# Grude Banned On Suspicion Of Socking \[Edited: grude banned for socking\] **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Tags:** suspension-banning\ **Created:** [November 21, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142 "2015-11-21T01:34:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142/1 "2015-11-21T01:34:17Z")
[I refer to this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=775761) I’ve never bitched about the modding here because I go by the principle of “Your ship; your rules.” I break my cherry on this. The modding has, at times of late, seemed somewhat arbitrary. But this is the internet and you play by the rules of the sandbox you are in. So long as the big kids are relatively fair you have no right to bitch. Such has been my stance. This one has moved me to comment. If you know that **Grude** has done something wrong then warn or suspend or ban or burn- **Grude** at the stake - as you choose. But to announce that this is a peremptory banning based on suspicion is wrong. He (She?) is being punished, based on a strong hunch, before the mods are sure he’s guilty. That is wrong. Zeke ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142/2 "2015-11-21T01:37:05Z")
It’s not unusual for them to ban someone just because they can’t get in contact with them, period. You’re required to keep your contact data up to date as long as you post here. They don’t normally announce it, though. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142/3 "2015-11-21T01:38:15Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > [I refer to this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=775761) > > I’ve never bitched about the modding here because I go by the principle of “Your ship; your rules.” > > I break my cherry on this. > > The modding has, at times of late, seemed somewhat arbitrary. But this is the internet and you play by the rules of the sandbox you are in. So long as the big kids are relatively fair you have no right to bitch. Such has been my stance. > > This one has moved me to comment. > > If you know that **Grude** has done something wrong then warn or suspend or ban or burn- **Grude** at the stake - as you choose. > > But to announce that this is a peremptory banning based on suspicion is wrong. > > He (She?) is being punished, based on a strong hunch, before the mods are sure he’s guilty. > > That is wrong. > > Zeke Well, you know, the other option is, “ **grude** is suspended on suspicion of socking, and if he doesn’t respond to us and explain himself, he’ll be banned.” Same difference, really. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2015, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142/4 "2015-11-21T02:21:18Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > [I refer to this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=775761) > > I’ve never bitched about the modding here because I go by the principle of “Your ship; your rules.” > > I break my cherry on this. > > The modding has, at times of late, seemed somewhat arbitrary. But this is the internet and you play by the rules of the sandbox you are in. So long as the big kids are relatively fair you have no right to bitch. Such has been my stance. > > This one has moved me to comment. > > If you know that **Grude** has done something wrong then warn or suspend or ban or burn- **Grude** at the stake - as you choose. > > But to announce that this is a peremptory banning based on suspicion is wrong. > > He (She?) is being punished, based on a strong hunch, before the mods are sure he’s guilty. > > That is wrong. > > Zeke You realize that most message board software packages allow admins/moderators to see the IP address someone posted from, right? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142/5 "2015-11-21T02:41:10Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > You realize that most message board software packages allow admins/moderators to see the IP address someone posted from, right? Yep. And in he days of smartphones, this is becoming useless. There could be dozens of users using the same Verizon wireless IP in San Francisco. If it was a home internet Comcast IP, it would be easy. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2015, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grude-banned-on-suspicion-of-socking-edited-grude-banned-for-socking/738142/6 "2015-11-21T02:45:56Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > If you know that **Grude** has done something wrong then warn or suspend or ban or burn- **Grude** at the stake - as you choose. > > But to announce that this is a peremptory banning based on suspicion is wrong. > > He (She?) is being punished, based on a strong hunch, before the mods are sure he’s guilty. It wasn’t a hunch. We had very strong evidence of socking, but there was a small chance that there could have been an alternative explanation. **grude** was sent a PM asking him to provide such an explanation, if it existed, yesterday. Although he was on line recently, he has provided no explanation. I think we may conclude there isn’t one forthcoming. Therefore I am going to close this and change the titles of the threads to read that he has been banned for socking. Should **grude** provide an acceptable explanation we might reconsider, but that seems unlikely at this point.