Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jun 7, 2005.
What did I miss?
oy ve! i guess it was the aclu thread.
damn. i hope it's temporary.
from another thread, i saw that ~Shard~ and Lacero were, as well, but i've no idea in which thread their trangressions took place.
You could look up their recent posts, just as I did with pseudo. All I came up with on him is the ACLU thread, in which it seemed several posters were misbehaving, but not outrageously, and nobody else was banned.
Would the mods care to explain this situation?
Lemme take a shot in the dark:
The forum FAQs say that banning (other than outright spamming or trolling) is preceded by PM from the mods. If we assume that was the case, then the circumstances of that conversation would presumably have supported whatever action was taken. And I would not expect the mods to make public that private conversation, so...
Banning happens, my experience thus far is that the mods are neither unreasonable or draconian.
We haven't had a banning in this forum since the rules were changed to prevent newbies from posting here (which was an open invitation to outside trolling and routinely abused). I can't recall the last time a regular was booted and most of those who were practically begged for it.
I've supported the mods in their decisions most of the time, but on its face at least this seems to be an unusual action. So I'm asking.
FWIW, Lacero is banned but ~Shard~ is not.
It's often a cumulative effect, and whilst I'm not going to comment on an individual case, it's fair to say pseudobrit wasn't banned specifically for that thread alone.
Regulars who get banned usually have history, but you won't get any details from the mods.
I'm replying here specifically to IJ Reilly's query.
Pseudobrit will be back soon enough.
So do you send a PM to the member first as a warning, and then ban him if he doesn't listen to that warning?
No warning would be harsh.
And I liked Lacero and Pseudobrit
Why would Shard have been banned?
As WinterMute said, reasons for bans or "time outs" are between the moderating team and those involved.
No one is banned for no reason, or without warning. Those members that have been mentioned will be back.
Maybe we should throw them a "Welcome Back" thread Sort of like when a mate comes of out jail
Should we give them $20 and a new suit?
Cantor: The Mods have spoken.
Response: All hail the Mods.
Cantor: Go in peace my children.
good to know, thanks.
The last time the mods called a "time out" on a poster, which was quite a while ago, some mention was made -- not necessarily of the specific cause or causes, but at least of the fact that the member would be allowed to come back after a prescribed period of time.
I think that would be a good policy to continue, especially considering that this board is frequented by a relatively small number of regulars, so it is unnerving to see one slam-dunked for no apparent reason.
BTW, as nearly as I can tell ~Shard~ was never banned. Somebody else said he was, but he wasn't when I checked.
I read that too fast, and I thought it said s*ut.
generally speaking long-time members will be given a "timeout" as opposed to a permanent ban. That is, unless the line has been crossed by a mile.
We do discuss things before they happen with long-term folk. n00bs just get blasted
He may well have been for a day or two, we can ban a member for any length of time, but usually a day or so, a week or a permanent ban is instituted.
As edesignuk said, no one get banned for no reason or without warning.
Coo, a regular mod-fest going on in here.... Who else fancies a holiday from MR??
i'm long overdue i'd say
Just for the record, I didn't say it was for no reason, just no apparent reason. It's good to know that board veterans won't get their heads handed to them merely for having a bad day.
I've scouted out some of the many Mactel threads that sprouted up this week, and some of them got pretty hot. Made the Politics boards seem downright calm by comparison. In one of the few I elected to participate in, I was sideswiped pretty good for making what I thought was an entirely noncontroversial observation. I'm sure this week presented quite a challenge to the moderators.
So let me be clear: I think the mods do a really good job of keeping order in this inherently disorderly place. Sometimes the policies could be a bit clearer, is all.
I'll second that last and add the following:
If us veterans got our asses handed to us any time we took someone off at the shoulders I'd have dissappeared LONG ago. Granted, I've cooled off considerably in the last couple of years (I even reported myself the last time I just couldn't help myself).
However, I think the Mods express some latitude for us old timers simply because such outbursts are rarely routine and are often used in a last resort when either another veteran is being verbally pummelled or when the Troll Bazooka has to come out of it's case....
" I really did try to reason with him but then he started picking on IJ's Momma... So I did a Sam Kinisson on him."
this just made me smile.
By the way, when did mudbug become a "God"? Didn't he used to be an "editor" or something? I thought Arn was the only "God"... or what have I missed lately?
Wow, this is interesting, I have allways thought the Mods leaned to their politics, and biases........Im still wondering why iam carring this red dot around Im sure it was political or said something antiMac.
What red dot?
You dont see my Red Dot? yours is Green so i guess you can go but i must stop?