# Could we have an all-purpose banning background thread?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644
**Category:** About This Message Board
**Created:** [April 14, 2006, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644 "2006-04-14T11:00:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/1 "2006-04-14T11:00:30Z")
For example, I just opened the “DrMark2000 Banned” thread, and found out it was all full of in-jokes, backstory, and other such that I probably should know about over my years on the SD, but sorry. I got nothing. Never opened a thread infected by DrMark2000, never got an idea of his personality or what people liked or didn’t like about him. Nothing.
So I’m reading this thread, and learning that DrMark2000 (to continue with my example) once had something to do with Mister Rogers, that he has apparently boasted of writing a magnum opus that now we’ll never get to read, that he either was or was not a practicing psychologist, etc. If I wanted to I suppose I could do a search on him and read through his every post, but I don’t really care that much.
I do care enough such that, if someone were to write a two or three sentence summary of DrMark2000, summarizing the salient points of his SDMB existence, I would feel edified and probably I would enjoy reading the “Banned” thread.
So if this seems like a good idea, could someone provide such a summary of DrMark2000’s checkered career? And if this is a service, I’d like to suggest we keep doing such a thing in the future.
---
### Author:  [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/2 "2006-04-14T11:42:56Z")
There’s a thread in this forum detailing why he got banned. Read those for a snapshot of what went down.
TubaDiva
---
### Author:  [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/3 "2006-04-14T12:03:32Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#):
>
> There’s a thread in this forum detailing why he got banned. Read those for a snapshot of what went down.
>
> TubaDiva
Well, I knew there were links. But for those of us who don’t even care enough to read through six or seven threads, but just want the quick and dirty version, I thought a summary might be fun to read, and maybe even to write.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/4 "2006-04-14T13:25:04Z")
The problem with writing a summary of offenses is that it’s liable to be judgemental in tone. And it’s one-sided: the person can’t defend themselves. And, finally, it takes more work on the part of the moderators.
In this particular case, the write up would be something like “six warnings for trolling-type behavior, including some immediately after having been suspended.” That’s pretty much obvious from the thread announcing the banning.
When we started, we didn’t give reasons for bannings on the grounds that people weren’t around to defend themselves. We found that this stirred up more angst than seemed reasonable, so we’ve announced bannings and we give links to the prior warnings/offenses. That should be enough. We do respect the privacy of our members, even those who are banned. Most of the offenses and warnings are there for all to see; sometimes there is behind-the-scenes emails that we feel are private and NOT for public consumption.
And, I have to ask the question, why do you want to delve into the details? Does it matter? Isn’t it enough to see six or seven warnings and a prior suspension, and then more warnings within a month after the suspension? It’s not as if y’all are being asked to be a jury, or to vote on whether you approve of the banning, y’know?
---
### Author:  [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/5 "2006-04-14T13:37:52Z")
That’s a reasonable answer, Dex, but couldn’t you see “If you get banned, one of the penalties you will live with is that Dopers can then talk smack about you after you’ve gone and you don’t get to respond, so try real hard not earn a banning” as further incentive to eschew Jerkishness?
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/6 "2006-04-14T14:42:49Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#):
>
> That’s a reasonable answer, Dex, but couldn’t you see “If you get banned, one of the penalties you will live with is that Dopers can then talk smack about you after you’ve gone and you don’t get to respond, so try real hard not earn a banning” as further incentive to eschew Jerkishness?
Talk about living in a dream world!
Maybe you _should_ read all the way through the threads those links go to. That ought to convince you of the uselessness of your suggestion.
---
### Author:  [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/7 "2006-04-14T15:17:44Z")
Yes, I really don’t see the problem here.
If you’re that interested in the reason then the links are there in **Tuba** ’s announcement of the banning. Further curiosity could be satisfied by a search on the threads he started.
---
### Author:  [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/8 "2006-04-14T15:21:27Z")
My suggestion is really a “Help out the lazy guy” kind of thing. No biggie. I’m curious enough that I’d read a few lines about DrMark2000, but I’m not likely to open up a series of threads just to satsify my curiosity.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/9 "2006-04-14T15:35:54Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#):
>
> That’s a reasonable answer, Dex, but couldn’t you see “If you get banned, one of the penalties you will live with is that Dopers can then talk smack about you after you’ve gone and you don’t get to respond, so try real hard not earn a banning” as further incentive to eschew Jerkishness?
Actually, I suspect that several bannees have spent hours re-reading the calumny heaped on them at their departure simply for the pleasure the attention brings. (I really think that **drmark2000** would be one of them.)
So I do not believe that the scenario you have suggested would be anything like a disincentive. (In fact, that is one reason that we attempt to make the threads and posts of sockpuppets disappear: to remove the obvious source of their pleasure.)
---
### Author:  [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/10 "2006-04-14T16:08:26Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#):
>
> My suggestion is really a “Help out the lazy guy” kind of thing.
Okay. I’ve packed your lunch; it’s on the counter by the microwave. And I’ll finish up that laundry while you’re out. Shall I put new linens on the bed, too?
---
### Author:  [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/11 "2006-04-14T16:19:38Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#):
>
> My suggestion is really a “Help out the lazy guy” kind of thing. No biggie. I’m curious enough that I’d read a few lines about DrMark2000, but I’m not likely to open up a series of threads just to satsify my curiosity.
But the links are provided to you. You want **Tuba** to summarize the specifics?
If you’re curious as to the background, go to the links. You must not be that curious since, as you admit, you’re too lazy to go to the links.
---
### Author:  [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/12 "2006-04-14T18:07:29Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#):
>
> Okay. I’ve packed your lunch; it’s on the counter by the microwave. And I’ll finish up that laundry while you’re out. Shall I put new linens on the bed, too?
Please. That would be ever so kind of you.
---
### Author:  [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/13 "2006-04-14T18:18:47Z")
> [@Xploder](#):
>
> Please. That would be ever so kind of you.
Lazy bastard.
---
### Author:  [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/14 "2006-04-14T18:24:33Z")
> [@ivylass](#):
>
> But the links are provided to you. You want **Tuba** to summarize the specifics?
>
> If you’re curious as to the background, go to the links. You must not be that curious since, as you admit, you’re too lazy to go to the links.
Well, not **Tuba** specifically. Anyone.
I can go to the “DrMark2000 Banned” and ask what the hell is going on here please and who is this guy, and I’m sure some helpful Doper will oblige My Supreme Laziness (that’s just the way Dopers are, I’ve found , always willing to contribute their knowledge) --I was asking about an all-purpose thread that would deal with all bannees in summary fashion.
Am I the only lazy slob on these Boards or what? Hello, is this thing AWNNN?
---
### Author:  [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/15 "2006-04-14T18:42:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Actually, I suspect that several bannees have spent hours re-reading the calumny heaped on them at their departure simply for the pleasure the attention brings. (I really think that **drmark2000** would be one of them.)
> So I do not believe that the scenario you have suggested would be anything like a disincentive. (In fact, that is one reason that we attempt to make the threads and posts of sockpuppets disappear: to remove the obvious source of their pleasure.)
Which makes it particularly delicious that as of yet no one calumnified the doc enough in that thread so as to get it shut down. He must be feelin’ the love. Those things usually get locked in a heartbeat.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/16 "2006-04-14T19:29:29Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#):
>
> Which makes it particularly delicious that as of yet no one calumnified the doc enough in that thread so as to get it shut down.
Last I looked, the thread was the typical SDMB autophagous orgy of internecine warfare ignoring the troll completely. He may not being enjoying it as much as he’d hoped.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/17 "2006-04-14T19:33:03Z")
(I wonder if he got himself banned just to avoid having to type out his 20,000 word display of meaningless logorrhea interspersed with supercilious (if content free) insults.)
---
### Author:  [@Jake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/18 "2006-04-14T19:39:43Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#):
>
> Lazy bastard.
Hold the mayo.
---
### Author:  [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/19 "2006-04-14T20:04:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Last I looked, the thread was the typical SDMB autophagous orgy of internecine warfare ignoring the troll completely. He may not being enjoying it as much as he’d hoped.
That’s kinda what I meant. Looking back my meaning was unclear. I meant to say that his banning thread turned into everthing but a discussion of the bannee. Poetic justice and whatall.
---
### Author:  [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/20 "2006-04-14T20:46:02Z")
> [@Jake](#):
>
> Hold the mayo.
Ya want I should put the lettuce in a separate little baggie so the bread doesn’t get soggy?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644.md?page=2)