# Banning appeal for shadowofneo and tink222? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 31, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454 "2013-03-31T19:04:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/21 "2013-04-04T11:33:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The assumption that the mods deserve respect requires that they are doing a good job. No, it doesn’t. But everything else you said in this post was also wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/22 "2013-04-04T14:31:45Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > In fact, it would be a sign of disrespect if I refused to try and help. I think this attitude of yours is why some people don’t take you seriously. No one asked you to be judge and jury of everything and when you act like you are it puts some people off. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/23 "2013-04-04T15:57:31Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > I think this attitude of yours is why some people don’t take you seriously. No one asked you to be judge and jury of everything and when you act like you are it puts some people off. I’m looking forward to his Pit thread on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/24 "2013-04-04T16:29:52Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > What part of the video made you feel that he wasn’t the type of poster you want ‘hanging around here’? > > What’s so crazy about doing a youtube video? > [@TriPolar](#): > > **Marley** , the guy sounds a little nuts, but assuming their was no sock, what reason would there have been for the banning? … and others questioning why Marley is reluctant to reverse the ban. Just stop to think about it for a moment. **shadowofneo** : theory of everything … **Marley23** : banning of everyone. _Don’t you see the connection?!_ ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/25 "2013-04-04T16:34:09Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > … > The point here is simple. The mods shouldn’t be able to decide that someone gets banned because they don’t like them. … I’ve probably seen 50 to 100 members banned in the time I’ve been here. I can’t think of a single time where the banning of a member was due to a mod’s dislike of that member. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/26 "2013-04-04T16:47:55Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > There is also one board and one forum where poster are free to go and gripe and complain about this board and and all its members. Sure, the board is anonymous, but the forum is not. I assume you’re referring to the BYB forum on my board. It should be noted that the forum only hides the identities of the posters from people who aren’t logged in. Anyone can log in and see who said what. (This is noted in both the board FAQ and the forum sticky.) > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’ve probably seen 50 to 100 members banned in the time I’ve been here. I can’t think of a single time where the banning of a member was due to a mod’s dislike of that member. I’ve got to agree with this. It’s pretty obvious there are posters who some of the mods strongly dislike, but at worst that has meant they might get less benefit of the doubt than a well-liked poster. It’s an area I think the mods should get a lot more credit than they do – it would be very, very easy to use mod power to rid oneself of nuisances. Most boards are not as disciplined in that regard as this one. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/27 "2013-04-04T18:16:57Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Yep. This is weird, but here goes: > > [In this thread,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653617) **shadowofneo** and his apparent sock got banned in almost no time. > > 10 months later, it was brought to my attention, **shadowofneo** posted a video complaining about the bannings [(YouTube link here — time 1:42),](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxn9ypNJdJg) and attempting to prove his fiancée **(tink222)** and him are indeed individuals who happen to be using the same IP. > > Now, the video doesn’t prove a thing, since she was out bra shopping with her mom (yuh, I know… bare with me), but the circumstance doesn’t quite pass the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” test, unless I’m not privvy to some information the mods had at the time to zorch their accounts. > > Besides, [I’m currently pitting him](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=686749) over the video, but things and rules are starting to blur and I’m afraid it’ll collapse into a black hole in the basement of the SDMB. I dunno … You want him reinstated primarily for the purpose of telling him that he sucks? Even more than that — so you can tell him he sucks, and then he can read it and reply, and you two can make a whole big thing about it? Why not just make your rejoinder on YouTube? Is it because you want an audience of Dopers for this whole thing? None of us are angels, and we all probably have our own pissy little feuds with each other. But reversing an otherwise well-supported ban just so we can have more fights around here seems like it might cast a bitchy pall over our proceedings, no? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/28 "2013-04-04T20:04:31Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Sorry, but that’s absolute bull. If they wanted a friendly place, there wouldn’t be a Pit, and a lot of posters wouldn’t be able to get away with being actively hostile in other threads. (Yes, including me sometimes.) Excerpt from a thread on the new and improved SDMB: … Poster A: Oh friendly and always correct Poster B, I thrive in the glow of your positive aura and daily learn more than I am worthy of from your endless and deep wisdom, and this response probably represents my lack of knowledge, but I want to add to my incomplete understanding in this area, and so I ask, would you be willing to direct me towards a link supporting your point? Poster B: As always, your kind words cultivate a sense of community and openness that help us all share knowledge and achieve a greater understanding of the world around us, without your contribution this process would wither away and the sense of loss for all would be great, and so to fulfill your request and assist with your new understanding I refer you to my previous post #27. ---
**Author:** ![Banana\_Pancake\_Flipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ce7236/32.png) [@Banana\_Pancake\_Flipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banana_Pancake_Flipper)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/29 "2013-04-06T01:48:28Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > We do ban clear nutters all the time. Yet you allow the majority to stay. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/30 "2013-04-06T19:48:21Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’ve got to agree with this. It’s pretty obvious there are posters who some of the mods strongly dislike, but at worst that has meant they might get less benefit of the doubt than a well-liked poster. It’s an area I think the mods should get a lot more credit than they do – it would be very, very easy to use mod power to rid oneself of nuisances. Most boards are not as disciplined in that regard as this one. I agree with this also. I think the rule set also helps to bring about a more disciplined response, leading to more fairness than I’ve seen on any other message board. The mods should get more credit than they do for staying as faithful to the rule set. In this case, it’s good that a second look was taken to ensure that the rules still applied. ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/31 "2013-04-06T21:48:54Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I agree with this also. I think the rule set also helps to bring about a more disciplined response, leading to more fairness than I’ve seen on any other message board. The mods should get more credit than they do for staying as faithful to the rule set. > > In this case, it’s good that a second look was taken to ensure that the rules still applied. Sounds like you have some experience with message boards that lack this sense of fairness. I can understand your concern. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/32 "2013-04-06T23:05:10Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I dunno … You want him reinstated primarily for the purpose of telling him that he sucks? Even more than that — so you can tell him he sucks, and then he can read it and reply, and you two can make a whole big thing about it? > > Why not just make your rejoinder on YouTube? Is it because you want an audience of Dopers for this whole thing? > > None of us are angels, and we all probably have our own pissy little feuds with each other. But reversing an otherwise well-supported ban just so we can have more fights around here seems like it might cast a bitchy pall over our proceedings, no? Hardly. They’re two separate issues. I had no beef at all with his thread or incoherentness. In fact, that was part of the fun in his original thread. Then, his fiancee made an account from within the same household, and he was banned for sockery. Months later, someone pointed me to his Youtube rant (which I did reply to there), and despite his calling me out for picking on him, I can’t help but see things from his perspective. The apparent sock triggered his banning, but there is nothing outside of this misunderstanding which called for a banning, much less a warning.\* IMHO, despite his nuttery, I think there’s a brain in there somewhere. But that’s irrelevant. I like that we have a board that isn’t closed off to crackpots, extremists, or zealots. SDMB is best when the community is diverse and not some gregarious echo chamber. Sure, this board leans heavy to the left and rational, but if a poster, new or old-timers alike, is to be banned, let them leave us by tripping on their own petard according to the rules. He could’ve thrived as one of our own, prolific nutters — I need not mention some names — of which this place would be that much more bland without them. God bless their twisted little minds. All that said, I started that thread in BBQ, because I found the video weirdly amusing and it’s rare someone rants with a video blog about treatment on the SDMB, let alone bashing some nobody on the boards, so I felt the Pit was the best place for it. Especially since I planned on using a few Nerf-toss insults. I know people as irrational and nutty as him IRL. When we get them on this board, it can be quite cathartic to be able to say what I’m really thinking when otherwise restricted from doing so due to propriety. And it makes good practice, not to mention good fun. Do I think **Marley** is on the nose with his assumption about **shadowofneo** had he not been banned? Yep. But unless he’s a precog from Minority Report (and I think he might actually be), it’s only an experienced guess, and not grounds, by itself, for a banning. This would carry much more weight with me if I thought **shadowofneo** had snowball in hell’s chance to stick around here and contribute more worthwhile stuff (as opposed to mockery fodder), or someone I thought was a larger asset to the board; though that’s not to say mockery fodder isn’t an asset here. The bloodlust does need quelling. \*assuming his account in the vid is the truth. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/33 "2013-04-06T23:25:47Z")
[I hope you guys change the water often…](http://www.flickr.com/photos/7604613@N04/8625197269/in/photostream) 😃 Couldn’t help it, the imagery just begged me to be created. But yes, this board has excellent modding compared to a crap-ton of other, lesser, boards. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/34 "2013-04-07T03:36:10Z")
If you think **tink222** really is a sock for **shadowofneo** , then you’re justified in banning him. If you believe his explanation\*, then there’s really no justification for continuing the bans. Where’s the downside in removing the bans? They might post again? Horrors! Or worse, they might never post here again, and our feelings will be collectively hurt? One other thing: **Marley23** wrote > [@](#): > > To update everyone: these posters may have been banned in error, but we’re not reversing the ban. Objectively it’s unlikely these posters were going to last very long anyway, and the bits I saw from that 10-minute YouTube complaint confirm that these aren’t people we need hanging around here. I don’t see how you (or anyone else) can form _any_ opinion about what kind of poster **tink222** would have been. She only had one post, all of seven words. She wasn’t involved in the YouTube video. Yet there she is, banned. \*Frankly, I do. It’s certainly a plausible explanation, and nothing in **tink222** ’s short post jumps out at me as being similar to **shadowofneo** ’s. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/35 "2013-04-07T13:52:21Z")
Let’s see, banned because he was a sock. But, wait, he’s not a sock\*. Well, banned anyway. Just, just…because. Meanwhile, in a basement far, far away a well-known poster pecks away at his keyboard crafting bat-shit insane posts about how all people in the military are deserving of killing, how deep-down evil ALL conservatives are (and America, too!), and something about how all women are mean or something. And the mods won’t have a problem with THAT non-sock asshole posting his stupidity. Beautiful. \*naturally, assuming his recounting of the incident on YouTube is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/36 "2013-04-07T18:36:18Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > \I’ve got to agree with this. It’s pretty obvious there are posters who some of the mods strongly dislike, but at worst that has meant they might get less benefit of the doubt than a well-liked poster. It’s an area I think the mods should get a lot more credit than they do – it would be very, very easy to use mod power to rid oneself of nuisances. Most boards are not as disciplined in that regard as this one. Word. I have heard of boards that have some serious ‘no soup for you’ mod action going. The Dope is nothing at all like that. > [@ZenBeam](#): > > \One other thing: **Marley23** wrote > I don’t see how you (or anyone else) can form _any_ opinion about what kind of poster **tink222** would have been. She only had one post, all of seven words. She wasn’t involved in the YouTube video. Yet there she is, banned. > > \*Frankly, I do. It’s certainly a plausible explanation, and nothing in **tink222** ’s short post jumps out at me as being similar to **shadowofneo** ’s. I forgot all about poor lil’ tinktink. She never stood a chance. I think it’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the sock stuff was in error. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/37 "2013-04-09T07:07:23Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > … and others questioning why Marley is reluctant to reverse the ban. Just stop to think about it for a moment. **shadowofneo** : theory of everything … **Marley23** : banning of everyone. > > _Don’t you see the connection?!_ The moderation is coming from _inside the house!_ Get out now! ---
**Author:** ![shadowofneo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@shadowofneo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shadowofneo)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/38 "2013-04-11T18:01:22Z")
The Sun Rises, Shadow of Neo Returns, Tink222 Will Be In Part 3 Of My Straight Dope Video Series, Thank you all for your support, i hope you’re all ready for more crazy ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454/39 "2013-04-11T19:19:19Z")
If you’re going to argue with Straight Dope poster, **shadowofneo** , do it here and not on YouTube. Since you’re back, [I’ve re-opened the thread you started.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653617) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/banning-appeal-for-shadowofneo-and-tink222/654454.md?page=1)