Yes, but his “final” warning, plus the three he received after that, are all within the last 10 months.
Dog80, I’m trying to translate your signature, and I get “Enough is as good as a feast, but…” and then something about “too much”. Could you finish it out for me, or correct me?
Yes, check my link above for an artist’s restoration of the critter.
Here’s and even less flattering one.
does that translate to pencil neck? I don’t see it.
Colibri:
What are the objects sticking out of the distinguished critter’s snout (2nd link)?
They look like Q-Tips.
They are supposed to be bristles, I think. It’s not a great restoration.
I think it means something like “bonded column” and IIRC refers to the tooth structure.
In this case we’re considering “initial warnings” from as long as 3 years ago, and “final warnings” starting from 10 months ago? That seems a little…erm… obsessive. An infrequently offending poster with a spirited debating style would get banned just by virtue of being around for a while.
There ought to be a distinction between “stop derailing the thread” warnings and “official you’re really being a jerk” warnings. There’s a lesson to be drawn from basketball… personal fouls are not desirable, but they are expected as part of vigorous gameplay. A temporary count is kept to prevent abuse. But they don’t run a lifetime personal foul count. To get thrown out, you have to commit an offense of gross unsportsmanlike conduct. I don’t see that degree of infraction in most of Demostylus’s offenses or enough frequency to justify the banning.
Also, personal jeopardy warnings shouldn’t be public, for the same reason that Gaudere said there shouldn’t be an “On final warning” title. How many times have we seen “oh, don’t mind him, you know he’s one of the Warned.” Public admonitions should exist only to say “User X, you are derailing this thread, cease and desist.”
Well, frankly, no. For a start, it would just mean that people would post in topics in teh wrong forum to evade the forum-specific banning. For seconds, rarely is someone absolutely well-behaved in one forum and a jerk in another. A complete jerk may have still have a few valuable contributions here and there; the situation is rarely absolutes. Even Attila the Hun liked small cats, although generally for lunch, I think.
Well, frankly, no. For a start, it would just mean that people would post in topics in teh wrong forum to evade the forum-specific banning. For seconds, rarely is someone absolutely well-behaved in one forum and a jerk in another. A complete jerk may have still have a few valuable contributions here and there; the situation is rarely absolutes. Even Attila the Hun liked small cats, although generally for lunch, I think.
Very unlikely. And please remember that the offenses and warnings cited in the first post here are just a sampling. And note, within a few weeks of the “final warning” in this case, there were other offenses. It was arguably an admininstrative hiccough that action wasn’t taken then. This is a situation of regular and repeated offenses, despite many warnings.
If someone had a “final warning” and then had a year of perfect behavior, we’d almost certainly overlook that “final warning.”
It is ashame, and the whole thing seems rather odd. I happened to mention that it seemed like a smear campaign was afoot, largely because it seemed like it initially arose from Bricker raising a nearly-year-old incident, and then CarnalK helpfully linking some old posts. I would take it from the recent SkipMagic post warning CarnalK that there was in fact something unusual going on in the way of external agitators. Very peculiar.
Like other bannings, the sampling presented by way of evidence is fairly vanilla, and pretty unimpressive. I would guess that the mods would be better served by not offering any specific evidence whatsoever unless it is fairly compelling, rather than saying, in effect, “Okay, this ain’t much, but there was a lot of it!”
It also leaves me with some feeling that all the whining done by some members lately, both in general regarding the moderation of the board and specifically in regards to certain bannings, is an effort in part to “game the refs,” perhaps tipping the scales on future decisions.
In sum: Weird! Hmmm? and [Al Czervik]Keep it fair. Keep it fair.[/Al Czervik]
I would add to this summary the fact that, in response to my raising the “nearly year-old” issue, the poster in question took the opportunity not to apologize, or even to simply ignore the issue, but to reaffirm his slur.
Right. I’m offering 6 to 4 on Barbarian making Mod one day.
Tic-tacs madly to the crowd and takes wads of fivers and IOUs
"Charter Member Desmostylus banned"
The guy was rude, offensive, and never missed an opportunity to be smarmy or downright insulting. Good riddance to bad rubbish and all that jazz.
There were recent warnings not included in the abridged OP list — at least one that I can recall offhand.
A little reminder – discussion is fine, but since the object of this thread cannot defend himself, no mudslinging, please. He’s gone already.
your humble TubaDiva
Does “Quit sniping at each other. NOW.” count as an official warning?
I don’t mean this as a point of contention, only one of elucidation.
Thanks for the reminder, “Ms. Diva.”
Um, in Gaudere’s final example thread from the OP, here, Demostylus didn’t make any posts. Should I infer that his final offense happened in the thread that that thread linked to, here, or was his post in the final OP’d thread “disappeared” upon his banning (which has happened before)?
I’m not defending or condemning the banee, just trying to figure all of this out. Thanks.
The warning was there, the post was elsewhere. I generally try to link to the warning, not the post, since then you can see what was actually warned for. I think TVeb warned for a post Bricker referenced earlier in that thread, I believe the “uncle Tom” (in addition to other shenanigans) posted hereabouts: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284078&page=4&pp=50 I don’t think the later linked “brown-skinned” bit got warned for, as we believed it was a reference to Bush’s speech.