# 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:** 15
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/21 "2006-04-14T21:02:09Z")
Maybe I’m a "lazy bastard"™ too but I can see **pseudotriton ruber ruber** ’s point.
[Eddie Haskell] Not that I am faulting the Moderators in any manner shape or form. They do a laudable, commendable, thankless job by keeping these boards operating in an efficient manner yet still ensuring that the SDMB members’ behavior is in accordance with the rules and regulations.[/Eddie Haskell] 😃
Sometimes I am disappointed at the lack of detail expressed on this board. People speak in acronyms in topic headers, questions and responses. For example, “FOB charges for OEM parts - valid IRS deduction?”
“IANAA but just a WAG it’s not SOP. Of course YMMV. And BTW, TGIF”
Well, you get the idea.
Or someone might ask a question and get a brief answer (such as a hyperlink). The trouble is, that hyperlink is some 300 page monstrosity and the answer is to be found in a footnote on page 237.
So basically, it is a little annoying to get an answer to someone’s banning with several hyperlinks to wade through.
**tomndebb** - Sometimes the ‘T’ word can be used ?
(I don’t need a long explanation. Just give me 5 or 6 links to some lengthy boring SDMB TOS - ASAP) 🙂
(Just kidding)
---
### Author:  [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/22 "2006-04-14T21:36:25Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#):
>
> Ya want I should put the lettuce in a separate little baggie so the bread doesn’t get soggy?
What, so now _I_ have to put the damn thng together _myself_? What the hell do I keep _you_ around for? Look, just make it fresh at lunchtime and bring it to me. And if I see any crust on that bread, there’ll be Hell to pay.
---
### Author:  [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/23 "2006-04-14T22:01:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> (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.)
I think he wanted to be banned, I think he wanted to flame out brightly. He probably only brought up the 20K vomit session to encourage the mods and admins to act swifter on his banishment.
Question: Once a poster is banned can we _(users)_ discuss if they were a sock, troll or just a jerk?
Jim
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/24 "2006-04-14T23:52:27Z")
> [@wolf\_meister](#):
>
> **tomndebb** - Sometimes the ‘T’ word can be used ?
> [@What Exit?](#):
>
> Question: Once a poster is banned can we (users) discuss if they were a sock, troll or just a jerk?
Actually, I don’t know. I used it because the individual was pretty much banned (past tense) for blatant trolling and I was making a passing reference to his departure, not intending to throw more stones at his retreating figure. (And, although it was not my intention, I might hide behind my [_vibrato_] Shie-e-e-e-e-eld O-o-o-of Mo-o-o-oderatorship [/_vibrato_].)
Personally, I would not have a problem with _mentioning_ that an already banned poster had incurred banning for trolling, as long as it was simply a statement in reference to a situation and not a happy dance on the grave of someone unable to defend him- or herself.
However, other staff members may take a different view and hand out Warnings for even using the word in connection to a poster–even one now banned.
Certainly, pissing on the ashes of the departed is not permitted, so even if the use was a simple declaration of fact, a degree of circumspection is warranted.
---
### Author:  [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/25 "2006-04-14T23:54:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Actually, I don’t know. I used it because the individual was pretty much banned (past tense) for blatant trolling and I was making a passing reference to his departure, not intending to throw more stones at his retreating figure. (And, although it was not my intention, I might hide behind my [_vibrato_] Shie-e-e-e-e-eld O-o-o-of Mo-o-o-oderatorship [/_vibrato_].)
> Personally, I would not have a problem with _mentioning_ that an already banned poster had incurred banning for trolling, as long as it was simply a statement in reference to a situation and not a happy dance on the grave of someone unable to defend him- or herself.
>
> However, other staff members may take a different view and hand out Warnings for even using the word in connection to a poster–even one now banned.
>
> Certainly, pissing on the ashes of the departed is not permitted, so even if the use was a simple declaration of fact, a degree of circumspection is warranted.
Thank you for the clarification, so I will have to refrain from saying what I think DrMark was. ☹
Jim
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/26 "2006-04-14T23:55:06Z")
(We generally allow some discussion of a banished poster’s character in the context of arguing over whether the banishment was permitted. You would probably be safer avoiding the word troll in such discussions–which usually result in a locked thread when people unfriendly to the banned begin to haul out the heavy insults.)
---
### Author:  [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/27 "2006-04-15T03:18:25Z")
> [@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?
Oh, we made a big mistake letting YOU go!
TubaDiva
The windows could stand some washing too.
---
### Author:  [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/28 "2006-04-15T03:56:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> internecine
Thank you, I had to go look up this word and now know a new word.
Internecine, internecine, internecine.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/29 "2006-04-15T04:41:24Z")
> [@Anaamika](#):
>
> Thank you, I had to go look up this word and now know a new word.
But you knew autophagous?
---
### Author:  [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/30 "2006-04-15T04:59:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> But you knew autophagous?
No, I didn’t and don’t. And [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)\* doesn’t have it, so I think you are making it up. :dubious:
\*Yes I know [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) isn’t any kind of authority. But it’s 1 AM here and I am not going hunting for my real dictionary.
---
### Author:  [@movingfinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/movingfinger)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/31 "2006-04-15T06:26:38Z")
I think it refers to eating one’s self. Naa, that can’t be right. Anyone?
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/32 "2006-04-15T07:01:56Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Naa, that can’t be right.
Sure it can.
The incivility of its members causing the board to devour itself.
---
### Author:  [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/33 "2006-04-15T12:42:17Z")
I prefer ‘Ouroboros-like’.
---
### Author:  [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/34 "2006-04-15T15:55:32Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#):
>
> Lazy bastard.
Damn right.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644/35 "2006-04-15T20:09:09Z")
I think I read that Google has chosen the Straight Dope Message Board to beta test a new translator tool–the Baninator5000. You plug all the threads by a banned poster into Google, and it spits out kind of a Cliff’s Notes version of what happened.
At least, I _think_ I read about that. I could be mistaken.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-have-an-all-purpose-banning-background-thread/352644.md?page=1)