Why was Zhen'ka banned?

[Guinastasia]

His/her name has "BANNED" under it, and while I'm not doubting there was a reason, as said poster has been here for ten years, why hasn't there been a thread?

(There are even threads for suspensions)

[Muffin]

That's just the 10 year auto-ban. Due to the hamsters being underfed on that Soylent kibble, they are running a few months behind, so they have only got as far as banning 10 year posters from May, rather than September. You still have a couple of months before they catch up to you, and I won't get disappeared until the new year.

[Alice The Goon]

That just might be the best answer to a question I have seen all week!:p

[Electric Warrior]

I'm guessing socks. Socks and spammers are the only times the mods don't post a "Poster X was banned" thread.

[BigT]

At first I was thinking, "A sock from 10 years ago?" but then I understood what you meant. But I'm not sure I understand the logic of not informing people that someone used a sock--heck, I could see some utility for naming them off (if they don't go to the trouble to combine thei accounts)--what better way to keep them from getting away with it?

[twickster]

If we've banned them, they didn't get away with it.

Zhen'ka was involved in a minor disagreement; when we attempted to contact him or her to discuss this, we discovered that he or she did not have a valid email address, which is a requirement for posting here. The banning was an attempt to get his or her attention. This attempt has been unsuccessful so far, because we haven't heard directly from him or her.

And, Guin, let me remind you again that if you have a question about a banning, we prefer that you contact a member of the staff by email or PM to inquire.

[BigT]

I hope at least this time you actually explained that it wasn't a real banning. I remember someone coming to the Giraffeboards quite irate that they had been banned for doing nothing, and had no idea what they were supposed to do.

[Gfactor]

I hope at least this time you actually explained that it wasn't a real banning. I remember someone coming to the Giraffeboards quite irate that they had been banned for doing nothing, and had no idea what they were supposed to do.

I fit as much of an explanation as I could into the space that's allowed, including instructions to email me to resolve the issue. Before that I sent Zhen'ka a PM explaining the situation. When the user doesn't have a good email address it's difficult for us to communicate with them.

[srzss05]

And, Guin, let me remind you again that if you have a question about a banning, we prefer that you contact a member of the staff by email or PM to inquire.

Although I understand why this is policy under normal circumstances, and there was no way Guin could have known that this wasn't a normal circumstance, I would think that because she did start this thread that the poster in question now has a better understanding of the situation than before. If she had not started this thread, how did you think the other poster was to find out about this? Were you hoping they would try to log in, and when they couldn't try to contact you? Most people wouldn't bother.

[Gfactor]

If she had not started this thread, how did you think the other poster was to find out about this? Were you hoping they would try to log in, and when they couldn't try to contact you?

I fit as much of an explanation as I could into the space that's allowed, including instructions to email me to resolve the issue. Before that I sent Zhen'ka a PM explaining the situation.

So yes. We were hoping Zhen'ka would try to log in, at which point Zhen'ka would receive the message to email me, because that's how I set up the notice Zhen'ka would receive after a login attempt. The message says "Need working email. Contact [Gfactor's email address] for details."

[Lynn Bodoni]

Although I understand why this is policy under normal circumstances, and there was no way Guin could have known She DOES know, though, that she's not supposed to post these questions, but that she's supposed to ask in email or PM.

[antonio107]

If she had not started this thread, how did you think the other poster was to find out about this? Were you hoping they would try to log in, and when they couldn't try to contact you?

I fit as much of an explanation as I could into the space that's allowed, including instructions to email me to resolve the issue. Before that I sent Zhen'ka a PM explaining the situation.

So yes. We were hoping Zhen'ka would try to log in, at which point Zhen'ka would receive the message to email me, because that's how I set up the notice Zhen'ka would receive after a login attempt. The message says "Need working email. Contact [Gfactor's email address] for details."

Just out of curiosity, how does one register for a board without a valid e-mail address? You do need to confirm, after all. Or was it a case of "The address was good, but now it is no longer working?"

[twickster]

Just out of curiosity, how does one register for a board without a valid e-mail address? You do need to confirm, after all. Or was it a case of "The address was good, but now it is no longer working?"

Zhen'ka had registered 10 years ago -- not entirely surprising the email address used then is no longer good.

Reminder to all: check the email address in your profile and make sure it's still good. If we have reason to communicate with you and are unable to do so, banning can result.

[Gukumatz]

Just out of curiosity, how does one register for a board without a valid e-mail address? You do need to confirm, after all. Or was it a case of "The address was good, but now it is no longer working?"

I can't remember the specifics in this case, but most of the time it was an address that was valid when they signed up but has since fallen into disuse. The flip side of the coin is sites that lets you make a temporary e-mail for 30 minutes so you can sign up for random stuff without getting a spam buffet on your private mail.

[MTCicero]

Although I understand why this is policy under normal circumstances, and there was no way Guin could have known She DOES know, though, that she's not supposed to post these questions, but that she's supposed to ask in email or PM.

Why?

[Guinastasia]

Although I understand why this is policy under normal circumstances, and there was no way Guin could have known She DOES know, though, that she's not supposed to post these questions, but that she's supposed to ask in email or PM.

I thought that was only the policy for socks/trolls -- long time members usually get a thread? :dubious:

[twickster]

The policy is, that if you want to know why someone is banned and you can't find a thread, ask a staff member by email or PM. 'Cuz if you don't know why, you don't know why, right? So shoot off an email or PM and we'll tell you why.

And the policy is that we don't want to give undue attention to socks and trolls, and that attention includes announcing that they're socks and trolls.

[MTCicero]

The policy is, that if you want to know why someone is banned and you can't find a thread, ask a staff member by email or PM. 'Cuz if you don't know why, you don't know why, right? So shoot off an email or PM and we'll tell you why.

And the policy is that we don't want to give undue attention to socks and trolls, and that attention includes announcing that they're socks and trolls.

Ah. Makes sense. Shoulda thoughta that.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I thought that was only the policy for socks/trolls -- long time members usually get a thread? :dubious:MODERATOR ISSUES A FRIENDLY REMINDER: The policy (for a lonnnng time now) is that we usually post an explanation when a long-time member has been banned or suspended. Upper case for emphasis: WHEN WE DON'T POST AN EXPLANATION, THERE'S A REASON WE HAVEN'T DONE SO. The reason may be sockism or trolling, and we don't want to give such people any publicity or attention. The reason may be that there is something personal or confidential going on that is nobody else's business. The reason may be something else.

IF THERE IS NO POST FROM A MODERATOR, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTION ABOUT OTHER POSTERS IN EMAIL or PM. Is this now clear, Guin? My recollection (admittedly faulty, and if so in this case, I apologize) is that you've encountered this situation several times in the past.

[Canadjun]

It's highly unlikely I would ever care enough to want to enquire about a bannee by any means, whether by PM/Email or by asking on ATMB, but IMHO your comment about not wanting to give trolls/socks attention really only makes sense when you completely vanish someone off SDMB which you only seem to do rarely, if at all. As long as the bannee's stuff is on SDMB and they are visible as having been banned, they have their attention. Does a one-liner "D L Sinister Hovel has been banned - troll" really make a difference in terms of the amount of attention the bannee gets?

[Lynn Bodoni]

Just out of curiosity, how does one register for a board without a valid e-mail address? You do need to confirm, after all. Or was it a case of "The address was good, but now it is no longer working?" I have at least three addresses that are no longer good. One for AOL, one for Earthlink, and one for the DSL company that went belly up. I registered at several sites using those addresses, and now the addresses are inactive. But I gave the addresses in good faith.

[Lynn Bodoni]

It's highly unlikely I would ever care enough to want to enquire about a bannee by any means, whether by PM/Email or by asking on ATMB, but IMHO your comment about not wanting to give trolls/socks attention really only makes sense when you completely vanish someone off SDMB which you only seem to do rarely, if at all. As long as the bannee's stuff is on SDMB and they are visible as having been banned, they have their attention. Does a one-liner "D L Sinister Hovel has been banned - troll" really make a difference in terms of the amount of attention the bannee gets? You might be amazed at how often trolls return, and post about their glee at finding their old threads/posts. We often disappear the posts and threads of trolls and spammers, and the regulars on this board are VERY good at reporting spam posts.

If you report spam, please make a note of it in the thread, such as "Spam thread-reported" so that others will know not to make another couple of dozen reports. The mods in charge of the forums get an email for EACH report. I remember that once I got over two dozen emails in about 10 minutes.

[descamisado]

deleted.

[BigT]

Huh, so suddenly it went from something you preferred to something that's a rule. Funny how that happens.

I for one think transparency in moderation is more important than the emotional need not to let a troll have the satisfaction of getting a thread about them. Why do we care about the emotions of people who aren't even allowed to comment here? I would want something more logical--something bad you are actually preventing.

And, as I already mentioned, I think that telling people that a poster was actually the sock of PosterX, or even listing PosterX and all his socks would actually be a net benefit. That way everyone knows that this was the same person all this time, and thus subverts the duplicity the sock was trying to accomplish. At the very least, merging all their accounts would be useful.

Of course, if it was a troll sock, that would fall under the troll section, which I'm hoping has a more logical reason behind it.

[Lynn Bodoni]

And, as I already mentioned, I think that telling people that a poster was actually the sock of PosterX, or even listing PosterX and all his socks would actually be a net benefit. That way everyone knows that this was the same person all this time, and thus subverts the duplicity the sock was trying to accomplish. At the very least, merging all their accounts would be useful. You would be wrong. We've had over a decade of experience with trolls. Giving them ANY sort of recognition is a grave mistake with most of them. It greatly encourages them. We've tried reasoning with them, we've tried just locking the threads. These methods don't work nearly as well as simply disappearing trolls and their posts. You can have all the theories that you want, but we have experience in what works and what doesn't.

Also, we've explained our reasoning for preferring private communication about such issues. Sometimes it's for the benefit of the board, sometimes it's for a poster's privacy. Apparently Guin either doesn't remember or doesn't care that we might have reasons for doing things, or not doing things, no matter how many times we tell her.

[Zakalwe]

Apparently Guin either doesn't remember or doesn't care that we might have reasons for doing things, or not doing things, no matter how many times we tell her.Okay, look I've got no dog in this hunt and I agree with your policy, but this is, by my count, the fourth post (second by you) that a mod has called out Guin for screwing up here. That's out of 24 total posts. We get it that you're unhappy with her, but this getting close to a pile-on.

[Lord Ashtar]

We get it that you're unhappy with her, but this getting close to a pile-on.

It wouldn't be a Guin thread if it didn't backfire on her.

[Guinastasia]

I appologize -- I understood the rule was that it was for socks/trolls, not for long-time posters. I assumed it was an oversight.

My bad.

[TheFifthYear]

I for one think transparency in moderation is more important than the emotional need not to let a troll have the satisfaction of getting a thread about them.

Amen. The "PM a mod" thing is a ridiculous rule that doesn't accomplish anything and usually gets ignored anyway, and for good reason.

[Canadjun]

You might be amazed at how often trolls return, and post about their glee at finding their old threads/posts. We often disappear the posts and threads of trolls and spammers, and the regulars on this board are VERY good at reporting spam posts.

As I mentioned in my message, your rule makes sense if you are making threads/posts vanish. If the threads/posts are left intact and the poster banned then it still seems to me that a single locked thread with a single one line post about the bannee is not going to give the bannee a significant amount of additional attention.

[Fenris]

Part of the issue is the issue keeps getting muddied over the years.

I would very much appreciate response to the following question:

Is the "Ask a mod, don't post about it" thing an actual "RULE" (as in "Don't create secondary sock-puppet accounts) or a "preference" (as in "We prefer you bold user names, but that's just a custom here--you won't get warned for not doing it")?

EVERY time this comes up, the word "preference" is thrown around on a regular basis. Both Lynn and Twickster used it here, but it's been used just about every time this comes up. Most of the time, there's a implication that it's what you guys like, but there's no actual rule as such.

Occasionally the water is muddied by the word "policy"...which in the context of the board, I have no clue about. Simply put, is it a "preference" or a "rule"? If someone kept ignoring it would she be warned/banned, or would you just think "What a cretin"?

If it's a rule, I'll follow it as I do other board rules even ones that I disagree with.. If it's a "preference", I'm going to ignore it as I think it's a silly and counterproductive methodology and I don't want to indulge it if I'm not required to.

[Johnny L.A.]

If she had not started this thread, how did you think the other poster was to find out about this? Were you hoping they would try to log in, and when they couldn't try to contact you?

I fit as much of an explanation as I could into the space that's allowed, including instructions to email me to resolve the issue. Before that I sent Zhen'ka a PM explaining the situation.

So yes. We were hoping Zhen'ka would try to log in, at which point Zhen'ka would receive the message to email me, because that's how I set up the notice Zhen'ka would receive after a login attempt. The message says "Need working email. Contact [Gfactor's email address] for details."

Personally, I think that in this case starting the thread is a good thing. Some people just see an automated message, no matter what it says. Some people might see he or she is unable to log on, maybe check threads (which a banned user can do if not logged on) to see a mod warning, and assume he or she was banned for that warning -- without reading an automated response with instructions to email. By having this thread, the poster in question might see it or find it in a search.

[Myrnalene]

If we've banned them, they didn't get away with it.

Zhen'ka was involved in a minor disagreement; when we attempted to contact him or her to discuss this, we discovered that he or she did not have a valid email address, which is a requirement for posting here. The banning was an attempt to get his or her attention. This attempt has been unsuccessful so far, because we haven't heard directly from him or her.

And, Guin, let me remind you again that if you have a question about a banning, we prefer that you contact a member of the staff by email or PM to inquire.

Is there some reason the mods can't PM a poster they want to get in touch with instead of banning them and hoping they realize that a banning means you want them to change their email address? :dubious: Apparently this is the thing you guys do now, but frankly it's fucking asinine.

[Lord Ashtar]

Is there some reason the mods can't PM a poster they want to get in touch with instead of banning them and hoping they realize that a banning means you want them to change their email address? :dubious: Apparently this is the thing you guys do now, but frankly it's fucking asinine.

And apparently you think this place is just terrible, so I don't know why you keep coming around.

[Myrnalene]

And apparently you think this place is just terrible, so I don't know why you keep coming around.

Because the mods keep doing insane shit like banning people and hoping the bannee realizes it means, "Lol jk, you're not really banned, we were just trying to get your attention!" instead of sending them a PM that says, "Hey, we see you were in a mild altercation and blah blah moderation note. Also, we notice that you don't have a valid email address - please rectify this ASAP."

Such comically inept doings are irresistible. Sue me.

[samclem]

Is there some reason the mods can't PM a poster they want to get in touch with instead of banning them and hoping they realize that a banning means you want them to change their email address? :dubious: Apparently this is the thing you guys do now, but frankly it's fucking asinine.
:smack: Why didn't we think of that?
Answer: We did. PM was sent. Poster came onto board within 24 hours. Poster never responded.


Next attempt to get poster's attention--ban them, with a message as to why and hoping they email.

So far--nada.

[Gfactor]

Because the mods keep doing insane shit like banning people and hoping the bannee realizes it means, "Lol jk, you're not really banned, we were just trying to get your attention!" instead of sending them a PM that says, "Hey, we see you were in a mild altercation and blah blah moderation note. Also, we notice that you don't have a valid email address - please rectify this ASAP."

Thanks for the suggestion. That's exactly what I did.

I fit as much of an explanation as I could into the space that's allowed, including instructions to email me to resolve the issue. Before that I sent Zhen'ka a PM explaining the situation. When the user doesn't have a good email address it's difficult for us to communicate with them.

Third time I've explained that in this thread. What I haven't mentioned before is that I actually noticed that Zhen'ka didn't have a valid e-mail previously, sent a PM, and got no response. So this was the second PM that I'd sent to Zhen'ka about this issue. And the second PM that didn't work.

Also, for the record, it wasn't an altercation with another poster--Zhen'ka reported a post. I replied to the report, and my reply bounced back. When that happened, I sent a PM with a reply to the report and a request, similar to the one you've suggested, and got not response. Here's a tip--if you don't have a valid e-mail address registered with us, it's probably a good idea not to report posts. :smack:

[ShadowFacts]

And apparently you think this place is just terrible, so I don't know why you keep coming around.

Because the mods keep doing insane shit like banning people and hoping the bannee realizes it means, "Lol jk, you're not really banned, we were just trying to get your attention!" instead of sending them a PM that says, "Hey, we see you were in a mild altercation and blah blah moderation note. Also, we notice that you don't have a valid email address - please rectify this ASAP."

Such comically inept doings are irresistible. Sue me.

The mods are so inept, it distracted you from reading the thread! :rolleyes:

[splankt]

The mods are so inept, it distracted you from reading the thread! :rolleyes:
That's rather rude. Does any criticism of the staff here inevitably result in people being subjected to this kind of thing?

[kushiel]

The mods are so inept, it distracted you from reading the thread! :rolleyes:
That's rather rude. Does any criticism of the staff here inevitably result in people being subjected to this kind of thing?

*looks at your sign-up date*

Ah - there has been some epic wank against mods in the past, especially when the Pit was a more angry place. Trust me, the mods aren't immune to criticism, quite the opposite.

[splankt]

*looks at your sign-up date*
I don't see what that has to do with anything. My opinion is valid no matter when I signed up, isn't it?

[Idle Thoughts]

*looks at your sign-up date*
I don't see what that has to do with anything. My opinion is valid no matter when I signed up, isn't it?

Sure, and nobody said it wasn't.
He was just pointing out the fact that if you had been here for awhile, you've have seen the constant, regular complaining of the mods by the same people. Thus you might be less likely to think they're the repressed people here.

[splankt]

Sure, and nobody said it wasn't.
He was just pointing out the fact that if you had been here for awhile, you've have seen the constant, regular complaining of the mods by the same people. Thus you might be less likely to think they're the repressed people here.
You're sort of implying that you think the mods are being repressed. I don't know about this Myrnalene -- maybe she's constantly hectoring the mods, maybe not -- but it's hard for me to feel too bad about the sufferings of a moderator on an internet messageboard. From what I've seen in other communities, there are generally enough applicants that an unhappy moderator can step down when they like, without concern that the community won't be able to survive without their efforts.

[Idle Thoughts]

I've implied nothing of the sort nor do I think they are.

I simply said that if you knew more history, you might be less apt to rush to anyone's defense.
Don't understand what's so hard to understand with that sentence.

[hajario]

I dare someone to ask. I know you want to do it. ;)

[Lord Ashtar]

So...why was splankt banned?

[samclem]

You could always email a mod. ;)

[Hunter Hawk]

Here's a tip--if you don't have a valid e-mail address registered with us, it's probably a good idea not to report posts. :smack:

Why not?

[elmwood]

Here's a tip--if you don't have a valid e-mail address registered with us, it's probably a good idea not to report posts. :smack:

Why not?

Might be related to a bounced reply message.

On the board I run, there are ongoing problems with users that subscribe to multiple threads, turn on private message email notification, and then abandon their email address without updating their profile. All of the messages sent by vBulletin bounce into the general forum email account.

I don't ban such users, but I will sometimes suspend their posting privileges. They'll usually write to me, and that way I get a good working email address, and a stop to the bouncing.

[Lord Mondegreen]

On a positive note, this thread caused me to check my email address. Found out it was a really old one which I no longer use, so I updated it.

Probably would never have occurred to me to check it otherwise.

[DrDeth]

Perhaps it might be better to have a different status for such posters, like perhaps "Suspended"?

I admit "Banned" does lead one to wonder. OTOH I don't see the purpose of starting a thread when a PM or email would be better. Of course, if the answer isn't too your liking then perhaps a thread.

[needscoffee]

So...why was splankt banned?Obviously, a bad email address.

[Gfactor]

Perhaps it might be better to have a different status for such posters, like perhaps "Suspended"?

You're right. We should make it Suspended, rather than Banned. I think we'd get the same questions either way, but that's closer to the true status (and it's not a punitive measure. As elmwood indicates, we do this to get them to email us.) Out of curiosity, elmwood, do you post an announcement when you suspend a poster as you've described?

It seldom goes this far, so it hasn't been an issue. Usually the poster responds to (the first) PM, or emails us soon after we've changed their status. But I'll pass this around the mod loop. Thanks.

[Fenris]

You could always email a mod. ;)

Is that just your preference, or is it an actual rule?

:D

[Polycarp]

You could always email a mod. ;)

I tried e-mailing a mod once. But they keep squirming when I try to slide the paper clip through their lip to attach them to the message.

:D

[Blank Slate]

Instead of "Banned" or "Suspended" why not use a specific term..."Unregistered", for example. Then everyone would know it wasn't worth starting a thread.

[suranyi]

Good thing I read this thread. It reminded me to check my email here. Turns out it was one I haven't used in many years. So I just updated it.

[hajario]

Instead of "Banned" or "Suspended" why not use a specific term..."Unregistered", for example. Then everyone would know it wasn't worth starting a thread.

That's a really good idea. Maybe "Bad Email".

[MeanOldLady]

Third time I've explained that in this thread. What I haven't mentioned before is that I actually noticed that Zhen'ka didn't have a valid e-mail previously, sent a PM, and got no response. So this was the second PM that I'd sent to Zhen'ka about this issue. And the second PM that didn't work.Maybe he just doesn't feel like responding to the PMs, and even if he received and read your e-mails, he wouldn't have responded to them either.

[Muffin]

"Banned" implies the poster is a baddie, rather than someone who made an administrative slip.

[Telemark]

Maybe he just doesn't feel like responding to the PMs, and even if he received and read your e-mails, he wouldn't have responded to them either.
Since that's one of the requirements for posting here, then suspending his posting privileges is the correct course of action.

[Gfactor]

"Banned" implies the poster is a baddie, rather than someone who made an administrative slip.

Right.

Instead of "Banned" or "Suspended" why not use a specific term..."Unregistered", for example. Then everyone would know it wasn't worth starting a thread.

That's a really good idea. Maybe "Bad Email".

I'm totally stealing this. ;)

ETA: I totally stole this. I did so without much input from the rest of the staff, so we might come up with something else later. For now I went ahead and did it. Thanks for the suggestion.

[hajario]

ETA: I totally stole this. I did so without much input from the rest of the staff, so we might come up with something else later. For now I went ahead and did it. Thanks for the suggestion.

You are very welcome. I'm glad that I can finally be of some use around here. ;)

[MeanOldLady]

Maybe he just doesn't feel like responding to the PMs, and even if he received and read your e-mails, he wouldn't have responded to them either.
Since that's one of the requirements for posting here, then suspending his posting privileges is the correct course of action.Okay, so they banned him for not having a valid e-mail address? That would seem a bit much, but at the very least justifiable under some (silly, IMO) technicality. But they non-banned-banned him because he didn't respond to their messages, in order to get his attention? Maybe he just didn't want to respond, or maybe couldn't for some strange reason. Color me weird, but banning-but-not-really just seems like a bizarre thing to do.

[runner pat]

Okay, so they banned him for not having a valid e-mail address? That would seem a bit much, but at the very least justifiable under some (silly, IMO) technicality. But they non-banned-banned him because he didn't respond to their messages, in order to get his attention? Maybe he just didn't want to respond, or maybe couldn't for some strange reason. Color me weird, but banning-but-not-really just seems like a bizarre thing to do.

It wasn't a real ban but a way of getting his attention. Maybe "Suspended" would have been better.

[MeanOldLady]

I know it wasn't a real ban. That's what I'm saying.

[Gfactor]

Maybe he just didn't want to respond,

You've said this twice now, as if it were some sort of excuse. If I believed that Zhen'ka was intentionally ignoring my instructions (i.e., didn't want to respond), I'd have issued a real suspension (for a fixed period) or banned him for real (depending on his record). Ignoring moderator instructions is not ok, even if you think they're only about a technicality. What I've done is give Zhen'ka the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he didn't see my instructions (twice). I can't send him an email because, well, that's the problem. And a PM didn't work. So I'm doing what I can to make contact. I don't see how that's bizarre. YMMV.

[Fenris]

I'd still appreciate an answer: "Is the "If you're curious, e-mail the mods" thing an actual rule with warnings and such if needed, or is it just a quirk/preference of some of the mods (like liking names bolded)."

So far, from what I've seen, I'd have no problems opening a thread like this if I was curious--yeah, a few mods would be unhappy that their personal preferences weren't being followed, but it doesn't seem like I'd be breaking any rules.

Please clarify.

[Gfactor]

I'd still appreciate an answer: "Is the "If you're curious, e-mail the mods" thing an actual rule with warnings and such if needed, or is it just a quirk/preference of some of the mods (like liking names bolded)."

It's a preference, just like you'd prefer we respond to your questions. ;)

Seriously, I don't think we've ever warned anybody (or worse) for asking about an unannounced banning or suspension.

Even more seriously, I thought I had a more responsive answer to give, but I want to make sure I'm not full of crap before I say more.

[MeanOldLady]

Maybe he just didn't want to respond,

You've said this twice now, as if it were some sort of excuse. If I believed that Zhen'ka was intentionally ignoring my instructions (i.e., didn't want to respond), I'd have issued a real suspension (for a fixed period) or banned him for real (depending on his record).Oh. I didn't realize you had to respond to messages sent to you by moderators.

[Gfactor]

I'd still appreciate an answer: "Is the "If you're curious, e-mail the mods" thing an actual rule with warnings and such if needed, or is it just a quirk/preference of some of the mods (like liking names bolded)."

****

Please clarify.

It's a preference.

[Muffin]

Well seeing as it is a preference, hey Gfactor, why were you banned?

[hajario]

I'd still appreciate an answer: "Is the "If you're curious, e-mail the mods" thing an actual rule with warnings and such if needed, or is it just a quirk/preference of some of the mods (like liking names bolded)."

****

Please clarify.

It's a preference.

This has been going on for years. It's moved from the Pit to over here but it's always the same. A poster asks the question, a Mod comes in and sighs and rolls their eyes and says to please take it to email or PMs and then answers the question anyway. If you guys really don't want people to ask, then don't answer the question. Failing that, just tell them without the preamble about preferences.

[Irishman]

MeanOldLady said:
Oh. I didn't realize you had to respond to messages sent to you by moderators.

Just like if a Moderator gives you a Note in a thread, you ignore it at your peril. If a Mod gives you a PM/email about some administrative function, you need to respond.

"The registration agreement says that you need to keep a valid email address, and we noticed that your address is not current. Please correct this. Failure to comply could result in disciplinary action."

"Ah, I can just ignore that." :smack:

What part is hard to understand?

[elmwood]

As elmwood indicates, we do this to get them to email us.) Out of curiosity, elmwood, do you post an announcement when you suspend a poster as you've described?

We usually do it on a case-by-case basis. If they're fairly active, we'll make an announcement, because most regular users follow the monthly ban threads. Once they're reinstated, we'll remove the announcement.

It's not so much a ban or suspension, but rather a "soft suspension" of sorts. We've got an inactive group, where users can't post or subscribe to threads, but there's no ban notice that will appear when they visit the site. I'll send a PM first and give them a chance to respond before we move them to the inactive group and make an announcement.

[MeanOldLady]

MeanOldLady said:
Oh. I didn't realize you had to respond to messages sent to you by moderators.

Just like if a Moderator gives you a Note in a thread, you ignore it at your peril. If a Mod gives you a PM/email about some administrative function, you need to respond.

"The registration agreement says that you need to keep a valid email address, and we noticed that your address is not current. Please correct this. Failure to comply could result in disciplinary action."

"Ah, I can just ignore that." :smack:

What part is hard to understand?:rolleyes:

I don't care about the e-mail address thing, and never stated or suggested that everyone should feel free to ignore that requirement (although I would imagine many posters here have outdated e-mail address, likely by accident, or use spam-catcher e-mail addresses that they never check for their SDMB account, but that is beside the point). I just didn't realize that if a moderator sent you a message, failure to respond can result in banning or suspension. I don't know the details of the PM, but I don't respond to every note or message I get. It's not that I'm being a bad little girl and am Breaking The Rules; it's that I don't really have anything to say, and so I don't say anything. Unless someone is asking me a question, I'll probably see a note and think "Okay," then say nothing.

But that's against the rules or something, I guess. I don't know, whatever. Seriously, I don't really care.

[Czarcasm]

MeanOldLady said:


Just like if a Moderator gives you a Note in a thread, you ignore it at your peril. If a Mod gives you a PM/email about some administrative function, you need to respond.

"The registration agreement says that you need to keep a valid email address, and we noticed that your address is not current. Please correct this. Failure to comply could result in disciplinary action."

"Ah, I can just ignore that." :smack:

What part is hard to understand?:rolleyes:

I don't care about the e-mail address thing, and never stated or suggested that everyone should feel free to ignore that requirement (although I would imagine many posters here have outdated e-mail address, likely by accident, or use spam-catcher e-mail addresses that they never check for their SDMB account, but that is beside the point). I just didn't realize that if a moderator sent you a message, failure to respond can result in banning or suspension. I don't know the details of the PM, but I don't respond to every note or message I get. It's not that I'm being a bad little girl and am Breaking The Rules; it's that I don't really have anything to say, and so I don't say anything. Unless someone is asking me a question, I'll probably see a note and think "Okay," then say nothing.

But that's against the rules or something, I guess. I don't know, whatever. Seriously, I don't really care.Apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't respond in this thread. Nobody is saying that you have to respond to every private message from the mods and admins, but you do have to respond to requests for information. If you are asked to correct your email address because it is no longer functional, what do you suppose you should do?

[MeanOldLady]

You're right; this is totally a big deal to me, as is the topic of every thread I respond to. Enough with the e-mail address already. I'm talking about in the first place when they PM'd Zhenka, did not get a response to their PM, so they e-mailed him, at which point they discovered his e-mail address was no longer valid. What was so urgent that they kept messaging him, requiring a response? Like I said, I have no idea what the nature of the reported post was, or what the PMs contained. My guess is the initial PM (you know, before they discovered the invalid e-mail) contained instructions of some kind, otherwise, I can't see why anyone would care whether or not he responded.

[Czarcasm]

You're right; this is totally a big deal to me, as is the topic of every thread I respond to. Enough with the e-mail address already. I'm talking about in the first place when they PM'd Zhenka, did not get a response to their PM, so they e-mailed him, at which point they discovered his e-mail address was no longer valid. What was so urgent that they kept messaging him, requiring a response? Like I said, I have no idea what the nature of the reported post was, or what the PMs contained. My guess is the initial PM (you know, before they discovered the invalid e-mail) contained instructions of some kind, otherwise, I can't see why anyone would care whether or not he responded.My best guess is that it is a private matter between him and the mods, and thus we may never know.

[Gfactor]

Well seeing as it is a preference, hey Gfactor, why were you banned?

I think you misheard. I'm bland, not banned.

[Gfactor]

It's a preference.

This has been going on for years. It's moved from the Pit to over here but it's always the same. A poster asks the question, a Mod comes in and sighs and rolls their eyes and says to please take it to email or PMs and then answers the question anyway. If you guys really don't want people to ask, then don't answer the question. Failing that, just tell them without the preamble about preferences.


This is a fair criticism. We're moving closer to the first option.

[Gfactor]

As elmwood indicates, we do this to get them to email us.) Out of curiosity, elmwood, do you post an announcement when you suspend a poster as you've described?

We usually do it on a case-by-case basis. If they're fairly active, we'll make an announcement, because most regular users follow the monthly ban threads. Once they're reinstated, we'll remove the announcement.

Thanks. We've decided to use a user title that explains the situation--based on hajario's suggestion.

It's not so much a ban or suspension, but rather a "soft suspension" of sorts. We've got an inactive group, where users can't post or subscribe to threads, but there's no ban notice that will appear when they visit the site. I'll send a PM first and give them a chance to respond before we move them to the inactive group and make an announcement.

Right. We don't view it as a true ban or suspension. We actually hadn't had much cause to discuss it because it seldom goes this far. Usually we PM the user, and they say "oops. Sorry. Fixed it." When the user fixes the problem, we reinstate them. And we also send PMs first, as I did here.

[Muffin]

Well seeing as it is a preference, hey Gfactor, why were you banned?

I think you misheard. I'm bland, not banned.Thus your issuing blandishments rather than banishments. A very tactful tack to take.

[Gfactor]

I think you misheard. I'm bland, not banned.Thus your issuing blandishments rather than banishments. A very tactful tack to take.

::Breaks into song::

Something sweet,
Something sort of bland-ish. . . .

[Irishman]

MeanOldLady said:
I don't care about the e-mail address thing, and never stated or suggested that everyone should feel free to ignore that requirement (although I would imagine many posters here have outdated e-mail address, likely by accident, or use spam-catcher e-mail addresses that they never check for their SDMB account, but that is beside the point). I just didn't realize that if a moderator sent you a message, failure to respond can result in banning or suspension. I don't know the details of the PM, but I don't respond to every note or message I get. It's not that I'm being a bad little girl and am Breaking The Rules; it's that I don't really have anything to say, and so I don't say anything. Unless someone is asking me a question, I'll probably see a note and think "Okay," then say nothing.

But that's against the rules or something, I guess. I don't know, whatever. Seriously, I don't really care.


The email thing was just one example of an administrative email that a Mod might send. It was certainly not intended to be the only thing that could cause a person to get in trouble for not replying to. That said, I thought my description was pretty clear. Feel free to ignore a Mod who sends you a "WAZZUP!" or whatever. But if they send you an instruction or question, then yes, you do need to respond.

It's all a matter of if the Private Message falls into the realm of "note from another board member" or "administrative action". Ignore the former at your whim. Ignore the latter at your peril.

My guess is the initial PM (you know, before they discovered the invalid e-mail) contained instructions of some kind, otherwise, I can't see why anyone would care whether or not he responded.

That's how I interpret it.

[maplekiwi]

I can't get into the email I originally used - so I've updated. (Its not dead but I've been having trouble with it for a while)

So this thread was a good idea after all! :p

[Muffin]

Ignore the former at your whim. Ignore the latter at your peril.
Something so darish
So "I don’t car-ish"

[hajario]

I can't get into the email I originally used - so I've updated. (Its not dead but I've been having trouble with it for a while)

So this thread was a good idea after all! :p

I've had two good ideas in this thread so far so I am going to push my luck and try another suggestion.

Once a year, make a sticky/announcement thread that lasts for a week reminding everyone to make sure that their email is current. Sometime in March might be best because that's right before the original Charter Memberships expire.

[MeanOldLady]

Feel free to ignore a Mod who sends you a "WAZZUP!" or whatever.Err, yes, thanks for clearing that up! Because that's what I was talking about: messages from mods saying "What's up?"

[crazyjoe]

Feel free to ignore a Mod who sends you a "WAZZUP!" or whatever.Err, yes, thanks for clearing that up! Because that's what I was talking about: messages from mods saying "What's up?"

You know, generally I think you're pretty cool, but it might help if you explain just what the fuck you're talking about, then? Did you think that if a Mod sends you a PM that contains something like "You and crazyjoe seem to be crossing swords a lot lately. I am PMing both of you to let you know it's getting distracting, so please try to avoid each other or address each other civilly," that you are free to just ignore it?

PMs and e-mails are how the mods send instructions to posters who they want to keep around, but want to place additional restriction on, such as lissener and comments about Showgirls, or Evil Captor and pr0n, or Cesario and pedophelia, so they don't have to put that stuff in an ATMB thread for all to see. How else do you want them to undertake private communications with members? Of course you're expected to respond if they send you instructions.

[MeanOldLady]

Err, yes, thanks for clearing that up! Because that's what I was talking about: messages from mods saying "What's up?"

You know, generally I think you're pretty cool, but it might help if you explain just what the fuck you're talking about, then? Did you think that if a Mod sends you a PM that contains something like "You and crazyjoe seem to be crossing swords a lot lately. I am PMing both of you to let you know it's getting distracting, so please try to avoid each other or address each other civilly," that you are free to just ignore it?If by "ignore" you mean "not write back," then yes. If by "ignore" you mean "completely disregard the admonition, and continue the behaviors you were warned against," then no. Do I have to say something back if a mod sends me a note instructing me to refrain from such and such behavior? Why would I say anything? I'd just stop doing it; there doesn't seem to be anything else to talk about.

Now if a mod PM'd me with "MeanOldLady, please clarify what in the post you reported that you find to be a violation of the rules," or "Please provide a valid e-mail address," or something else of the sort, I would respond, since they are requesting information. But to a note reminding me of the rules, or telling me not to say "cunt" anymore, I'd most likely think, "Okay," then go back to posting. Apparently I'm supposed to write a response (I think?).

[twickster]

I can't get into the email I originally used - so I've updated. (Its not dead but I've been having trouble with it for a while)

So this thread was a good idea after all! :p

I've had two good ideas in this thread so far so I am going to push my luck and try another suggestion.

Once a year, make a sticky/announcement thread that lasts for a week reminding everyone to make sure that their email is current. Sometime in March might be best because that's right before the original Charter Memberships expire.

Good suggestion. (Guess that mod experience elsewhere is proving beneficial, eh?)

[crazyjoe]

You know, generally I think you're pretty cool, but it might help if you explain just what the fuck you're talking about, then? Did you think that if a Mod sends you a PM that contains something like "You and crazyjoe seem to be crossing swords a lot lately. I am PMing both of you to let you know it's getting distracting, so please try to avoid each other or address each other civilly," that you are free to just ignore it?If by "ignore" you mean "not write back," then yes. If by "ignore" you mean "completely disregard the admonition, and continue the behaviors you were warned against," then no. Do I have to say something back if a mod sends me a note instructing me to refrain from such and such behavior? Why would I say anything? I'd just stop doing it; there doesn't seem to be anything else to talk about.

Now if a mod PM'd me with "MeanOldLady, please clarify what in the post you reported that you find to be a violation of the rules," or "Please provide a valid e-mail address," or something else of the sort, I would respond, since they are requesting information. But to a note reminding me of the rules, or telling me not to say "cunt" anymore, I'd most likely think, "Okay," then go back to posting. Apparently I'm supposed to write a response (I think?).

That makes much more sense. I don't think you're necessarily supposed to write a response, but if in the process of PMing you the mods note that you don't have an active e-mail address, which is part of the rules, I think they are within their rights to attempt to correct the situation.

[Irishman]

MeanOldLady, thank you for clarifying. I guess I just wasn't able to frame my response correctly. My example was lame and not on target.

Do I have to say something back if a mod sends me a note instructing me to refrain from such and such behavior? Why would I say anything? I'd just stop doing it; there doesn't seem to be anything else to talk about.

Not a Mod, but my expectation and understanding is that you are not required to reply merely because you received an instruction, unless that instruction is a request for information or action. So a PM to "dial it back" followed by you not replying but dialing it back would be acceptable.

But to a note reminding me of the rules, or telling me not to say "cunt" anymore, I'd most likely think, "Okay," then go back to posting. Apparently I'm supposed to write a response (I think?).

No, I think you would be fine with your original expectation, and I don't know what was said that suggested otherwise. From what I can see, this line of topic came out of this post:

MeanOldLady said:
Third time I've explained that in this thread. What I haven't mentioned before is that I actually noticed that Zhen'ka didn't have a valid e-mail previously, sent a PM, and got no response. So this was the second PM that I'd sent to Zhen'ka about this issue. And the second PM that didn't work.
Maybe he just doesn't feel like responding to the PMs, and even if he received and read your e-mails, he wouldn't have responded to them either.

You seem to be suggesting that it is acceptable for Zhen'ka to not reply in this situation, but the specific situation is that Gfactor sent a PM explicitly about not having a valid email address and requesting he fix it. So this is explicitly a request for action/response. Gfactor sent a PM to update the email address, and it was ignored. No update, no email to explain why or ask for further clarification. He then sent a second PM requesting specific action that was ignored. Zhen'ka didn't have to reply to the PM with another PM, but he did need to update his email address.

[MeanOldLady]

One more time.

MeanOldLady said:

Maybe he just doesn't feel like responding to the PMs, and even if he received and read your e-mails, he wouldn't have responded to them either.

You seem to be suggesting that it is acceptable for Zhen'ka to not reply in this situation, but the specific situation is that Gfactor sent a PM explicitly about not having a valid email address and requesting he fix it.No. I was referring to before they found his e-mail address was invalid. He didn't respond to a PM, so they e-mailed him, and then found his address was no longer functional, at which point they asked for a valid one. I was curious about why was the e-mail sent in the first place. Why wasn't the PM the end of it? I'm guessing that the initial PM contained a question, or an instruction that would need a response, otherwise I can't see why they would feel the need to continue sending him messages until he wrote back.

I really didn't mean for this to turn into a derailment of this sort. I was just curious about why he needed to respond to their initial message at all, unless they were asking him for something, in which case it's clear. That said, over and out.

[Marley23]

I was referring to before they found his e-mail address was invalid. He didn't respond to a PM, so they e-mailed him, and then found his address was no longer functional, at which point they asked for a valid one.
You have this out of order.

Zhen'ka was involved in a minor disagreement; when we attempted to contact him or her to discuss this, we discovered that he or she did not have a valid email address, which is a requirement for posting here. The banning was an attempt to get his or her attention. This attempt has been unsuccessful so far, because we haven't heard directly from him or her.

Gfactor tried to email Zhen'ka in response to a post reported by Zhen'ka, and found Zhen'ka did not have a working email address. So he sent her [I think it's a her] a private message explaining that she needs to have a functional email address. Zhen'ka never responded and did not update her email, so after a few days, he sent a second PM with instructions about the email issue and then banned the account. Zhen'ka doesn't post very much and has not logged in since Sept. 1, which is the day before the account was banned. Does that help?

[Irishman]

MeanOldLady said:
I was just curious about why he needed to respond to their initial message at all, unless they were asking him for something, in which case it's clear. That said, over and out.

According to twickster (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12879465&postcount=6),

Zhen'ka was involved in a minor disagreement; when we attempted to contact him or her to discuss this, we discovered that he or she did not have a valid email address,

The original contact was an attempt to discuss some unspecified disagreement. Ergo, it would seem to be a request for a response, not just a directive.

So now that that is cleared up... ;)

[hajario]

I've had two good ideas in this thread so far so I am going to push my luck and try another suggestion.

Once a year, make a sticky/announcement thread that lasts for a week reminding everyone to make sure that their email is current. Sometime in March might be best because that's right before the original Charter Memberships expire.

Good suggestion. (Guess that mod experience elsewhere is proving beneficial, eh?)

:)

[TBG]

Also, for the record, it wasn't an altercation with another poster--Zhen'ka reported a post. I replied to the report, and my reply bounced back. When that happened, I sent a PM with a reply to the report and a request, similar to the one you've suggested, and got not response. Here's a tip--if you don't have a valid e-mail address registered with us, it's probably a good idea not to report posts. :smack:

Wow, that's cold.

[Who_me?]

Good suggestion. (Guess that mod experience elsewhere is proving beneficial, eh?)

:)

Don't let it go to your head. ;)

[Shot From Guns]

It's a preference.

So does that mean someone's going to be apologizing to Guin for the massive pile-on she got at the start of this thread? To wit:

And, Guin, let me remind you again that if you have a question about a banning, we prefer that you contact a member of the staff by email or PM to inquire.
[Guin] DOES know, though, that she's not supposed to post these questions, but that she's supposed to ask in email or PM.
IF THERE IS NO POST FROM A MODERATOR, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTION ABOUT OTHER POSTERS IN EMAIL or PM. Is this now clear, Guin? My recollection (admittedly faulty, and if so in this case, I apologize) is that you've encountered this situation several times in the past.
Apparently Guin either doesn't remember or doesn't care that we might have reasons for doing things, or not doing things, no matter how many times we tell her.

[samclem]

So does that mean someone's going to be apologizing to Guin for the massive pile-on she got at the start of this thread? .

Let me be the first:

Guin. I'm very, very sorry you can't seem to remember our preferences on the Board.
XOXOXO

samclem.

[dhkendall]

Reminder to all: check the email address in your profile and make sure it's still good. If we have reason to communicate with you and are unable to do so, banning can result.

OK, mine should be dhkendall@manthemodsheresuck.especiallytwickster.com. ;)

(Hey, I gave you an email address! Can't ban me! ;) )



The preceding was an attempt at humour. I'm sure the mods are jolly folk who do enjoy humour and that my post was taken as such, right? Right?

[Muffin]

XOXOXO

samclem.That's sexual harassment.

More importantly, you failed to make you statement by way of lyrics from Finian's Rainbow.

[Gfactor]

XOXOXO

samclem.

you failed to make you statement by way of lyrics from Finian's Rainbow.

Wanna cry, wanna croon
Wanna laugh like a loon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYCfmNao9ms&feature=fvst

ETA: In retrospect, I probably should have chosen Guys and Dolls.

[samclem]

you failed to make you statement by way of lyrics from Finian's Rainbow.

Wanna cry, wanna croon
Wanna laugh like a loon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYCfmNao9ms&feature=fvst

ETA: In retrospect, I probably should have chosen Guys and Dolls.


Oh, sure. You come in here to steal the spotlight.

Damn your love of musicals.


Wait..............hmmmmmmmm.. know who else had a love of musicals.......?

[Shot From Guns]

Guin. I'm very, very sorry you can't seem to remember our preferences on the Board.

Really? Really? Honestly, I expected better from you of all people, sam.

1.) This is a preference, not a rule, and yet Guin was castigated by no fewer than three members of the SDMB staff, one of them twice. And some of them in a snide way that might get at least a smack on the nose for a poster if they directed that attitude at a mod or admin in ATMB. Seriously, guys--could you imagine directing this much concentrated snark at a member who repeatedly failed to bold the username of a mod in ATMB? Because that's what this is the equivalent of.

2.) This user was, in fact, not banned for being a sock or a troll.

3.) As a result of this thread:
(a) The user is more likely to learn why they were banned and be in a position to do something about it;
(b) Other board members aren't left thinking that said user was a sock or a troll; and
(b) A useful change was made to the way that such suspensions are indicated in the future.

Doesn't that suggest to you that it was, in fact, a useful thing for Guin to have done?

XOXOXO

Not unless you buy me dinner first. Unless that was appended to the note to Guin, in which case, on her behalf, not unless you buy her dinner first.

[Gfactor]

Guin. I'm very, very sorry you can't seem to remember our preferences on the Board.

Really? Really? Honestly, I expected better from you of all people, sam.

1.) This is a preference, not a rule, and yet Guin was castigated by no fewer than three members of the SDMB staff, one of them twice. And some of them in a snide way that might get at least a smack on the nose for a poster if they directed that attitude at a mod or admin in ATMB. Seriously, guys--could you imagine directing this much concentrated snark at a member who repeatedly failed to bold the username of a mod in ATMB? Because that's what this is the equivalent of.

Actually, it's not. I didn't think I needed to parse it that finely, but apparently I do. Bolding user names is a custom--it's not mentioned anywhere in the rules etiquette provisions. The preference for PMing about banned users is. See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9034110#post9034110 and http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697012&postcount=6 So they aren't in the same category.

It's true we won't issue warnings for doing it (in the future, we won't be responding to this sort of thread, so it shouldn't be an ongoing issue), but that doesn't mean we won't ask you to cut it out if we think you are doing it too much.

That said, I do agree that one reminder should have been sufficient in this case, and I apologize to Guinastasia for the heavy-handed response.

2.) This user was, in fact, not banned for being a sock or a troll.

True. But,

1. Guin didn't know that when she started the thread.
2. The preference serves a dual purpose:
a. Preventing publicity for trolls (I realize many dispute the effectiveness, but we think it works).
b. Protecting the privacy of those who were banned, suspended, or disappeared for other reasons.

The second purpose was thwarted by this thread. I agree some good did come of it, but we didn't know that up front, and Guin certainly didn't know when she started the thread.

So this thread is the exception that proves the preference, as it were. In any case, Guin, I apologize on behalf of the staff for the pile-on.

[Shot From Guns]

That said, I do agree that one reminder should have been sufficient in this case, and I apologize to Guinastasia for the heavy-handed response.

That was my main objection, so thanks for this.

So this thread is the exception that proves the preference, as it were.

Yes, it does "prove" it--as in test it. And IMO the preference has failed that test, as this thread clearly demonstrates that it can be useful for members to inquire as to why other long-time members were banned.

[Electric Warrior]

Gfactor's apology was a good call, but I am slightly curious as to why this inquiry was dealt with in such a fashion, whereas Cheshire Human wasn't scolded/told to PM a mod in the thread about Happy Poster a few posts down. In fact the names of multiple socks were even revealed and put out in the open.

[Rasa]

Not that ignorance is an excuse or whatever, but... if my email I signed up with 10 years ago had lapsed (it hasn't, for the record!) and you sent me a PM here on the boards to inform me of it, it's quite possible I wouldn't notice the PM, especially since the email informing me I had a PM would go to the... lapsed email. It doesn't even occur to me to check my PM's.

And speaking of banned posters, I always associate the bolding usernames with Zenster. He likely didn't start it but he was one of the people I noticed using it most in the Dark Ages and it annoyed me. (Mostly because he annoyed me. ;))

[Fenris]

Wanna cry, wanna croon
Wanna laugh like a loon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYCfmNao9ms&feature=fvst

ETA: In retrospect, I probably should have chosen Guys and Dolls.


Oh, sure. You come in here to steal the spotlight.

Damn your love of musicals.


Wait..............hmmmmmmmm.. know who else had a love of musicals.......?

Q: Who else had a love of musicals?

A:
C'est moi! C'est moi, I'm forced to admit.
'Tis I, I humbly reply.
That mortal who
These marvels can do,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.

Are you implying that GFactor is ME?

Accusations of sock-puppetry go in The Pit, mister. Do this again and <cough> I'll make sure that GFactor gives you a Formal Warning

[BigT]

I'm still hoping for a better articulated reason for why it is a good idea not to inform people that one poster is actually a sock of another poster, even if you only do it by merging their accounts.

I did come up with an idea about the troll thing, that, even after a troll is banned, if they get some satisfaction they may try again, and thus encourage others. But I don't get the sock one. And, no, I don't consider them the same thing.

[Irishman]

Rasa, your PM count is at the top of every page, just under your Username. When you have an unread message, it highlights. It's not exactly "obvious", but it isn't hidden, either, and it does provide a visual cue. It catches my attention even though I don't necessarily look for it.

[Shot From Guns]

Irishman, what is obvious to you isn't always obvious to other people. I have to have email alerts set up for PMs at any forum I post on, or I never notice them.

[Marley23]

I'm still hoping for a better articulated reason for why it is a good idea not to inform people that one poster is actually a sock of another poster, even if you only do it by merging their accounts.

I did come up with an idea about the troll thing, that, even after a troll is banned, if they get some satisfaction they may try again, and thus encourage others. But I don't get the sock one. And, no, I don't consider them the same thing.
In practice they're pretty much the same thing. As a rule we don't deal harshly with people who make a new account because they forgot their password or didn't know the SDMB rules. Most of the time we just merge their accounts and handle it in private. There's no reason for us to make that public. And when someone who has been banned in the past comes back under a new name, we don't want to give them the attention.

[Shot From Guns]

I think BigT, like me, is thinking more of situations where a current user creates a second account, where it might be useful for us to know who was all really the same person. To me, a banned user coming back under a new name and people creating new accounts because they don't remember the details for the old ones don't really fall under the definition of "sock."

[twickster]

Irishman, what is obvious to you isn't always obvious to other people. I have to have email alerts set up for PMs at any forum I post on, or I never notice them.

You can also set it to give you a pop-up when you've got a new PM.

[Shot From Guns]

True, but I find those obnoxious. And if someone rarely used PMs themselves and rarely received them, they might not think to do so.

[Gukumatz]

I think it also gives you a message when you try to log in when you've been banned. I've never been banned on a VB board, so I'm not 100%, but I'll test it tomorrow. We fill out a field with the "reason for banning" and I think it's customary in these cases to put something like "Bad e-mail address. Please contact X or Y via e-mails X@* or Y@*."

[Shot From Guns]

Yes, I believe that's already been mentioned as a step that was taken.

[BigT]

I think BigT, like me, is thinking more of situations where a current user creates a second account, where it might be useful for us to know who was all really the same person. To me, a banned user coming back under a new name and people creating new accounts because they don't remember the details for the old ones don't really fall under the definition of "sock."

Yes, that is what I mean, as that was the proposed scenario for Zhen'ka before we found out the truth. I was thinking someone who created a second account just to have that person agree with them, or maybe even offer a strawman disagreement. Somehow letting us know that they are the same person would then mean that we'd know would let those people who were fooled by it know what happened.

That's what I mean by "not getting away with it." Not only were they punished by the mods, but now everyone knows that it was one person talking to himself.

[Guinastasia]

Thank you, Gfactor, I appreciate it.

[Siam Sam]

I realize this may border on paranoia, but I can't help but noticing a handful of true oddballs all having registered about the same time, between July and now. They're all vociferous about individual topics -- communism, racism, gay issues -- butd all seem to be specifically stirring up hornets' nests in a similar manner. I can't help but wonder if it's one or two people having a little fun. Not being a Mod, I can't know if they're all logging in from a similar location.

[Siam Sam]

I realize this may border on paranoia, but I can't help but noticing a handful of true oddballs all having registered about the same time, between July and now. They're all vociferous about individual topics -- communism, racism, gay issues -- butd all seem to be specifically stirring up hornets' nests in a similar manner. I can't help but wonder if it's one or two people having a little fun. Not being a Mod, I can't know if they're all logging in from a similar location.

And I've decided they're all chowder in disguise.