Contestant #3 has been banned from the SDMB

[Ed Zotti]

Contestant #3 has been banned from the Straight Dope Message Board owing to chronic violations of Rule #1, don't be a jerk.

[Adolf Hitler]

Fine work. Well done. Keep it up.

Der Fuhrer

[manhattan]

That response segues nicely with my question, which is how, precisely, does banning work? I understand the part about disabling the username, but the sign-up process is pretty easy, and free-mail addresses are equally easy to obtain.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that a banned person coming back under a new username is pretty easy to detect, but with a low level of certainty. Does that person get to be a jerk for as long as the original jerk before getting booted, or is there a "he loses a point or two because in addition to being a jerk, he is almost certainly last week’s jerk" factor at work?

I’m not trying here to be a jerk myself, I’m just a curious sort.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Falcon]

I agree with you, manhattan....and I'm offering up a pool right now....HOW LONG before C#3 shows up with a new screenname? I say 2 days, myself....

[Martyr #7]

I bet he shows up yet today...

------------------
Martyr #

[Ed Zotti]

You're right, it's pretty easy to get a new E-mail address and sign up under a new name. For example, Adolf Hitler (see above) just signed up today! Not having banned anybody before, we don't really know how we're going to make sure they stay banned. All I know is, after you've been taking some guy's crap for six months, it sure feels good to click on that button that says, EXPUNGE FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

[TubaDiva]

Let me try to explain something here. It might not be the answer you want, but it's the answer I got.

The staff of the Straight Dope Message Board believes very strongly that our Teeming Millions deserve the best message board experience we can possibly give them. That means that people should be able to read a board free from spam, multi-level marketing, ponzi schemes, and other trash. They should be able to read and post free from harassment, intimidation, threats, ugliness. It's supposed to be a fun time, an educational experience, a meeting of friends, a gathering of minds, a collection of jokes. If you sign off the board feeling that you had some fun, learned a little something, stretched your mind or opened your heart or engaged your debating skills, then we've done a good job.

When we ask people to work within our rules -- which are not many and are not difficult -- and people freely choose to disregard us, well, we don't have much choice left.

Several people have been banned from this board -- in every instance because they chose to make the message board experience unpleasant for others. This is inexcusable.

Either we can be for the few that ruin the experience for the rest -- or we can work for the Teeming Millions. I think we made the right choice here. I hope you think so too.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

[UncleBeer]

I personally had nothing against C#3. But I do have to commend the Admins and Mods for their action here. You have made the right choice. Bravo.

------------------
"What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch?" -- W.C. Fields

[manhattan]

I don’t disagree at all, TUBA. I was just curious about the mechanics. Ed’s answer makes sense to me, and I hope things work out in this area. I personally have had no beef with C#3, but lord it’s easy to see that he had a beef with you guys, and equally easy to see why you had to take the action you did.

FTR, put me down in the pool as "he’s already been back, as Adolph." That’s the suspicion that fueled my question, as Ed correctly guesses.

But one thing continues to confuse me. You said

If you sign off the board feeling that you had some fun, learned a little something, stretched your mind or opened your heart or engaged your debating skills, then we've done a good job.

You mean at some point I’m supposed to sign off? Well, I guess that may explain the sleep deprivation I’ve had since August 3.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[TubaDiva]

I see you believe too much of a good thing is never enough!

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

[moriah]

Someone who signs in as Adolph Hitler has already broken rule #1. Delete it.

For the record, I'm here and not in a.f.c-a precisely because this is moderated. Keep up the weeding, folks.

Peace.

[Jonathon David Palinor]

I personally have no particular opinion one way or the other with regard to your decision to ban Contestant #3. As administrators of the board, it was certainly your decision to make, and I'm sure you acted in what you felt were the bests interests of all concerned.

However, I DO have one small concern, which I hope you might be kind enough to address in this forum. You see, I had no idea there were a list of rules governing ones conduct here (of which, Contestant #3 apparently broke the first?). I was unable to locate any reference to the rules in the FAQ, nor have I been able to locate any other link that might indicate the potential for containing such a list. I have a vague recollection of having seen a "Don't be a jerk" message when registering, but don't remember any other specific restrictions (aside from the usual legal disclaimers, of course).

How can I avoid inadvertently following in Contestant #3's footsteps, and running afoul of the guidelines established by the board's administration? Is there a published list of acceptable and unacceptable behavior? Or did Contestant #3 merely step across some undefined line with such ridiculous abandon as to be blatantly and unmistakably out of line with the best interests of the SDMB?

In short, was it a violation of a specific regulation (as in "Posting of pornographic materials is prohibited") which I can hope to avoid by becoming familiar with the rules, or was it just obvious over-the-top foolishness (as in, "No, I can't tell you exactly where you missed the Miami turnpike, but it really doesn't matter - you're in CANADA, for pete's sake!")

------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-(o)-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Life is a tapestry.
Each new day brings with it the opportunity to sew by
word and deed within the heart of someone around us.
Let us choose our colors with care.

Someone who signs in as Adolph Hitler has already broken rule #1. Delete it.

I suspect somebody may have gotten the idea for this from something I posted over in the Pit, in response to Satan. And while I don't necessarily disagree, I would say that if the name "Adolf Hitler" is to be banned, then the name "Satan" ought to be banned, too. And given the "rules" regarding not posting sexually explicit material, etc., one wonders why Satan's thread about what his girlfriend wants to do to him hasn't met the same fate as Contestant #3.

-Melin

[David B]

Jonathon asked:

You see, I had no idea there were a list of rules governing ones conduct here (of which, Contestant #3 apparently broke the first?). I was unable to locate any reference to the rules in the FAQ, nor have I been able to locate any other link that might indicate the potential for containing such a list. I have a vague recollection of having seen a "Don't be a jerk" message when registering, but don't remember any other specific restrictions (aside from the usual legal disclaimers, of course).

That was it. You can look at it again by clicking on "register" (you can find it right below the "New Topic" blue button in the upper right of your screen).

How can I avoid inadvertently following in Contestant #3's footsteps, and running afoul of the guidelines established by the board's administration?

Well, for one thing, if a moderator or administrator tells you that you did something wrong, stop doing it. Seriously, it's not like we throw people off for breaking a rule once. So if you ever have a question, please feel free to ask one of us.

[TubaDiva]

How can I avoid inadvertently following in Contestant #3's footsteps, and running afoul of the guidelines established by the board's administration? Is there a published list of acceptable and unacceptable behavior? Or did Contestant #3 merely step across some undefined line with such ridiculous abandon as to be blatantly and unmistakably out of line with the best interests of the SDMB?

The rules are hazy for a couple of reasons. First, because we didn't want to saddle this site or the people that come here with a laundry list of dos and don'ts. The assumption is that y'all are adults, know the differences between right and wrong, know how to function in a civilized society; this is not Romper Room.

Moderators are not here to be playroom supervisors. This means we expect a certain amount of maturity and common sense from our posters. Mostly we get it.

Treat other people as you would wish to be treated, and that will take you far. The flip side of this is Cecil's Number One Rule: Don't Be a Jerk. Most everybody knows what jerky behavior is and what it's not.

To get even more specific, if we ask you NOT to post something and you continue to post it, you can bet we'll have something to say about it.

Ditto to posting links to sites that we find objectionable -- in this case, sites that violate our rules against blatant commercial solicitation and adult content.

Nothing that we ask you to do is difficult -- in fact, it's much less restrictive than on, say, AOL.

Nobody gets tossed out for first or basic mistakes; we understand that it's a learning process and that most people, once advised of how things are, are happy to go forward and sin no more. (That works good with us, too. )

And please understand that this is still a fairly new site and a lot of our procedure is being defined on the job, so to speak. We're all learning and growing together.

If you have a question about something you'd like to post here and would like clarification, you can always ask us; all moderators accept email. Some of us also accept Instant Messages. We're always happy to answer your questions.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

[krish]

I bet he shows up yet today...

Martyr #7, huh? It follows a similar format to Contestant #3. Does C#3 feel that he's a martyr? Did Martyr #7 register today? Yup.

[Martyr #7]

Good one krish.

Just how are we to ensure our lives are free of this detestible Contestant #3 anyhow?

Heck, he could come up with a new screen name and email. He could have 8 or 9 of them lined up for all we know.

You could block his IP address if you have the knowhow, but even then his IP address might not be static, or he could use a different ISP.

Hmmmmm. Strains the noodle doesn't it?





------------------
Martyr #

[pricciar]

Its too bad Contestant #3 had to do that stuff to get banned. I think he was treated unfairly before that, though. No reason to delete that whole post.
I will miss Contestant 3
I miss Papabear.
I miss quadell.

pat

[Adolf Hitler]

FTR, put me down in the pool as "he’s already been back, as Adolph."

Nein. I am not Contestant #3. Never would I tolerate such a dissident in my realm. Thus I commend the job that was done here.

Der Fuhrer

I would question the wisdom of banning screen names.

With unlimited e-mail accounts, individuals are never effectively banned from posting, and discriminating readers are no longer alerted to the garbage ahead by noting the screen name.

On the old AOL board, we had a tradition called "Coventry" in which most of us attempted to refrain from responding to trolls, and thus denying them the attention they craved. In theory, anyway...

It's might be worth a try. It's better than endlessly speculating over which new name(s) a "banned" person is now posting.




------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html

[Czarcasm]

While I did have a few problems with C#3 myself (and got stomped on, and deservedly so) you would have to agree that doing things like posting the same harassing questions about the moderators across the board would tend to disrupt the flow of conversation. Like I have said before, try to act like this is a great party, and act accordingly. Shout a bit, sing loudly and badly, drink a bit too much, flirt a bit too much, start a great conversation. But if you screw with the hosts, after both they and the other guests have told you to cut it out repeatedly, and you get what you deserve.

[Jonathon David Palinor]

Thank you, David B., for the clarification - and for your advice about following the instructions of the moderators and administrators. Actually, it seems... well... almost laughably simple. After all, we are guests here, and it seems only sensible that one would seek to follow the wishes of ones hosts. But then, it would also seem only sensible to try and live peaceably with ones neighbors, too. Apparently, Contestant #3 wasn't particularly good at either.

And thank you as well, TubaDiva - though I sincerely hope I've not somehow given you the impression that I suspected that the administration of the SDMB would make unreasonable demands of its members. I really only wished to know what the rules are so that I might not unwittingly violate them, as I imagined might have been the case with Contestant #3, and suffer a similar fate. Thank you for taking the time to make it clear that "unwittingly" didn't fit into the equation at all. I understand perfectly, and appreciate the relative freedom afforded by the board, and the responsibility that comes with it, on the part of both its members and its administration. The only reason the question arose in the first place was that I somehow couldn't fathom anyone so seriously lacking in (what I took for) common sense that they could actually manage to have themselves evicted, and so suspected the breaking of some lesser known rule.

One final question, if I may, and then I promise to abandon the issue altogether. Curiousity compels me to ask whether a moderator would voice his or her displeasure in a personal way - via email, for example - or from within the content of a thread, where it might escape the notice of the individual to whom it was addressed?

[Czarcasm]

I can answer that one, Palidori. After one of my many stumbles on this board I was contacted by a moderator via e-mail. I would have been highly upset about this except for two things-1.The moderator was right.
2.The moderator was polite.
This screwed up my plans for a multi-spam revenge e-mailing, and for that I say to the whole Board Curse you! Curse the whole lot of you! .

[Bug Vomit]

There's certainly no high bar for C3 to beat to be back here, and he probably is or will be. We may knock him off, and even in that case he may not get flushed right away if he doesn't immediately raise the hackles of the MB operators. There's certainly no specific limit on user names. I was christened by Mike King, and I realize some may not find my username attractive. I wouldn't think for a minute of banning Adolph on the basis of his moniker. Satan has opinions, but, hey, personality is a big part of getting through life and he doesn't go out of his way to offend (anyone but jodih). We've also got GOD lurking out there and who knows what else?

[SterlingNorth]

Martyr #7 posts a thread about Bibles and Aliens. . .

. . .but this isn't the place to be making wild-eyed accusations

------------------
It's cool to be black in America. You get all this extra attention from sales people in fancy stores.
--SterlingNorth, First Runner-Up

[TubaDiva]

I would question the wisdom of banning screen names.
With unlimited e-mail accounts, individuals are never effectively banned from posting, and discriminating readers are no longer alerted to the garbage ahead by noting the screen name.

On the old AOL board, we had a tradition called "Coventry" in which most of us attempted to refrain from responding to trolls, and thus denying them the attention they craved. In theory, anyway...

It's might be worth a try. It's better than endlessly speculating over which new name(s) a "banned" person is now posting.

Think about it this way . . .

If someone who has been banned shows up under a new screen name and they misbehave, we have exactly the same recourse we did before -- we can ban them.

If someone who has been banned shows up under a new screen name and they act nicely, what's the problem here?

Either way, where's the downside?

One final question, if I may, and then I promise to abandon the issue altogether. Curiousity compels me to ask whether a moderator would voice his or her displeasure in a personal way - via email, for example - or from within the content of a thread, where it might escape the notice of the individual to whom it was addressed?

We do try to be considerate of people's feelings . . . and when appropriate, private email is what's used. In fact, that's first. However, sometimes it's more appropriate to say something in the context of the thread; for example, in some of the "test" threads, where it's better to show someone how to do something correctly. Not meant to embarrass, just meant to demonstrate.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope

PS I love that "party" analogy, btw; that's the best way to put it I've seen. And we want this to be a GREAT party!

[Louie]

As if it wasn't obvious already...
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Foru.../000208-2.html

Martyr #7's response.

Enough said.

---------------
"Being a jerk, minus a million points" - Homer Simpson

[Ed Zotti]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about why Contestant #3 got banned, with some claiming he got booted for making an honest mistake. Not so. C#3 posted a link to a site that in our opinion invited participation in a pyramid marketing scheme. We do not permit commercial solicitations on this site and deleted the message. The forum moderator also posted a general notice saying not to post a link to this site again. C#3 reposted the link, which was again deleted. He posted it a third time, this time apparently disguised; the disguised URL linked to a porn site. (We presume this was inadvertent.) C#3 sent an E-mail to the forum moderator that included such comments as "Fuck you very much" and "take some Ex-lax you dick." He also posted a message saying, "Some dickheads don't realize that links to sites that don't sell things aren't SPAM," etc.

The forum moderator deleted these posts and called for help. C#3 had been repeatedly told not to do something and went ahead and did it anyway, and was obscene and abusive in the process. I realized that banning was mostly a symbolic gesture, since it is easy to get a new E-mail account and re-register under a different name. But the alternative was to do nothing and confirm C#3 in his evident belief that the rules didn't apply to him and he could do anything he wanted. C#3 has a long history of taunting moderators; users may remember he called another moderator a "fucking ignorant twat."

Fact is, we were fed up with the guy, so he got the boot. Maybe an hour went by before he got a new account and started posting again. We'll attempt to delete those new registrations when they come to our attention--unless, of course, the-poster-formerly-known-as-C#3 should adopt such a sweet and reasonable persona that we can't tell it's him. We regret that our other users have to put up with this and can only hope that C#3 will get a job or find some other way to occupy his time.

Sorry Coldfire, doesn't wash. For hundreds of millions of people, Adolf Hitler was only Satan's minion. The name Satan has been an equivalent to evil for hundreds or thousands of years. Ban one, ban the other.

-Melin

find some other way to occupy his time.

Since C#3 is, as we understand it, currently occupying most of his time with his wife who is in the hospital for breast cancer, as posted in a thread in GQ, this comment seems more-than-usually acerbic, if not downright nasty.

-Melin

[Girl Next Door]

Melin, I'm genuinely sorry that Connie's wife has cancer. I truly am. And I told him so on the post where he disclosed it.

But that doesn't give him the right to hijack these boards and be an abusive asshole.

-Leslie

------------------
Leslie Irish Evans
http://leslie.scrappy.net

[E. Romero]

If Contestant_3 has a wife in the hospital, WHY is he spending so much time on this message board bothering people?

[Drain Bead]

Maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places, but I haven't seen C#3 be an abusive asshole in months.

[Diane]

THANK YOU ED!

Good riddance C#3 - YAH!

------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

[pldennison]

Sorry Coldfire, doesn't wash. For hundreds of millions of people, Adolf Hitler was only Satan's minion. The name Satan has been an equivalent to evil for hundreds or thousands of years. Ban one, ban the other.

Under that rationale, Melin, may I ask that the name "God" be banned?


------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Polycarp]

Just for the record, and serving as devil's advocate formally, the following:

1. Ed's post on what made him banish C#3 to the Nether Regions was, I think, totally clear. To quote Lazarus Long, "I support your right to free speech. But we're paying for this hall. If you don't like our rules, go buy your own soapbox." I think Ed and Co. employed fair tactics in getting a cessation of what they found repeated and egregious violations.

2. That said, I have never had a personal problem with C#3. I dislike his in-your-face style, but that's taste.

3. Now, for banning people for having obnoxious screen names: that goes several steps beyond being just plain dumb. Tom of ~ndebb could take offense, for example, at my having claimed a saint of the church as my username. GOD formerly posted here (haven't seen him/her much lately). Has anyone objected to Imthecowgodmoo? Might be offensive to Hindus who use the board? Brian used the username Satan for reasons he's posted in one of the Where'd Your Name Come From? threads in MPSIMS, and has made it very clear where he's coming from. Adolph Hitler is being a bit of a jerk, but he's clearly playing a persona. Either he'll mellow, get tired of the persona and drop off, or get into an argument with an administrator and repeat the C#3 process. Whichever way it goes, end of story. (As a clever aside, given the last line of the interview in Triumph of the Straight Dope, should we maybe take offense at the Administrator posting under the name of "Ed Zotti"?)

4. Several people have, however, noted that the Terms of Service uses some broad terminology that could easily be construed to be regularly violated. (Heck, I've done it myself in the Great Debates thread on Gay Marriages/Parenting...if that is not related to "sexually oriented" it would be hard to figure out what is.) Perhaps if those general terms were more clearly spelled out, or if it was emphasized that Administrator discretion is involved, that might make life a bit easier for those who worry about the potential of violating them, or whether someone else's post did.

[Drain Bead]

I have a rather eye-opening post about this whole matter here: http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000325.html

[Cheiflaffitup]

Sharing private emails now Ed?

Hmmm...imagine the possibilities...

[Cheiflaffitup]

Hey E. Romero,

C#3 says that he was only there yesterday for an outpatient procedure for installation of a medi-port for future delivery of chemotherapy. His wife is at home and zonked out on pain pills.

[E. Romero]

[[C#3 says that he was only there yesterday for an outpatient procedure for installation of a medi-port for future delivery of chemotherapy. His wife is at home and zonked out on pain pills.]]

I still am totally amazed that you choose to spend this time making an ass of yourself on the computer. I can't believe you can't find better use of your time - especially "if" you have a sick wife. WHAT do you get out of this? This is not about freedom of speech. It's about getting rid of an annoying, bratty, harassing imbecile. WHY should we have to put up with this?

[Coldfire]

*sigh*

Melin said (and I do apologize for using this thread for this, once more):

" Sorry Coldfire, doesn't wash. For hundreds of millions of people, Adolf Hitler was only Satan's minion. The name Satan has been an equivalent to evil for hundreds or thousands of years. Ban one, ban the other. "

Yeah right. Tell that to 6 million Jews and numerous people that had to actually live through the hardships of WWII. Or the (grand)children of such people, for that matter !
I can't believe the nerve you got to compare a fictional character (evil or not) with a genocidal maniac that completely overturned 20th century history. IMHO, the first person to suffer from the Deeds of Satan (well, not Brian, he's harrassed many people, the other one ) has yet to reveal himself.
And PLDenison stated a vary good point as well: if a username is an equivalent to Evil for a large group of people, God should be banned as well, way before Satan should be.
FTR, Satan and God are fine with me as usernames. I'm not personally offended by them - although some other people might be. They are however offended because of BELIEFS. I am offended because of you being unable to face certain FACTS, namely that the name Adolf Hitler doesn't only make an equivalent for Evil to many people, the guy actually proved that he *was* evil.
Condoning such a username, or moreover taking on such an alias, is a grotesque denial of historical fact and reveals great stupidity, if nothing more.

I'll try and leave it alone now.


------------------
Coldfire
________________________________
"You know how complex women are"
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)

[Mullinator]

Normally I try to find the good in a person, but C#3 is seriously testing that right now. About the only thing I have been able to come up with is at some point he has to sleep which means he is unable to post. Eating/driving/bathroom duties can also fit in there. I've gotta think that the only thing that will work is just ignoring him. Has he added anything to a single thread since his ouster? No. Is he likely to add anything worthwhile as long as he is being a complete dingbat? No. Let him have his fun, it'll run it's course, and then maybe he will shut up and get back to the important things of life like caring for a sick wife (I will assume she exists for now, but it is starting to teeter towards the "Only I can see her kinda like Big Bird can only see Snuffalupagis" side of the scale. Let C#3 post whatever he wants. The moderators will wipe him out when needed and by just ignoring what he says, he's likely to get tired of pissing off no one.
Ahhh, it is truly amazing how the same world can turn out so many decent people (regardless of their beliefs/interest/etc) and then turn right around and spit out someone like C#3 that does nothing but seemingly contaminate the gene pool

------------------
All generalizations suck.

[Drain Bead]

Am I the only person who hasn't seen C#3 act up for months before this whole thing happened? Am I the only person who wonders why a post with the EXACT SAME LINK THAT WAS CUT SEVERAL TIMES BY NICKRZ IN GQ WAS ALLOWED TO STAY UP IN MPSIMS SINCE OCTOBER 10TH WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE? Am I the only person who sees how C#3 might have been a bit confused by that?

[manhattan]

drain bead: Calm down there, boss. Unlike mere mortals like me and thee, the admins and mods do not have the luxury of spending their entire lives on this MB. Give them a little time to a) find the link, b) research whether they simply missed it the first time or they saw it and let it pass, c) decide what if anything is an appropriate answer to your query and d) respond.

Think 24 hours or so.

Here, I’ll help. The thread in question is at http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001707.html


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Coldfire:

Would you be just as offended if a poster used the name "Joe Stalin" or "Mao Zedong?"

Their reigns last much longer than Hitler's, and a lot more people died as a result.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< Would you be just as offended if a poster used the name "Joe Stalin" or "Mao Zedong?" >>

Yes. There are poster IDs that are funny, there are some that are cute, there are some that are incomprehensibobble... and there are some in excruciatingly poor taste: "Adolf Hitler" or "Joe Stalin" or "Baby-Murderer" or "John Wayne Gacy" or "Klu Klux Klansman" or "Pedophile" or ... IMHO, such choices demonstrate an incredible absence of human decency on the part of the person selecting them.

Whether such names should be deleted is addressed case by case.

[putrid]

This soap opera has ceased to be entertaining. I say the motivations are being way over-analyzed.

This reminds me of a battle in (of all places) an historical society. A family was carrying on a war in the press and meetings against the county (who picked up the tab.) Close to zero attention was being paid to actual history. All of our efforts were being wasted on nonproductive arguments. Besides which, the public was being turned off of history. Who was right? What's the diff?

I eventually realized I had allowed the whole business to fester too long. I suggested to the most attacked parties that everyone should be fired (who could be fired) and that I would happily take the heat and no longer allow our meetings to deteriorate into political gripe sessions rather than historical meetings. Nobody would risk looking bad. I quit instead.

I am happier. The historical society is still waging their war years later. The county is still unhappy, too, but still underwriting everything. (It's not their money of course. It's the taxpayers'.)

Close to no local history work is being done. Everyone (but me) is still constantly worked up. Nobody has joined the group for years. Nobody has any reason to think local history is fun and interesting.

My point is that it doesn't matter one whit why a guy was banned. It was the right decision no matter what the reason was. I am happy to have found a place of overwhelmingly intelligent discussion, especially in comparison to all other boards I've seen. I've seen more good historical insight here in several weeks than I've heard from the society in years, and this ain't even an historical board. If anyone ticks off an administrator for any reason, I say can them instantly. I don't want to see the enjoyable posters driven away, making me go look elsewhere for this. One guy being wronged (which certainly does not appear to be the case anyway) does not matter at all. So sez me.

As for the other irritating direction to this string, look at it (as I do) that a guy adopting the name Adolph Hitler is making fun of Hitler rather than honoring him. If you can not manage that, then take your whining on out of here. You don't here me whining, do you? . . . Oh, I guess you do. Drat.

[WallyM7]

You're right, Mj. These two were monsters as well.
However, their deeds did not touch most of us.
Hitler, on the other hand, touched nearly everyone. My father fought the Germans and was a POW. Two of my uncles perished in that war. Many, many others have similar stories to tell. I wouldn't be surprised if yours were among them.

Plus, the atrocities are there for everyone to see. There are many real life films about the horrors of the concentration camps. Mao and Stalin went about their business away from prying eyes. All we have are numbers and very few first hand accounts.

So, it's not only the evil, but our perception of it. Mao and Stalin were monsters, but they simply do not inspire the same loathing that I feel for Hitler.

Coldfire is Dutch. He can probably explain it far better than I ever could.






------------------
This space for rent.

[RTA]

Hey, um, I hate to state the obvious here, but "Cheiflaffitup" (and "Adolph Hitler" too ... I'm pretty sure about that, and even if I'm wrong, come on people, it's a HIGHLY objectionable screen name, particularly so if the user insists on tossing out phrases like "Nein!" and "tolerating no dissidents" and signing off as "Der Fuhrer"; let's play no semantic games about "who's worse, Satan or etc.") is the same guy as Contestant #3, and ALL of these names ought to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

The next step is to notify his ISP with abuse complaints, and when he comes back with another ISP, notify the new ISP with abuse complaints and so on.

Look at it this way: out of all the registered users/happy campers here at the SDMB, only one so far has such a long history of trouble, and should be treated accordingly. Take a deep breath and wake up to the fact that this guy is going to continue being an aggressive disruption for his own amusement and self-aggrandizement, unless proactive measures are taken. A new name does not a new person make.

Think about it this way . . .

If someone who has been banned shows up under a new screen name and they misbehave, we have exactly the same recourse we did before -- we can ban them.

If someone who has been banned shows up under a new screen name and they act nicely, what's the problem here?

Either way, where's the downside?
- Tuba

The downside is the incredible amount of attention that has now been focused on this matter. Endless speculation about the name(s) C#3 is now posting under. Banning another name, it would appear, just because it seemed to be a reincarnation of C#3.

I can & do understand that abuse of this board to entice the 3000 (and growing) registered members to commercial sites cannot be tolerated, and possibly could wind up jeopardizing the continued existence of this board, but this method of dealing with it sure takes up a lot of bandwidth.

Personal opinion here: when it is necessary to exile someone from this board, the post explaining it should be factual (Contestant #3 was banned for posting links to commercial sites/pyramid schemes and abusive language towards moderators when an attempt was made to handle this in a low-key manner) rather than the inflammatory and subjective "for being a jerk" that Ed cited in his OP. This post certainly left me with the impression that C#3 was removed for his in-your-face posting style rather than a clear violation of board rules. I guess Martyr #7 was removed just for being Connie, despite Tuba's assurance that he would be welcomed back if he acted nicely. You know, if everyone on this board was as nice, logical, coherent, accurate, and intelligent as I am , this board would be a very boring place...



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html