You know, like in the Werewolf game? A poster gets banned but has the opportunity to start one last thread. That would be cool.
How 'bout it?
Not a good idea at all. :rolleyes:
Werewolf is a popular game where players naturally are eliminated and can cheerfully post in an accompanying non-game thread, before playing in the next game.
Posters are banned because they are jerks.
They are offensive or trolls or trying to sell us something.
No way should they get another opportunity.
Yeah, it’s possible that I, like osmium, am incredibly dense but what would be the point of this?
Um, the whole point of removing someone from the board is that we do not wish to see their posts on display.
If someone can’t or won’t live by the rules of the community they lose their privileges and that’s the end of the story.
This is not a game.
Fish and visitors smell in three days. – Attributed in Ben Franklin in Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1736.
The smell rises exponentially. Do we want the SDMB to choke on the continued effervescence of someone who has overstayed their welcome?
Not a game, eh?
Well then why…
Um…
Yeah.
:: cough ::
Most of those banned for being jerks are given warnings before they are banned so after that first or second warning would be the best time for a jerkish troll to post his/her grand finale.
. . . which is exactly what I was going to say. Jerks are given warnings. If they fail to heed the warnings, that’s their own business. Therefore, it is the business of the mods to ban them.
Tripler
Yeah, they didn’t give Marty McSorely a second warning. They just threw him out right then and there. [sub]First warning comes with the knowledge of the rules[/sub]
Your perception of “game” and the perception of others is perhaps different. M’kay?
For unexpected values of the variable cool, obviously.
I’m curious about how anybody could possibly think this might be a good idea. Honestly. Curious. Care to elaborate?
If somebody accidentally crashes a swanky, invite-only party, it is often considered courtesy to allow them a few brief moments to explain themself before being escorted out. In circumstances of extreme rarity, one could even foresee such a crasher getting the attention of the crowd and, if warranted, keeping it for a small fraction of time.
On the other hand, If a party guest consisently, brazenly, and drastically violates the social morays of aforementioned party, there is no commonly-held custom of giving them a “last defense” speech. They had their chances, and thus they get kicked to the curb.
That’s my analogy, and I’m sticking to it.
“Don Pardo, tell our troll what great parting gifts he’ll be receiving”.
No such thing exists. Only in your imagination.
Yeah, I don’t know what parties you go to, but the only explanation I’ve ever seen a guest been queried is, “How the hell did you get in here?”
I agree with samclem. Besides, you spelled ‘more’ wrong.
Tripler
This is why I don’t go to them hifalutin’ parties. All them pretentious folks standin’ around. . .
What about a Forum of the Damned, a section that’s viewable and postable by everyone, but is the only viewable and postable forum for those that have been asked to leave? I know it’s implausible, but it would be fun to isolate and study the Troll…
I smell grant money. 
On the other hand, if someone brazenly violates morays at a swanky party, he could make a fortune selling the video on certain sites I’m not allowed to link to on the SDMB.
It is a mathematical certainty that every banned poster has one last post. Given that this state of affairs is already inevitable, I see no reason to clutter up the rules with such a tautology.
Actually we’ve banned quite a few people before they’ve even posted once.
Sex with eels?
Chronos: aren’t some socks and SPAMsters banned and all their posts deleted?
That sounds very Schrödinger-like to me.