Management and enforcement.

[TubaDiva]

We want to make the management and enforcement process more transparent to you, our users. In the past, we have been hesitant to disclose information about a poster who is banned, out of respect for their privacy. Since a banned poster cannot respond to comments, we also felt it unfair to them to have much discourse on the subject.

For a long time we were such a little place that everybody knew everything about everyone and memories ran deep and long. We didn't have to keep a lot of records and we didn't have to keep track of stuff. This is certainly not the situation today.

For the most part, our members are not management problems. The majority of moderating actions involve small errors that are easily pointed out, either by us or other members, the offense gets corrected, the lesson is learned, that's the end of it. We don't hold these little things against you, it's chalked up to whatever, anything from newbie missteps to ignorance of posted rules to getting carried away in the heat of an argument to posting drunk to . . . you name it. Accidents happen and we know that and once the accident's cleaned up, we forget about it.

It is the larger pattern of behavior that gets our attention big time. When we ask a person to do something and they don't do it. When we ask a person NOT to do something and they do it. When a person, even a long-time member, continues in this pattern of behavior and ignores corrections or warnings, we look at that sharply.

We do keep records of major offenses and warnings. (Contrary to popular belief, they don't expire, but we do take all elements of a situation into play when considering action; every case is different.) The more persistent the offender, the more attention gets paid. That's when we have to do something. Please don't make us go there.

This means that sometimes we have a situation where a long-time member and beloved poster is banned from our Boards. We regret when this happens, but the situation is usually so egregious that we have no other reasonable choice.

In the past, partly out of respect for the privacy of the banned person and partly because most people knew what was going on, we did not publicize the reasons for the banning. One consequence of this was that some members would become angry over perceived unfairness or injustice that a long-time member would be banned, and the storm of protest would lead us to publicizing the reasons anyway. Then the anger would be quieted down as their perception changed when the multiple offenses were clear.

It seems silly to put members through that process. We should communicate the reasons that a long-time member was banned.

This will need to be done in a calm, fair, open, and objective manner. And we will allow other members to comment of course, while recognizing that the banned person is unable to respond to your comments on the Boards.

This is our proposed policy change, and we invite comments.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[Frank]

I think that's a good policy.

Such information normally comes out anyway, in the "Why was XXX banned?" threads that pop up in the Pit, albeit sometimes garbled and fragmentary.

[Loach]

It makes sense to put the calm, rational explaination before the hysterical post, instead of two pages into it.

[paperbackwriter]

I understand the privacy and discretion concerns that motivated the original policy. That said, if the problem comes to such a head that it required a banning, then the bannee has already been publicly indiscreet, and almost certainly publicly warned. So if the infractions are public, and the punishment is public (i.e., "Banned" appears in the user status), then so should be the reasoning for that punishment.

[Tripler]

I agree that it makes sense to present a calm, organized, and tactful explanation out to the public-at-large. If for nothing else, I would think some would learn of others mistakes or wrongdoings, and not do those things.

Tripler
pbw is right. If the crime is public, the sentence should be as well.

[Cervaise]

It makes sense to put the calm, rational explaination before the hysterical post, instead of two pages into it.Seconded, plus what pbw said. I agree with the proposed policy.

[hajario]

This makes good sense. It's about time.

Haj

[fluiddruid]

I agree. When a long-time or well-known poster disappears, it's going to come forward anyway. Hopefully, this policy should eliminate some of the hysterics and drama.

[Troy McClure SF]

It's a good idea. As said above, most of the info will eventually come out, either here, or in other venues, and there will always be an element of exaggeration, if not outright bullshit. Hearing it directly from the staff would go a long way in pointing out what not to do, and will also preserve any respect a banned poster would still deserve, without the "I heard jjtm broke into TUBA's house and ate her cat" speculation.

[Berkut]

I like it.

It all tends to come out in the end anyway. Why not cut out most of the speculation and drama before it even starts?

[Cliffy]

I join the chorus.

--Cliffy

[moriah]

One small troublesome item to look out for:

When an admin makes the case of why PosterX was banned, there may be those who still disagree with the banning and leap to the defense of PosterX. In doing so, they will wind up Pitting the administration. And I commend this board's administration for allowing that to happen (in the Pit). Other boards would simply shut down all dissenting threads.

However, there will be those who, when they see PosterX being defended, they will leap to the defense of the Administration showing that they agree with the banning (and good riddance). However, this entails explaining why PosterX was so deserving of being banned (IOW, ripping into PosterX).

So, even though you may not want a follow-up pitting of the PosterX whom you banned, it will likely take place if other members start defending PosterX.

But this is what usually happens in the Pit anyway whenever a long time poster is banned. I'm just saying that while you may not want other posters to Pit someone who can not defend themselves... it will happen as a response to those who Pit the admins for banning that banned poster.

Peace.

[TVeblen]

So, even though you may not want a follow-up pitting of the PosterX whom you banned, it will likely take place if other members start defending PosterX.

But this is what usually happens in the Pit anyway whenever a long time poster is banned. I'm just saying that while you may not want other posters to Pit someone who can not defend themselves... it will happen as a response to those who Pit the admins for banning that banned poster.

Peace.

It's a fine line, and one we've wrassled with internally for quite a while now. On one hand is the need to respect a banned poster's right not to be pilloried without chance of response. On the other hand is the broader issue of rules and enforcement. It's pretty danged hard to separate them. How to protect the individual but still document reasonable interpretation and enforcement of the rules? Let's face it, any vital community is still a collection of individuals, and man, are we ever blessed with rampageous individualists.
As Tuba said, it seems reasonable to make the process and documention behind actions more transparent. Maybe it will reduce the upset of bannings. Not eliminate it (fat chance) but at least lay out the reasons and track records up front. It might be easier, and ultimately more respectful, of the banned as well as the rest of community. Worth a try.

[hawthorne]

I'm pleased. The non-disclosure stuff still makes sense for spammers and drive-by trolls, but a post explaining the departure of established posters is a good idea. I'd like to see such posts made here in ATMB with any discussion - as distinct from questions - going in the Pit.

[WhyNot]

It's a fine line, and one we've wrassled with internally for quite a while now. On one hand is the need to respect a banned poster's right not to be pilloried without chance of response. On the other hand is the broader issue of rules and enforcement. It's pretty danged hard to separate them. How to protect the individual but still document reasonable interpretation and enforcement of the rules? Let's face it, any vital community is still a collection of individuals, and man, are we ever blessed with rampageous individualists.
As Tuba said, it seems reasonable to make the process and documention behind actions more transparent. Maybe it will reduce the upset of bannings. Not eliminate it (fat chance) but at least lay out the reasons and track records up front. It might be easier, and ultimately more respectful, of the banned as well as the rest of community. Worth a try.
Is this really a right, though? If someone has broken board policy to the extent that a banning is warranted, received several public warnings and still continues the behavior, I'd say they've given up any pretense to such rights. When they are banned, they are no longer a member. No one worries about flaming non-members, be they co-workers, random people on the street, or George W. Bush.

I agree that it's perhaps a courtesy, but once courtesy is strained to the point of causing dissension in the ranks, I say hang courtesy. I think this is a good policy change for all the reasons posted above, and we should no longer put the feelings of banned posters above the feelings of current members in good standing.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Well... there is a difference between pitting someone who isn't a member at all and never was, and pitting someone who was part of the "community" for a time but now isn't... and the reason for the status change is the subject of the discussion.

However, we agree that we've gone too far in the past in "respecting the privacy of the individual" at the cost of anguish and anger and other high emotions on the part of others. That's why the change in policy.

We're sort of feeling our way along, here, and have been for several years, trying to decide what's best for the boards and the community we're building. The whole concept is evolving (and probably will continue to evolve, for a long time) and so we try one way that seems right, and then decide to make changes when a different direction seems better.

[Uncommon Sense]

.........and so we try one way that seems right, and then decide to make changes when a different direction seems better.

Excellent. I commend you on that mindset. I remember a couple of years ago when the talk of paid subscriptions was poo-poo'd.

[Chronos]

Hypothetical to consider, here: Suppose it comes to light that a member who's been around for a while is a sock puppet (either previously banned or not). In that case, the reason for banning would be clear-cut from the mods' point of view, but it might not be obvious to all members that the member in question was a sock. Furthermore, the mods' determination that the member was a sock was probably based in part on privelidged information unavailable to regular members and on methods which the mods prefer not to discuss. And any discussion of this would fit into the category of the banee getting extra attention, which is something to be avoided.

So, in such a case, would you

A, Not say anything at all, and let the members figure it out on their own;

2, Post a thread "It has come to our attention that so-and-so is a sock puppet; please do not discuss", or

d, Post a full discussion of the type described in this thread?

[moriah]

2, Post a thread "It has come to our attention that so-and-so is a sock puppet; please do not discuss"

"It has come to our attention that PosterX is a sock puppet. Unfortunately, we can not reveal how we have come to that determination, since that would reveal privileged information and/or our means of ferreting out sock puppets. <include link here to the "no sock puppets rule" in the FAQ>. We'd prefer if you didn't discuss this, since the attention and dissension that sock puppets create is one of the reasons people use sock puppets. While one may feel the need to mourn the loss of this poster, remember, what we saw was a facade. And while one may want to flame this person for that facade, it will provide no benefit for the board... they are gone. Thank-you for your cooperation. -StafferX"

[shijinn]

nice. just don't go all PC on us k?

[umop ap!sdn]

Another thumbs up to the policy change, from someone who always reads "why was PosterX banned" threads. Also, many of us who are now reasonably well established posters weren't even here during the earlier offenses that contribute to another poster's banning, which can make it seem like an out of the blue thing. As somebody recently posted somewhere, the internet is still pretty new to all of us and we're still figuring out how to use it. Situations like these that take place over the course of a few years are now coming up.

Post a thread "It has come to our attention that so-and-so is a sock puppet; please do not discuss",

It could be a single post locked thread.

[Duck Duck Goose]

I too would appreciate an official "why was he banned" sticky. It doesn't have to be a discussion sticky, just an explanation.

[moriah]

You know, I'm really tempted to Pit PosterX for being such a jerk!

[Troy McClure SF]

Is this really a right, though? If someone has broken board policy to the extent that a banning is warranted, received several public warnings and still continues the behavior, I'd say they've given up any pretense to such rights.

A good point. I'd see this more of a "don't speak ill of the dead" kinda thing. At this point, what they want doesn't matter, since they ain't here, but the peopel who are still here wouldn't want to see their good memory tarnished.

[Shodan]

I think this policy makes excellent sense. In the case of the recent banning of a fairly well-known member, I found that linking to examples of the behavior that led to the banning made the mods' actions much more transparent and straight forward.

The other reason this makes sense is that it might, in a sense, reassure me and other neurotically Nervous Nellies. I have been warned for some intemperate posts on my part in the past, and I sometimes wonder if I am on the Official Moderator Shit List, and my next screw up would be my last.

The kind of explanation described above would make bannings of other, long-term Dopers seem much less arbitrary and "a bolt from the blue".

Anyway, I think this is a good call. I hope it works out.

And Liberal, if you read this thread, I appreciate it when you remind us all that it is bad sport to attack someone who cannot defend himself, in threads like "Why Was PosterX Banned?"

Regards,
Shodan

Not that PosterX wasn't a jerk. He should have been banned long ago. ;)

[Green Bean]

I applaud this new policy.

As I've argued in the past, sharing the reasons that people are banned will help all of us learn how to be better citizens of the Dope. Most bannings of long-time posters aren't because of obvious and clear-cut things like sock puppetry or spam, but because of more subtle offenses over time. The rules here are flexible, as they should be, but that sometimes causes a little bit of confusion. Offering us a "judicial opinion" instead of just a "verdict" will make it easier for us all to interpret the laws.

[Liberal]

I like the idea, though you never know what the unintended consequences might be. But I also like the idea of not bashing people who can't respond. I guess I'd like to see a thread (not a sticky — let it die when it's time) with an OP worded as mildly as possible, without unnecessary detail. For example:

GOOD:

The administration, in consultation with the moderators, has banned Polycarp today for a series of rules infractions and behavior problems. These include posting death threats, ignoring moderator warnings, and violating our copyright rules over a period of one year. The ban is permanent. While you may discuss the administrative action (the banning), you may not discuss the banned poster.

BAD:

We've had it with Polycrap's incessant trolling and political leftness. He took the moral high ground, and he got knocked down. Good riddance. He thought his sh*t didn't stink, and he took advantage of our generosity and tolerance. He'll get his membership back when Hell freezes over. Our decision is not to be a topic of discussion, but there are threads and [url=]here (]here[/url) where you may throw rotten tomatoes at him.

[Aldebaran]

I can add to the former post some suggestions:

BAD:

Liberal posting example of what he thinks would be a GOOD post in such a thread and by doing this mentions an active member by name.
Thereby giving readers not familiar with this member's postings the impression that
a) This member is banned for the reasons he states
or
b) this member, although not banned, in the past violated the SDMB rules as described by Liberal.

BAD:
Liberal posting an example of what he thinks would be a BAD post in such a thread and by doing this again mentions the same member while altering this member's name in a way that it becomes an insult.

GOOD:
Liberal postis his examples of BAD versus GOOD without mentioning any member (or if he can't find a method to make such a post without mentioning an active member, using his own membername in his example).


Salaam. A

[don't ask]

There is some problem here - I can't find the word "Nazi" in this thread.

[Liberal]

Having seen Gaudere's actual post, I've changed my mind. That looks like the perfect way.

And Aldebaran, I chose my brother because he knows I love him.

[Aldebaran]

If he would be your brother or not makes no difference. Members who read your post easily can come to the conclusions I pictured.

I never saw Polycarp violate any rules and I am also familiar with your posting style yet I don't think that can be said about every member of this message board.
A post worded like yours can in lmy opinion only lead to wrong interpretation and guessing games.

Salaam. A

[Loach]

Having seen Gaudere's actual post, I've changed my mind. That looks like the perfect way.

And Aldebaran, I chose my brother because he knows I love him.

It seemed to me at first glance that you used someones name that you obviously had no problem with. Your intent was clear to me.

I like the new rule and how it was recently used. I have one question. Since it is going to be explained in ATMB are the inevitable Pit threads going to be closed?

[Green Bean]

....you may not discuss the banned poster.I disagree with you on this matter. While we should not sit around and mercilessly bash the bannee, we must be allowed to discuss whatever aspects of his or her on-board behavior led to the banning.

(And, your intent was clear to me, too.)

[BMalion]

Polycarp's banned? :eek:










:D

good one Liberal

[MsRobyn]

Yeah, that Polycarp is a real jerk, that one is. ;)

Robin

[El_Kabong]

One more voice added to the chorus in favor. While I realize this may add a bit the administration's burden, having a clear explanation available as to why a poster was banned will quell a lot of confusion and unfounded speculation. Well, it won't wipe that sort of thing out entirely, of course, but I'd say it's mostly, if not all, good.

[Ephemera]

Now that we have this in effect, is there any chance of having a grandfather clause and being able to find out precisely why prolific posters before vanilla and Zagadka were banned if asked?

[Fenris]

I never saw Polycarp violate any rules and I am also familiar with your posting style yet I don't think that can be said about every member of this message board.
Aldebaran meet irony. Irony, this is Aldebaran.

I'll just step aside to let you two get to know one another, m'kay?

A post worded like yours can in lmy opinion only lead to wrong interpretation and guessing games.
Any other olde-tymers read this bit and suddenly remember Bj0rn's old anti-sarcasm/irony/humor campaign and have scary Bj0rn (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=10648) flashbacks? ;) sarcasm is prone to misunderstanding, which leads to ignorance. is that not what this message board is all about? avoiding ignorance?

Fenris

[The Flying Dutchman]

We're sort of feeling our way along, here, and have been for several years, trying to decide what's best for the boards and the community we're building. The whole concept is evolving (and probably will continue to evolve, for a long time) and so we try one way that seems right, and then decide to make changes when a different direction seems better.

I think the administration can be proud of its efforts to be just and fair to everyone. In the spirit of the above statement, I'd like to make the following suggestions.

1. A limited time period for posters to register their comments regarding the banned person in one thread only.

2. Allowance for the publication of an e-mailed post by the banned person (self defence) in the designated thread at the discretion of the administration.

[neuroman]

I think the administration can be proud of its efforts to be just and fair to everyone. In the spirit of the above statement, I'd like to make the following suggestions.

1. A limited time period for posters to register their comments regarding the banned person in one thread only.
This isn't really necessary IMHO. The thread will eventually die down in time, as all threads do. If someone has been off the boards for two weeks and returns to see one of their longtime favorite posters was banned, that person should still have the opportunity to ask questions. I don't see any real reason to shut down the thread, unless it gets too ugly.

2. Allowance for the publication of an e-mailed post by the banned person (self defence) in the designated thread at the discretion of the administration.This strikes me as a possible mess, because if the poster defends himself/herself via email and an admin posts it, other posters will respond to that, and then we're faced with two prospects, neither pretty:
1) The banned poster sends more emails to the admin to defend the attacks on his defense, and the admin gets drawn into an email/posting by proxy pit war, which would be a waste of their time.
2) The banned poster is only allowed to post "by email" once. Why even bother, since this person has lost all priveleges? If the banned poster feels the action was unjust, the proper channel for him to take is private email with the admins.

Also, is there a reason the banning notices are being placed in ATMB instead of the Pit? I think that bannings of long time members are likely to result in discussion anyway, might as well put them in the Pit to begin with. ATMB is not well read, and you're going to wind up with more threads like this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=289775). (Matter of fact, that's how I got to this thread in the first place.)

[Iceland_Blue]

Sounds pretty good to me. One point- if the general voice of the board is that Poster X did not deserve to be banned, then will the ban be lifted? Hypothetically you could have a situation where Mod X dislikes Poster X and decides to remove him/her/it from the board before posting that they broke the rules based on intelligence only Mod X has and Poster X can't reply to defend himself.
If the board decides that there was nothing to justify it,then Poster X should be reinstated...

Not that poster X didn't deserve it :)

And the most pressing question....WHO broke into Tuba's house and ate her cat?We must be told!

[Loach]

Sounds pretty good to me. One point- if the general voice of the board is that Poster X did not deserve to be banned, then will the ban be lifted? Hypothetically you could have a situation where Mod X dislikes Poster X and decides to remove him/her/it from the board before posting that they broke the rules based on intelligence only Mod X has and Poster X can't reply to defend himself.
If the board decides that there was nothing to justify it,then Poster X should be reinstated...

Not that poster X didn't deserve it :)

And the most pressing question....WHO broke into Tuba's house and ate her cat?We must be told!

This is not a democracy, it's a benign dictatorship. Or maybe an oligarchy. We all knew that before we paid. You either trust the Mods to do the right thing or go to another board.

I don't think that there can be a situation where one person bans another for personal reasons. The way I understand it only an Administrator can ban, not a Mod. I have always heard that they consult with at least one other person before they come to that conclusion. The exception is of course obvious spammers and socks.

[Aldebaran]

Sounds pretty good to me. One point- if the general voice of the board is that Poster X did not deserve to be banned, then will the ban be lifted?

You want to transfer the decision-making to the the members with use of a popularity poll. Bad idea.

you could have a situation where Mod X dislikes Poster X and decides to remove him/her/it from the board before posting that they broke the rules based on intelligence only Mod X has and Poster X can't reply to defend himself.

The way it is done now, moderators/administrators seem to have brought upon themselves a kind of obligation to give examples of where and how a member was officially warned, and warned more then once.
In my view that excludes the possibility to bann a member merely because one moderator/administrator developped an aversion against that member.

If the board decides that there was nothing to justify it,then Poster X should be reinstated...

It is not the board that should decide instead of the administration as long as you like moderators to be around.

Salaam. A

[fortytwo]

Sounds pretty good to me. One point- if the general voice of the board is that Poster X did not deserve to be banned, then will the ban be lifted? Hypothetically you could have a situation where Mod X dislikes Poster X and decides to remove him/her/it from the board before posting that they broke the rules based on intelligence only Mod X has and Poster X can't reply to defend himself.
If the board decides that there was nothing to justify it,then Poster X should be reinstated...

I'm no expert on board protocol but I was under the impression that a banning was discussed between more than one moderator before being enacted.

[rowrrbazzle]

While Liberal's "bad" notice is not advisable, it sure would be a hoot to see! :D

[gum]

Good idea. Thanks, TubaDiva.


hehehehe, Liberal. Nice links. :)

I, also, want to thank you for your decency in the pile-on-the-banned threads.

[TubaDiva]

Now that we have this in effect, is there any chance of having a grandfather clause and being able to find out precisely why prolific posters before vanilla and Zagadka were banned if asked?
We'd rather not rehash old business, please.

I like the new rule and how it was recently used. I have one question. Since it is going to be explained in ATMB are the inevitable Pit threads going to be closed?
Depends on the circumstances, as always. Certainly any sort of dogpile on a banned poster would be stopped, as is the case now. The Pit is where criticism of moderator actions are placed, so that would also stay the same.

I think the administration can be proud of its efforts to be just and fair to everyone. In the spirit of the above statement, I'd like to make the following suggestions.

1. A limited time period for posters to register their comments regarding the banned person in one thread only.

2. Allowance for the publication of an e-mailed post by the banned person (self defence) in the designated thread at the discretion of the administration.
You've always been able to make comments -- within limits. This is not new policy.

To allow a banned member to interact on the board, even second hand, just drags out the whole business and makes it even more disagreeable that it was to begin with. It's never a happy day when someone transgresses enough to be thrown out. By the time someone has reached that point, we have warned them and counseled them numerous times; what use is further discussion?

Sounds pretty good to me. One point- if the general voice of the board is that Poster X did not deserve to be banned, then will the ban be lifted? Hypothetically you could have a situation where Mod X dislikes Poster X and decides to remove him/her/it from the board before posting that they broke the rules based on intelligence only Mod X has and Poster X can't reply to defend himself.

If the board decides that there was nothing to justify it,then Poster X should be reinstated...

Not that poster X didn't deserve it :)

And the most pressing question....WHO broke into Tuba's house and ate her cat?We must be told!
In most cases (spammers being the notable exception), it takes multiple offenses to get banned. A pattern of bad behavior is what we're looking at in the great majority of cases.

We do not moderate by popularity contest. There are people who have committed some really unpleasant acts and made some ugly choices who have been excused because they had followers in the community willing to overlook their faults. We've also had members who felt that someone who was way out of line but entertaining in a trainwreck, watch the jackass sort of way was entitled to a pass. That's a lousy way to run a message board, or much of anything else.

You can disagree with our actions, but the decision of management must be final.

The majority of management decisions, especially bannings, are not single-person decisions and are reached through staff discussion and consensus. We don't hash over everything, but out of the everyday course of events sort of stuff, yes, we do discuss. We have good and sufficient reason for what we do, even if you do not agree.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[PosterX]

Sounds like an excellent and well thought out idea.


I lurk a lot and have always made a point of reading locked threads whenever I find them just to find out why they were locked. Now I know more than ahandful of reasons that a thread may get locked.

I think that a boneyard of banned posters would be an easy place to learn about how the rules work/are applied and what the practical limits of behavior are.







Just ftr, I have not been banned, nor have I engaged in bannable behavior.

[Troy McClure SF]

Any other olde-tymers read this bit and suddenly remember Bj0rn's old anti-sarcasm/irony/humor campaign and have scary Bj0rn (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=10648) flashbacks? ;)

Hey, where'd the ø in his name go?

This board has seen a lot of changes, but god dammit, if there is no ø in bjørn, then, well, this is not my SDMB!

[twickster]

I think that bannings of long time members are likely to result in discussion anyway, might as well put them in the Pit to begin with. ATMB is not well read,...

I don't read ATMB either, but I'll make it a point to check in here regularly now. I go for weeks at a time without going in the Pit, which I find a vewy, vewy scawy pwace, so I'm glad there's a place where I can check out what's new without taking my life in my hands.

Excellent decision, mods -- and excellent implementation. Thanks again for all your hard work.

[/suckup]

[moriah]

People keep looking for a public trial over banned posters.

Partly because they want a say in whether they should be banned. Partly because they want to investigate whether the banning was 'just.'

It's a fact of this board: there will be no public trials. Confidential information will be kept confidential. The judge and jury and prosecutors are the mods and admins.

The fact that they will allow us to complain is commendable. The fact that they will now try to justify what they're doing as much as they are able is even more commendable.

But if one thinks that this is the start of or the invitation to look over their shoulders and possibly overrule them or to demand an investigation and subpoena private emails... that ain't gonna happen (as I understand board policy).


===========


Sounds like an excellent and well thought out idea.

I lurk a lot and have always made a point of reading locked threads whenever I find them just to find out why they were locked. Now I know more than ahandful of reasons that a thread may get locked.

I think that a boneyard of banned posters would be an easy place to learn about how the rules work/are applied and what the practical limits of behavior are.

Just ftr, I have not been banned, nor have I engaged in bannable behavior.

I knew it would be a matter of days before someone took that handle. Welcome to the posting side of the board, infamous PosterX.

Peace.

[Iceland_Blue]

We still have not found out who ate the cat :)

[neuroman]

We still have not found out who ate the cat :)
Didn't PosterX do it? In the dining room with the lead pipe?

[Iceland_Blue]

I represent the poster known as PosterX.Recently,several insinuations have been over this poster being banned,verbally attacking other dopers and even accusations of murder.This must stop!
Dopers who have evidence of wrongdoing must present it to the Mods,who can take appropriate action.If not,then please allow the good name of PosterX to go unsullied.