# Bannings. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 13, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851 "2003-12-13T23:29:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/81 "2003-12-15T16:27:30Z")
> [@](#): > > While this wouldn’t address all the protocol you proposed in the OP, it would (for better or worse) provide a place to debate the bannings outside of the SDMB. Doubtful. The staff here isn’t inclined to read a whole bunch of stuff about, and from, people we believe to be jerks, no matter where it’s posted. Again, if somebody wants to do it, go for it. But don’t expect it to have any effect on what happens here. Besides, Gyan9’s proposal has a staff member initiating the topic when a poster approaches the line in the sand. We’re not likely to do that here, and there’s no way in a cold, dark hell we’d consider doing something like that off the boards. In essence, what you propose would be little different than any of the large number of the Pit threads here asking “Why was so-and-so banned?” Except that there’d be absolutely no staff participation. Here, at least we generally do respond to these types of threads. > [@](#): > > Depending on the ambiguity of the infraction, no more than 150 posts. Right. And all the threads and posts linked therein, both in defense and prosecution of the banee. There’d be a whole lot more than 150 posts to reflect upon. > [@](#): > > And the mods don’t have to “devote a great deal of attention”. That’s the benefit of an open pit thread. Let the interested (and offended) users have a go. The mod reviews the thread after 3 days and depending on the ‘statement’, makes a decision. You left out a step. And a plural. The mod **s** , not _mod_, would have to review the thread. And the missing step: then, before a decision could be made, we’d have to have the same e-mail discussion that already takes place. Or, as you seem to be suggesting, hold that discussion publicly. And frankly, if I were the accused in such an extended and public process, I think I’d want my judge to take more than a passing interest in the discussion. Most of us already spend more than a couple hours a day monitoring these boards - some days much more than that. Add to that burden and it becomes difficult to find and retain volunteer staff. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/82 "2003-12-15T18:24:22Z")
Yep, [we’ve been through this before.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3919895#post3919895) And just look at the date on the post. Peace. ---
**Author:** ![porcupine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac91a4/32.png) [@porcupine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/porcupine)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/83 "2003-12-15T18:33:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > \*\*If that figure includes spammers and trollers, exclude them. > > **porcupine** > > Depending on the ambiguity of the infraction, no more than 150 posts. And plenty of threads in GD or Pit reach those limits. \*\* My point is that the moderators would then have to _read_ the whole damn thread, and would still have to have a discussion on whether to ban the poster. And some people would still bitch and whine about the banning because they always do; we’d still have threads like “Why did this person get banned?” So all this does is create more work for the staff. And who’s going to limit it to 150 posts? ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/84 "2003-12-15T18:47:13Z")
Well, I for one don’t think **moriah** is being the least bit smarmy, nor do I think she’s picking a fight. Indeed, she signs all of her posts with “Peace,” and we probably should think no more on it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/85 "2003-12-15T18:56:39Z")
What’s wrong with our current system of a banning, following by multi-page train wreck threads complaining endlessly about it? It’s working so far. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/86 "2003-12-15T20:31:56Z")
Yeh, the current system seems to be the least burdensome to the mods while still providing the maximum entertainment value for fans of Schadenfreude. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/87 "2003-12-15T20:33:21Z")
And invective! I forgot to mention creative invective! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/88 "2003-12-15T20:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alec expiate \* > \*\*Don’t you feel it’s a bit smarmy to say “Peace” when you are telling others what they should discuss or not discuss? Aren’t you picking a fight and then saying “Peace” hoping bystanders will be fooled? > It’s like the bums who, when you ignore their agressive panhandling will spit out “Bless you!” \*\* Oh, chill out. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/89 "2003-12-15T23:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > **Doubtful. The staff here isn’t inclined to read a whole bunch of stuff about, and from, people we believe to be jerks, no matter where it’s posted.** I’m not suggesting the moderators need to read any of it. The Yahoo group would be for BANNED posters to explain their side of the story to other BANNED posters, ordinary SDMB members, or to no one in particular. It would be understood from the get go that the group is in no way sanctioned by or connected to SDMB. My guess is that this would in fact relieve some of the SDMB traffic that is now dedicated to “Why Was So-and-So Banned” threads. That would be a good thing. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/90 "2003-12-15T23:44:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bnorton \* > \*\*My guess is that this would in fact relieve some of the SDMB traffic that is now dedicated to “Why Was So-and-So Banned” threads. That would be a good thing. Right? \*\* OTOH, it could be used as a sounding board to further badmouth the SDMB. Probably enough of that going on as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/91 "2003-12-16T00:09:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bnorton \* > \*\*I’m not suggesting the moderators need to read any of it. The Yahoo group would be for BANNED posters to explain their side of the story to other BANNED posters, ordinary SDMB members, or to no one in particular. It would be understood from the get go that the group is in no way sanctioned by or connected to SDMB. > > My guess is that this would in fact relieve some of the SDMB traffic that is now dedicated to “Why Was So-and-So Banned” threads. That would be a good thing. Right? \*\* I don’t think so. I’ve read enough letters and posts on other boards from banned members to know that they WILL put a spin on things. Trolls, for instance, will insist that they were only trying to have a little fun and/or liven up the boards. A guy who was blatantly spamming the boards for his independently produced film insisted that he wasn’t SPAMMING, despite the fact that he was asking the other posters to vote for his film in some contest, and despite the fact that he had signed up with two or three different names to spam. There’s one persistent troll who has an amusing variety of ideas, which s/he periodically tries to post on the message board. I don’t know if s/he really believes these ideas, or is simply trying to stir up rumors, or what. We can’t prevent you from starting up another board. However, I really don’t think it would do any good, and I do see that it could do a great deal of harm. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/92 "2003-12-16T00:24:15Z")
Have you guys ever banned someone then regretted it? I’m asking yes or no,no names for sure. Or like “Maybe we were too harsh?” Has anyone ver been banned and then said (even on another board) “Yep,you guys were right to do that”\> ? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/93 "2003-12-16T01:09:25Z")
\>\> So, in this contract, the party of the first part shall be known henceforth as the party of the first part? \>\> (…noise…)] He (…) llo? \>\> You obviously aren’t a Chaplin fan Is that Groucho Chaplin? Or Harpo Chaplin? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/94 "2003-12-16T01:16:41Z")
No, **sailor** , _Charlie_ Chaplin. **Ilsa** ’s obviously a lip-reader. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/95 "2003-12-16T03:40:07Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by vanilla_ > Has anyone ver been banned and then said (even on another board) “Yep,you guys were right to do that”? I assume that the small handful of banned posters who were later re-instated would have had to say something like that before they were given back their posting priviledges. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/96 "2003-12-16T03:47:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \>\> So, in this contract, the party of the first part shall be known henceforth as the party of the first part? > > \>\> (…noise…)] He (…) llo? > > \>\> You obviously aren’t a Chaplin fan > > Is that Groucho Chaplin? Or Harpo Chaplin? > [@](#): > > No, sailor, Charlie Chaplin. Ilsa’s obviously a lip-reader. I was wondering how long it would take you guys to pick up on that. Y’all obviously aren’t Coen brothers fans, either. **Mr. B** , what kinda bug you got up your ass about me, anyway? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/97 "2003-12-16T03:55:25Z")
There’s already a forum where banned members can tell their side of the story. In fact, many have done so there. alt.fan.cecil-adams. ---
**Author:** ![bettyspaghetti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@bettyspaghetti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bettyspaghetti)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/98 "2003-12-16T04:23:09Z")
I’ve often felt the need to have closure after a poster is banned, like an epitaph on a grave. A place where other dopers can view the bodies so to speak, may they R.I.P. Thanks for the link elmwood. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/99 "2003-12-16T04:25:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > Have you guys ever banned someone then regretted it? > … > Has anyone ver been banned and then said (even on another board)“Yep,you guys were right to do that”? Here’s an example of the first situation: [Banned From Board…What Gives? Discrimination?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228810) **Collounsbury** , springs to mind as an example of the second. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/100 "2003-12-16T17:08:33Z")
Darn. This is the first time I get unsolicited personal attack in the pit (OK, so it’s not its own thread, but a minor pitting), and the poster is not only BANNED, but the attack post is deleted before I could respond! I didn’t even get a chance to swear. ☹ Oh, well. All I can say to **alec expiate** where ever you are is, “Bless you.” ========= WRT to my post which elicited such ire, my point is that this all was discussed just four months ago. Those who are beating this dead horse might want to find better use of their time. And I wouldn’t mind in the slightest if an admin locked this down and said, “Thanks for your input, but this was recently discussed and we have no plans to change policy at this point in time.” Peace. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851.md?page=6)