Our ISP received a complaint that a copyright was being infringed by us. You see, there is a thread about the apologist "SeattleGhostWriter" from MD&D and his dabbling into erotic fiction. Someone posted his photo, now one of two things have happened:

A) He found out about it on his own and complained to our ISP about the photo being a copyright infringement, or
B) Our poster named "Joseph" notified "SeattleGhostWriter" about it and then "SeattleGhostWriter" contacted our ISP.

You might think that the latter scenario is bizarre, but there's a precedent: Joseph complained to Blixa about a photo that she had posted from NASA's website, saying it was a copyright infringement, and after Blixa left it up Joseph contacted the image's copyright holder who then complained to our ISP. We NARROWLY avoided being shut down that time. This time we weren't so lucky.

Just one problem folks, I did not contact the pornwriter.

Joseph wrote:Just one problem folks, I did not contact the pornwriter.

But you DID initiate the first hassle that occurred on the board regarding copyright. That made Dream Host extremely nervous when SGW contacted them.

Joseph, you never bothered to answer Shades' question on this, and I would like an answer.

Why, when you were concerned about that NASA picture, did you not
a) Contact Blixa privately first....address your concerns, and give her an opportunity to remove the image herself?
or
b) Contact either myself, Shades, or Harmony via PM and explain your concerns to us?

All you did was make a rather vague comment on a couple of threads, in general, as I recall.

If you had privately spoken with ANY of us, and addressed your specific concerns, we would have had an opportunity to make appropriate adjustments.

One thing that everyone needs to remember is that the Mods are NOT all-seeing, all-knowing, and we are NOT on the board 24 hours a day.

We do the best we can to moderate the board, but all three of us may not read every single thread.

None of us are getting paid to do this. We are VOLUNTEERING our time because we enjoy the board and believe in Shades' vision of free speech.

I think that everyone needs to utilize a little patience when filing reports, etc.

We are HUMAN!!

We all have full-time jobs!

It's amazing we are able to accomplish as much as we do.

Liz, I figured my postings calling out copyright problems were sufficient. I have told Dr. Shades I will PM him first when I have a concern about an image.

As for those crying about notifying the owners of images when I see them online, wouldn't you want to know if someone was using your intellectual property without permission? Wouldn't you want to know so you could control who, when and where your property is used?

Put it in the wrong light and you have major problems. Even with a seven page model release a friend was sued by a model when the photos were used in AIDS ads.

Posts that put up BYU or Deseret News or l-dsinc photos are a particular problem on these boards. If you remember the Tanners and Utah Lighthouse Ministry getting clubbed for posting part of the handbook you might understand the possible problems. They may well have had a 'fair use' defense but did not have the financial means to fight the corporation. Being right and winning are two different things. l-dsinc would bleed them dry and force them into bankruptcy and not care they were misusing the process. That could easily happen here.

Yes, I question use of some images I see online. I don't go looking for them but when it is obvious I check it out. Just like I would try to help in stopping a bank robber or shoplifter or any other common thief. That is what these people are who steal the work of others, thieves.

I still don't understand why anyone would want to stir up such trouble as copyright questions in the first place. I could understand if someone was plagued with a borderline personality and felt a compulsion to constantly stir up trouble, but I hope that is not going on here.

I for one feel enriched by graphics on posts. A picture can enhance our understanding and tickle our funny bone. If a non-pornographic picture is good enough for Google, it should be good enough for for a non-profit discussion site. Breaking board rules about posting someone else's picture and personal information is another matter entirely.

I have lots of images on the web. Many have copyrights through various publishers (and my own), many do not. As long as no one is claiming authorship to my images and is not making money from them, I just don't care if they link to them.

How would I be damaged by that?

liz3564 wrote:But you DID initiate the first hassle that occurred on the board regarding copyright. That made Dream Host extremely nervous when SGW contacted them.

Liz,

He is obviously incapable of feeling any embarrassment about his behavior, as Eric said. He has posted some of the stupidest threads [How come LDS Family Search, etc hates Linux?, NBA secretly run by Mormons?] and some of the most bigoted and racist threads ever to "grace" MDB [Remember Pearl Harbor (where Joseph advised us all to "nail a nip"), the term 'Mo' (where Joseph insinuated that all Mormons are child molesters because they are Mormon)].

Joseph has begun 601 new threads since he signed up in 2010.
In contrast, the popular Mister/Doctor Scratch has only begun 440 threads since 2003.

So, Liz, might I suggest you participate in our South Park exercise?