Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   About This Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   An Appeal (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854936)

BubbaDog 05-16-2018 10:06 AM

An Appeal
 
My apologies in advance if I am breaking a rule here.
I have a question and an appeal.

My question is - is there a mechanism (other than what I'm doing here) for requesting reconsideration by the Mods on a banning?

My appeal is for a reduced sentence for ***that guy that just got banned recently***

Like a lot of posters I found some of his political posts to be overboard. But on nonpolitical topics he was engaging and in one personal case for me he gave me some valuable GQ advice on database management.

Maybe another suspension is all he needs to realize that he should back off a bit. In one sense he goes a bit too far but in another his apposing conservative viewpoint did make for some spirited dialogue with others.

Morgenstern 05-16-2018 10:10 AM

I'm pretty sure the banned are banned, for good or until they sock up. If there's an appeal process, it's secret.

Czarcasm 05-16-2018 10:14 AM

I don't think politics had anything to do with his banning.

Loach 05-16-2018 10:18 AM

You can open an ATMB thread.

BubbaDog 05-16-2018 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loach (Post 20963239)
You can open an ATMB thread.

Thanks, I'll give that a try. :)

Loach 05-16-2018 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20963223)
I'm pretty sure the banned are banned, for good or until they sock up. If there's an appeal process, it's secret.

There doesnít need to be a process. All situations are different and we consider the individual circumstances. The banned are not blocked from sending emails. Over the years several banned posters have requested to be unbanned. On a few occasions the banning was a mistake. You wouldnít have noticed those because itís generally new posters that were banned in error for being trolls or spammers. For most others it will be very rare to be reinstated because either the offense was egregious enough to warrant an instaban or they have had 10 second chances already.

Jonathan Chance 05-16-2018 10:42 AM

But, I'll admit, it does happen.

By all means, start a thread in ATMB to allow for discussion. That's absolutely the right thing to do.

As for the poster in question? It would be a very bad thing for him to sock up to request reinstatement. Such things is extremely prejudicial against ones case. But an email to a mod will begin discussion around the mod loop. It may not go well, but discussions are generally taken seriously.

Morgenstern 05-16-2018 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 20963300)
But, I'll admit, it does happen.

By all means, start a thread in ATMB to allow for discussion. That's absolutely the right thing to do.

As for the poster in question? It would be a very bad thing for him to sock up to request reinstatement. Such things is extremely prejudicial against ones case. But an email to a mod will begin discussion around the mod loop. It may not go well, but discussions are generally taken seriously.

JC, think about this a bit please.

You post a thread announcing a poster is banned. Then you lock the thread.
If someone questions that action, or otherwise wants to comment on it, you want them to open an ATMB thread?

Why not leave the banned thread unlocked and allow comments?

Jonathan Chance 05-16-2018 11:14 AM

We used to do that. No kidding.

But we eventually came around to the thinking that the announcement and the discussion thread are two separate things and should be treated as such.

I'm not opposed to a discussion about whether that policy is a good one, but that's the way we do it now.

Loach 05-16-2018 11:32 AM

Leaving the ban announcement open for comments seemed to invite drive by snipes at the banned poster. If anyone feels the need to discuss a banning a new thread is the way to go.

BubbaDog 05-16-2018 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loach (Post 20963255)
.................. The banned are not blocked from sending emails. Over the years several banned posters have requested to be unbanned. .......

Hey, Clothahump, I know you're probably monitoring this. Maybe you could take a deep breath and send an email asking for another chance. Take some suspension and come back with a self-imposed goal of avoiding political posts for a month or two. Jump back into controversial subjects eventually but play a different softer game. ...and back out if the mods throw a warning your way. Your reputation may put you at a disadvantage but taking the high road you can still get your point across.

You seem to enjoy yourself here in the non-political threads. It would be a shame for you to miss out.

Skywatcher 05-16-2018 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BubbaDog (Post 20963218)
But on nonpolitical topics he was engaging

True. All he had to do was stay out of the Pit but now he's out of everything.

Colibri 05-16-2018 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 20963366)
We used to do that. No kidding.

But we eventually came around to the thinking that the announcement and the discussion thread are two separate things and should be treated as such.

I'm not opposed to a discussion about whether that policy is a good one, but that's the way we do it now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loach (Post 20963406)
Leaving the ban announcement open for comments seemed to invite drive by snipes at the banned poster. If anyone feels the need to discuss a banning a new thread is the way to go.

Right. Banning and suspension notices used to be left open, but a lot of the comments were of the nature "Good. I'm glad he's gone." Since the target couldn't respond, we felt that was unfair. That's why we also close Pit threads once the target has been banned.

We do allow discussions of why a particular regular poster (those for which a banning announcement has been posted) was banned. If no announcement is posted, that means the bannee was a spammer, sock, or short-term troll, and inquiries should be made to the staff by PM or email.

Morgenstern 05-16-2018 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loach (Post 20963406)
Leaving the ban announcement open for comments seemed to invite drive by snipes at the banned poster. If anyone feels the need to discuss a banning a new thread is the way to go.

New thread instead of a hijack. Give me a minute.

Colibri 05-16-2018 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BubbaDog (Post 20963218)
In one sense he goes a bit too far but in another his apposing conservative viewpoint did make for some spirited dialogue with others.

To be clear, Clothahump was banned for trolling, and doing it not once but twice. He clearly admitted it, was suspended for it, and then a little over a year later he starts trolling on the same issue he was suspended for before. Trolling is an instaban offense, so he could have been banned for the initial offense. Trolling is something of a subjective offense, and we do allow a degree of trolling in the Pit. But when you openly admit it, and then repeat it, there's no reason to think the poster is going to learn anything.

Another issue is the fact, noted in other threads, that he didn't really engage in "dialogue" on political issues. The threads he participated became more like Argument Clinic than debate.

74westy 05-16-2018 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20963503)
The threads he participated became more like Argument Clinic than debate.

No they didn't.

JackieLikesVariety 05-16-2018 01:04 PM

Quote:

there's no reason to think the poster is going to learn anything
pretty much sums everything up. :p

Fotheringay-Phipps 05-16-2018 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20963503)
To be clear, Clothahump was banned for trolling, and doing it not once but twice. He clearly admitted it, was suspended for it, and then a little over a year later he starts trolling on the same issue he was suspended for before. Trolling is an instaban offense, so he could have been banned for the initial offense. Trolling is something of a subjective offense, and we do allow a degree of trolling in the Pit. But when you openly admit it, and then repeat it, there's no reason to think the poster is going to learn anything.

IIRC, my assessment at the time was that Clothahump was most likely not trolling in his use and defense of the term "wetback". Rather, that his claim to have been playing his opponents was a face-saving posture, which he thought was a clever claim to make at the time, without considering the board rule implications.

In line with that, when he defended the term again now, he simply forgot that he had adopted the "I was playing you" stance at one point.

Guinastasia 05-16-2018 01:23 PM

Doesn't this happen every time some long-time poster is banned? "So and so should've been given another chance, it's not fair, so what if they broke the rules, they brought a lot to the boards, blah blah blah, they should be allowed extra special super lee-way?"

engineer_comp_geek 05-16-2018 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BubbaDog (Post 20963218)
Like a lot of posters I found some of his political posts to be overboard. But on nonpolitical topics he was engaging and in one personal case for me he gave me some valuable GQ advice on database management.

There are very few people who are truly rotten to the core. Heck, even Hitler had some good qualities. I think it is safe to say that anyone who has been around a long time and then gets banned has made some good contributions to the board during that time. After all, if they had never made any good contributions at all to the board then they probably would have been banned shortly after they first started posting.

But just because someone has some good posts doesn't mean that we should allow them to blatantly violate the rules in other threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BubbaDog (Post 20963218)
Maybe another suspension is all he needs to realize that he should back off a bit. In one sense he goes a bit too far but in another his apposing conservative viewpoint did make for some spirited dialogue with others.

Generally speaking, if someone has been repeatedly warned and still hasn't changed their behavior, then they probably aren't going to change their behavior. A suspension is pretty severe. If they haven't changed their behavior after numerous warnings and a suspension, then it is very clear that they aren't going to change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgenstern (Post 20963223)
I'm pretty sure the banned are banned, for good or until they sock up. If there's an appeal process, it's secret.

There is no formal appeal process. If someone wants us to consider lifting their ban, all they need to do is contact any of us via e-mail and we'll usually discuss it around the mod loop.

Despite what some people think, we don't just ban people on a whim. You generally need to repeat bad behavior over and over to get yourself banned (though there are some insta-bans like trolling, socking, or threatening legal action, for example). If someone engages in bad behavior and doesn't change after being warned, still doesn't change after being warned further, continues to refuse to change after even further warnings, and even goes so far as to not change their behavior after a suspension, after that long and proven of a history it is pretty difficult to convince us that they've changed after being banned and want to come back.

It does happen on occasion, though.

Socking makes it very clear that you have no intention of obeying rules. I won't say it's absolutely impossible to get reinstated after socking, but that puts a huge black mark on your record that is going to be very difficult to overcome.

Colibri 05-16-2018 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps (Post 20963682)
IIRC, my assessment at the time was that Clothahump was most likely not trolling in his use and defense of the term "wetback". Rather, that his claim to have been playing his opponents was a face-saving posture, which he thought was a clever claim to make at the time, without considering the board rule implications.

In line with that, when he defended the term again now, he simply forgot that he had adopted the "I was playing you" stance at one point.

I don't think that "this was too stupid to be trolling" is really the most effective defense. ;)

Fotheringay-Phipps 05-16-2018 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20963746)
I don't think that "this was too stupid to be trolling" is really the most effective defense.

That's not the basis for my assessment. Rather,
  1. Clothahump was not at all out of character in his use and defense of the term, other than that one post. So unless his entire board persona was one massive con, it's more likely that the post was the outlier, and not the initial use/defense.
  2. The entire context of that post was clearly an attempted sneering defense in a Pit thread aimed at attacking him. It's not uncommon for people in that situation to adopt a phony stance which they think may benefit them.
That said, I'm not sure of any of this. But I think it's more likely than not correct. And it accounts for his re-use/defense of the term better than him deciding to troll again on exactly the same subject.

How that adds up in terms of board rules and enforcement is of less interest to me, and I can certainly see the argument that the mods should take him at his own word. This is just about what he was up to at the time, since that happens to be being discussed here.

BubbaDog 05-16-2018 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 20963691)
Doesn't this happen every time some long-time poster is banned? "So and so should've been given another chance, it's not fair, so what if they broke the rules, they brought a lot to the boards, blah blah blah, they should be allowed extra special super lee-way?"

Well OK, this about sums it up except I'm fairly certain that I did not say blah,blah,blah.
I'm more of a yadda, yadda type.

Quartz 05-16-2018 02:13 PM

The cardinal rule of the Dope is "Don't be a jerk." He broke that rule and has paid the price.

Sunny Daze 05-16-2018 02:13 PM

Thank you for clarifying that we can start a second thread to discuss bannings. I had thought that we could not do so since the announcement threads were locked.

F-P your clarification doesn't counter Colibri's point. Either Clothy meant the admission or he was saving face, we can't know which. He was taken at his word and warned and suspended. Even if it was a desperate defensive play, it is highly unlikely that he forgot all about it a year later.

I don't buy the defensive ploy theory in any case. He's been around for years, unapologetically saying racist things and using racist terms. Why would he suddenly feel cornered on this issue and need to cover up? He manifestly does not care what the rest of us think about this.

Dead Cat 05-16-2018 03:32 PM

Being a Brit I don't participate much in or even read most of the political threads here, so Clothahump never annoyed me as much as he evidently did some people. I don't even have a very strong opinion of him myself. But I do recall a thread not many months ago in which he appeared to graciously (well, relatively) concede a couple of points, and decided to purge his ignore list. It seemed at that stage he was willing to hear other points of view and engage in genuine discussion. Sadly, it seems that was short-lived and he went back to his old ways. Since it appears they were the vast majority of his posts, IMHO he has had many chances and just doesn't want to change. In other words, he enjoys being a troll more than engaging constructively. A shame, but there it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 74westy (Post 20963620)
No they didn't.

Absolutely perfect. Very well played.

Budget Player Cadet 05-16-2018 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinastasia (Post 20963691)
Doesn't this happen every time some long-time poster is banned? "So and so should've been given another chance, it's not fair, so what if they broke the rules, they brought a lot to the boards, blah blah blah, they should be allowed extra special super lee-way?"

It's particularly galling here. If I had to name one thing that really stood out about the poster in question, it was that their contribution to any given thread was, with astounding regularity, the worst thing in said thread. I think that was intentional - or if it wasn't, it doesn't matter.

Lemme explain.

A disturbing number of threads where they posted followed the following pattern:

<Discussion about topic A>
<Poster in question says something phenomenally dumb>
<Large number of other posters respond to debunk/insult poster in question>
<Poster in question ignores substantive rebuttals, focuses on insults>
<Discussion turns to shit>

This is classic troll behavior. It's just not immediately obvious, and very much possible to do without explicitly breaking any rules.

Seriously, it's so easy. Anyone can do it. Here's how.

Pick literally any thread. Post something at least slightly related to the topic which is blatantly wrong, or at least so unpopular that you know you're going to get immense pushback on it. Put the least amount of effort possible into it, preferably keeping things very vague. Do so in a manner which does not overtly break the rules. Then, when people comment on it, and you inevitably get a mix of people all over Graham's Scale, from those who directly refute your central point to those who just call you an idiot, focus entirely on the latter while ignoring the former, and watch as the thread devolves. And this will happen on a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance - an ignorant, low-content statement is really grade-A bait for the kind of people who are interested in what the tagline suggests. It's a chance to show off how smart you are easily - who doesn't want that?

Do this long enough, and the forum will inevitably filter for the people who reach for the ad hominems (because the people willing to spend the time to debunk your bullshit have long since learned that it really isn't worth the trouble - hi there, NotCarlson :) ), and this only becomes more and more effective.

At no point here does the hypothetical troll break the rules, mind you. Not a single post they make is actually worth warning! That's why it works! If their posts were obviously offensive, they couldn't keep the con going. You have to pay attention to the larger pattern, and notice that it keeps happening again and again.

Now, some might make the defense that the poster in question wasn't doing this on purpose, that it was unintentional and a result of their stupidity. Over and over and over again. But the overall effect on the board is... the same drastic drop in thread quality whenever anyone engages with them. At that point, "intent" seems like a very odd hair to split.

Seriously, this thread is... bizarre. Please don't demand extra appeals for someone who was by far the single worst poster on the entire forum. If they weren't a troll, they were acting completely indistinguishably from a troll, and making the entire forum worse by their presence.

There's exactly one good thing I've learned from this guy - not to throw around the term "troll" lightly. Because if you start calling any idiot with a mouth bigger than their brain a troll, you miss the nuance in what makes an actual troll a problem on sites like this.

Skywatcher 05-16-2018 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 20964186)
Seriously, this thread is... bizarre. Please don't demand extra appeals for someone who was by far the single worst poster on the entire forum.

Since Collunsbury, anyway. :)

74westy 05-16-2018 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dead Cat (Post 20964002)
Absolutely perfect. Very well played.

Thanks Dead Parrot Cat.

Peter Morris 05-16-2018 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20963479)
Right. Banning and suspension notices used to be left open, but a lot of the comments were of the nature "Good. I'm glad he's gone." Since the target couldn't respond, we felt that was unfair. That's why we also close Pit threads once the target has been banned.

But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say "Good, I'm glad he's gone" in that thread, can't they? So what's the difference?

Loach 05-16-2018 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Morris (Post 20964553)
But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say "Good, I'm glad he's gone" in that thread, can't they? So what's the difference?

History has shown there to be a great deal of difference.

Telemark 05-16-2018 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Morris (Post 20964553)
So what's the difference?

The difference is that fewer of those threads are started, and fewer people post in them.

Miller 05-16-2018 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Morris (Post 20964553)
But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say "Good, I'm glad he's gone" in that thread, can't they? So what's the difference?

The difference is, most people aren't going to start a whole new thread just to take a few shots at a banned poster. If someone opens a new thread with a legitimate question, we're willing to do the small amount of extra work to keep the thread from turning into a pitting of the bannee, because we want people to be able to raise questions about moderation of the board. And it usually turns out to not be a problem in these situations, because the practice of always locking the announcement does a good job of communicating that drive-by pot-shots at banned posters aren't encouraged.

Colibri 05-16-2018 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Morris (Post 20964553)
But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say "Good, I'm glad he's gone" in that thread, can't they? So what's the difference?

Most bannings are actually not controversial, and once people check out the poster's history of warnings in the banning announcement they don't feel it's necessary to appeal the banning. So for the majority of bannings, most remarks would be of the nature "Good, I'm glad he's gone."

The current policy limits discussion threads to posters for whom at least one poster feels it's worth the small effort to open a new thread. (For most banned poster, not even a single poster feels it's worth it.) There are fewer threads, and as has been said the discussion is seen to be more serious, there are fewer potshots that need to be moderated.

Peter Morris 05-16-2018 11:29 PM

Okay, that makes sense.

Happy Lendervedder 05-16-2018 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek (Post 20963716)
There are very few people who are truly rotten to the core. Heck, even Hitler had some good qualities.

He had a real eye for mustache grooming. His precision was noteworthy!

TokyoBayer 05-17-2018 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps (Post 20963765)
That said, I'm not sure of any of this. But I think it's more likely than not correct. And it accounts for his re-use/defense of the term better than him deciding to troll again on exactly the same subject.

I’ve never been a particular fan of elaborate theories concerning what motives someone had, but this still ignores the point that he was suspended for that behavior.

The point of warnings is to let a poster know they need to change their behavior and a suspension is a final notice.

Just like driving a car, you have a duty to follow the rules. If you get your thrills from coming as close to the edge as possible, you really can’t complain if you get busted when you go over.

Drunky Smurf 05-17-2018 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20963503)
Another issue is the fact, noted in other threads, that he didn't really engage in "dialogue" on political issues. The threads he participated became more like Argument Clinic than debate.

"So is it now a bannable offense (or part of one) to not engage when people are posting at you, whether they're just mocking you or insulting you or just want to make their majority opinion heard because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

Those are not my words but my sentiments.

If I post my opinion on a topic and people come in to call me a doo-doo-butt-face and I do not respond to their shenanagins am I now a suspect of some offense?

bucketybuck 05-17-2018 05:10 AM

Seems to me like it is a bannable offence to admit to trolling, get a suspension, then come back a year later and do the same thing again. Isn't that what the ban was for?

The "not engaging" aspect is clearly just window dressing.

Colibri 05-17-2018 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf (Post 20965108)
"So is it now a bannable offense (or part of one) to not engage when people are posting at you, whether they're just mocking you or insulting you or just want to make their majority opinion heard because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

Those are not my words but my sentiments.

If I post my opinion on a topic and people come in to call me a doo-doo-butt-face and I do not respond to their shenanagins am I now a suspect of some offense?

That bears no resemblance at all to what I said.

John DiFool 05-17-2018 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek (Post 20963716)
There are very few people who are truly rotten to the core. Heck, even Hitler had some good qualities.

Except.

There seems to be something fundamentally broken about people who do these kinds of things (when you are unfortunate to run across them in meatspace then you will truly know what I mean). I mean, the individual in question was given more rope on this site than pretty much any other Doper in the history of the board-and simply used it to hang himself. So, whither free will, learning from one's mistakes, becoming a better human being/more worthwhile member?

"No, I'll just keep trolling the libtards, constantly dancing back and forth on the line, daring the mods to ban me, until they finally do. It's all utterly inevitable."

This isn't a case of someone with a few personality quirks or blind spots (as someone in one of the closed Pit threads who had met Clothy in person tried to justify). We must needs be talking about a person who is lacking some crucial thing or quality which compels him to do and say these things, over and over. I mean, he doesn't have anything better to do with his time than to come here and constantly jerk off in the manner described by Budget Player Cadet upthread?

Really?

Budget Player Cadet 05-17-2018 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf (Post 20965108)
"So is it now a bannable offense (or part of one) to not engage when people are posting at you, whether they're just mocking you or insulting you or just want to make their majority opinion heard because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

Those are not my words but my sentiments.

If I post my opinion on a topic and people come in to call me a doo-doo-butt-face and I do not respond to their shenanagins am I now a suspect of some offense?

Well let's say that one day, there's a thread on Trump's move of the embassy to Jerusalem. You come in and say, among the conversation going on, "I think this was an excellent move, well done by Trump. This will help strengthen our allies in the region." Then, when people call you on that phenomenally bizarre statement, you do nothing to defend yourself - you merely pick out the one or two people who put as much effort into telling you you're wrong as you put into the post (that is, none) and complain about how they're being mean to you.

Then, the next day, you go into a thread on global warming, and say, among conversation going on, "Ha, this is all a hoax, and I can prove it." Again, when people call you on that phenomenally bizarre statement, you again pick out exactly the weakest responses and complain about them, while doing nothing to make your case - or maybe throwing out a handful of bizarre buzzwords like "Well, there's climategate. They hid the decline!"

If you just keep doing this again and again, past a certain point I don't care if it's intentional or not - you're acting like a troll. Your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a troll. It's not about ont engaging. It's about a consistent pattern of throwing bombs, then refusing to engage in any more than the most shallow, petulant way. It's about how every conversation the person joins, they either get ignored, or the conversation goes to shit. If the absolute best-case scenario for someone engaging in a discussion is "everyone ignores what they have to say", that person is probably a troll.

Morgenstern 05-17-2018 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf (Post 20965108)
...

If I post my opinion on a topic and people come in to call me a doo-doo-butt-face and I do not respond to their shenanagins am I now a suspect of some offense?


Let's call it a person of interest.

Fotheringay-Phipps 05-17-2018 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoBayer (Post 20965006)
Iíve never been a particular fan of elaborate theories concerning what motives someone had, but this still ignores the point that he was suspended for that behavior.

The point of warnings is to let a poster know they need to change their behavior and a suspension is a final notice.

Just like driving a car, you have a duty to follow the rules. If you get your thrills from coming as close to the edge as possible, you really canít complain if you get busted when you go over.

If my theory is correct, then he was suspended for behavior that he didn't actually do but which he admitted to for other reasons. So he didn't really do the same behavior again because he never did it the first time (and he didn't confess to it the second time). It's not hard to see where a guy warned against trolling might do something which is not trolling, forgetting that he confessed some time ago to having done this particular thing in a trolling manner on another occasion.

That said, I agree with you that he "can't complain" about it. For whatever ill-advised reason he did confess to it, and can't blame anyone else for taking him at his word.

BubbaDog 05-17-2018 11:22 AM

Budget Player Cadet has proven to me that I've been ignoring a chronic pattern. I admit, while I don't have anyone on ignore, I got into the habit of skimming past comments by Clothahump in politically themed threads so I really hadn't noticed any patterns.

I can see now why the mods made their move and why many posters have strong opinions about this particular case.

I don't think that there's much more to be gained by continuing this thread on a banned member..

I'd like the mods to close

engineer_comp_geek 05-17-2018 11:26 AM

Moderator Action

Quote:

Originally Posted by BubbaDog (Post 20965569)
I'd like the mods to close

Done.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.