On the issue of certain bannings looking unsuported by a few warnings, I think I’d like to coin a phrase: “The Al Capone effect.” That is, when the mods know you’re a jerk, and it’s a long standing pattern of being a jerk, sometimes you get nailed on ‘tax evasion’. Personally I think that the mods would be better served, in circumstances like that, by simply saying “Poster X was a jerk, we banned him.” In that circumstance, I think the policy of listing transgrassions, while normally good, is a hinderance.
Meanwhile, I have no idea why I keep switching e’s with a’s. The word is transgress… you got me as to why it has anything to do with going across grass.
~shuffles off into the aether~
You migt have a point, except thet Milroyj was clearly commenting about somoene making a big deal, a “performance”, out of an insulin shot in a public resturant, in light of other posts that that posters has made about similar situations in the past. The accusations of pedophilia and the like came straight from the imagination of Dio.
I really didn’t like that guy. Said all kinds of nasty shit about me, and people herein that I like. And punk-nasty shit, shit without the grace of wit or the barb of insight, just shit. Of course, sometimes it was inspirational. The clarity of one’s prose can often be improved with a wee dram of venom in one’s morning coffee.
So I’m not one to dance on his grave. But I do note that the grave is overun with cooties, and suggest a vigorous and rythmic stamping to discourage them.
I like that - the Al Capone effect. I gotta remember that. But, you hit the nail on the head. The Big Thing around here is Thou shalt not be a jerk. Can anyone honestly say milroyj was not a jerk? We’re all jerks at one time or another, the fact that we’re still here says something. However, when someone is always a jerk, that takes it to a “whole nother level”. Some things are self evident. milroyj was self evident. He was a jerk. Besides, if the mods had to list and post every transgression, they’d die of old age before they were done 
His accusation may not have been specifically one of pedophilia, but it was an accusation of highly inappropriate behavior completely out of nowhere. Making a spectacle out of giving an insulin shot and forcing your kid to strip in front of others are worlds apart. One can comment on (e.g.) why it’s unnecessary to immunize young children without accusing parents who do so of also giving the kids daily prostate exams. The latter technically makes a point about overly vigilant medical wariness, but it’s unnecessary and disgusting.
Or a father, even. 
:smack:
I don’t have a bone in this argument but I think this post by TVeblen should at least shut those up that think this banning was arbitrary or unwarranted. Specifically this part
“Honk If You Love Existential Despair!”
Find me a post by Reeder that is anywhere near as vile as this, and I’ll call for his banning. Especially lovely is the part where he states:
The person’s transgression to deserve that? Someone unknown to her had opened a virus on the same network that her husband, who is overseas, has to use to communicate with her.
Then in another thread, someone asks (not states, asks) if milroyj has a drinking problem, and he starts playing the “you’re being a jerk” card. While I was initially ambivalent on this banning, everytime you defend him, it pushes us to go back and look at his past and realize just how lucky he was to have not been banned within a few weeks of his initial registration, five years ago.
Reeder might be a partisan weinie, but he’s not a santorum filled pustule.
I’m not defending milroyj, I hardly knew him. Didn’t like may of his posts when I did notice them. However the reasons given for his banning don’t stand up to scrutiny. Don’t claim you’re banning one poster for certain types of posts while giving a pass to a different poster who does the exact same thing. If milroyj was banned for a cumulative history of poor posting, for fuck’s sake, have the balls to simply be honest and say so- “Milroyj is banned because we the administration think that he’s generally a jerk who does not contribute to the boards”. People may not like that either, but at least it’s honest. Banning him and then trying to justify it after the fact with the weak ass shit presented in this case is just pathetic.
Lib, you already stated your feelings on that. I’m getting damn tired of you following me around and doing this. I understand that you spend a lot more time thinking about me than is healthy, but you’ve tried your flimsy attempt at junior modding already in this thread. Drop the issue.
Next time you whine about Demostylus, examine your own behavior.
:: derisive snort ::
You thought I was talking about you?
Sorry, Lib, I wasn’t. I don’t reciprocate your obsession with me.
I meant to say “on both sides of the aisle” - I’ve made no secret for my dislike of certain people who share my politics.
I really don’t understand why this is such an issue for you.
Even with posters with more . . . tenuous . . . ability to follow the rules, warnings only end up targeting a minority of the offenses that actually deserve them. Everyone’s seen posts that deserved a warning but didn’t get one. In milroyj’s case, apparently a lot of things didn’t get warned that deserved it. When he was banned, the mods posted a list of his warnings, as they always do. That doesn’t mean that it was a “case” to get rid of the dude, it was merely a listing of his past official transgressions.
Again, I don’t think you can look at it and expect a legal-style argument here. If the warnings don’t add up to a banning, well, there’s no reason they’re supposed to.
Typical. A morally drunk tongue lashing from you even after I’ve already conceded my misjudgment. You’re so bloated with ego that I’ll bet your farts smell like self-importance.
Hmmm, did he ever back down or retract or explain? Looks to me like he’d jump into a thread all bristiling with hostility, get some hostile responses, and respond with more hositlity until the thread centered on him. The man was a living negative feedback loop.
I do it too, but with jokes and pop-culture references. Yep, when the thread is manipulated to center on me, it’s with a smile, dammit!
The staff used to catch grief because people were banned without general notification and the board then spent days arguing over whether the poster had been really as bad as all that or whether the final post that went over the edge was really sufficient to trigger a banning. So the staff began to document warnings and when a poster was banned, the warnings would be posted to demonstrate that the banning had not been on the whim of one administrator’s malice. Now that we are documenting that banned posters had broken board rules, we are being told that we are posting the wrong reasons.
The assumption with which anyone may begin when they see “BANNED” beneath a poster’s name is that, after a discussion, some large number of staff members (including both Moderators and Administrators) have agreed that the poster has been a jerk and, further, that there was no serious defense of the poster among the rest of the staff. What gets posted in the ATMB thread notifying the board of the banning is nothing more than a brief record showing that we did not execute the ban on a whim. It is not an exhaustive treatent of all the poster’s sins, nor is it a detailed synopsis of the complete staff discussion prior to the banning. The “five warnings” remark in the thread noting milroyj’s banning was not intended as either a claim that five was a magic number or that the five recorded warnings were the only sins he had committed.
Should we post the “real reason” why someone is banned? Sure: consider this a blanket statement for all past and future bannings: He (or she) acted like a jerk.
As for any further pronouncement, there would be no point. Partisans of the jerk will continue to resort to claims of “prejudice” or shrill cries that some other poster was “worse” (by some clearly subjective–and most likely partisan–scheme). Beyond that, it would be a waste of some staff member’s time (and possibly a violation of the banned poster’s privacy) to collate and post all the comments regarding the banning, simply to have the same complaints that the discussion was skewed by “prejudice” of one sort or another.
If you’re going to turn this thread into another Lib-fest, it’s going to be without my help. I won’t respond to you here again.
Did he ever participate in threads where he wasn’t being nasty? Like a thread about hobbies, or something he was interested in?
You mean the hobby he shares with Sen. Frist?