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.

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

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

You can open an ATMB thread.

Thanks, I’ll give that a try. :slight_smile:

There doesn’t 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 wouldn’t have noticed those because it’s 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

No they didn’t.

pretty much sums everything up. :stuck_out_tongue:

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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.