I understand that he has been banned.
I am hoping I can get reasoning behind that one? Not that I think it is unwarranted, for what that’s worth, but usually there is a “here is a list of warnings, here is the straw that broke the back” posts here in ATMB and I’m not finding one at the moment.
Thank you, PTB.
Marley updated the note, he’s been banned.
b/m
Noted.
We sometimes don’t make announcements when we ban people who’ve only been here a short time. GEEPERS hadn’t been here very long, so we didn’t make an announcement (although I did mention it in the Great Debates thread he’d started.) Since you asked, he’d been warned three times in less than two weeks. One of those was for personal insults, the other two were for ignoring staff instructions. He received numerous other mod notes as we tried to tell him what the rules were (sometimes with further discussion by PM or email), but it never sank in.
He was warned for this post (warning here), this one (warning here), and then here (warning). Initially we suspended GEEPERS for 30 days, but based on his response, we went ahead and banned him.
Well, he’s banned now. I guess if someone wants to see the warnings he racked up, once can just search any of his three mega-threads on religion for the word “warning”.
Personally, I don’t see the harm in keeping him around. I gather he kept most of his activity in threads he himself started, or in threads that were started by others to discuss him.
I’m just afraid this action will seem to validate his persecution fantasies.
Oh, somewhere out there, GEEPERS is on a message board relating his tale of persecution at the hand of the evil Doper atheists.*
There’s nothing we can do about that since he felt that way before he came here and interpreted just about every type of disagreement as an act of persecution. I meant to add that I discussed the moderation and warnings of his posts with tomndebb and I did as much as I could to avoid conflicts of interest here. And because I issued all three of his warnings, I did not vote in the discussion of whether we would suspend or ban GEEPERS.
Everything validated his persecution fantasies.
I found it ironic that a person who claimed such a strong and pure Christian faith took a euphemism for “Jesus” as his username.
That being said, I have nothing else to say.
Those are some of the weakest warnings I have seen on this board, especially the second and third ones.
And I say that as a non-religious person.
He struck me as being a wee too obsessed with homosexuality. Hmmmm…
If you review the threads GEEPERS participated in I think you’ll get a sense of why they were moderated that way. The discussions he started or participated in got hijacked about every 10 posts - not only because of GEEPERS, but he was the main reason. The result was that by the end, we were moderating them very heavily to try to keep the threads on topic instead of having them become a constant string of topic changes designed to frustrate people whose questions he found inconvenient. This is not how I want to moderate GD threads and I don’t intend to do it again unless another poster’s behavior makes me think it’s required.
Well, of course. That was the only reason he was here. To stir up shit with his hostility, get hostile responses, so he could point at the big bad atheists persecuting him.
Essentially what I said in this post.
I understand how it happened, but it does seem oddly unbalanced that GEEPERS gets axed from the board for what appear to be some rather minor transgressions while New Deal Democrat continues to have free rein to spew racist vomit 24 hours a day, because he hasn’t directly stepped on a mod’s toes yet.
New Deal Democrat has received several warnings and a suspension for his conduct, and there’s been some improvement (in his behavior, not the stuff he says) since that suspension.
That is the difference between staying within the letter of the law and believing that you are above such considerations.