Doesn’t it seem only fair that if you are going to post a public thread about CarnalK’s suspension that there would be a similar thread announcing the suspension of gum?
Obviously, if there is already such a thread then I withdrawl my question and respectfully ask for a link to the existing thread.
Thank you.
I second the motion to have an ABTM announcement for suspensions as well as bannings of non-sock/troll Dopers. Doesn’t have to go into excruciating detail, something like: “Doper X was suspended for X time, for violating the rule about posts that would tend to instigate a board war” would do the job here, don’t you think?
Obviously, since suspension rather than banning as an official part of the board’s moderation is a new tool, it will take time to shake out just how it should be handled. I believe Greathouse’s suggestion is a good one.
Other folks’ thoughts?
I agree. It also serves as an example to others who may be skating close to the edge themselves. “Oops. ETF* just got suspended for that argument we got in. I’d better behave if I don’t want the same!”
*(Strictly a example. As far as I know, ETF and I have never done more than mock each others names.) 
What is ABTM?
ducks and runs… 
Right, and there would be a link to the post(s) that led to the suspension or, as in this case, where gum’s thread was quickly vanished, a barebones statement of facts and of the rule that’s been violated, perhaps with an explanation of why it exists.
That’s it so far? We’ll have to do something about that.
Your place or mine? 
An anti-back-talk meter?
Heh. It takes an effort of will not to make that typo every time I use the acronym. ABTM… “ABout This Messageboard…”
One factor may be that the thread that caused the suspension was banished by mods to the land of wind and ghosts, so linking to it would be difficult.
(not much of a point I know. I just wanted to use the phrase “land of wind and ghosts.”)
That’s a good idea. I know about the suspension (obviously) and I know the reason, but without the ability to include a link to a disappeared thread citing the rule that was violated would be good (since I missed the original thread).
Also, I know that there’s no magic number of warnings that it takes to end up in getting banned, but does anyone know if an official suspension carries a heavier weight than an official warning?
I prefer “wishing the thread into the cornfield” but that’s just me.
Gum’s thread just got a free vacation to anywhere in the world, exempting Japan?
Yes, gum has been suspended for 30 days.
My bad, I overlooked posting to ATMB on the matter.
It’s never a good idea to air your disagreements or grievances with another board or other entity by dragging their stuff over to this board. This is why the original thread is not available for you to see.
your humble TubaDiva
Thanks for the reply Tuba.
Thanks for the reply, Tuba. I was worried about her.
Gum’s a girl? How dense am I?
ABout This Messageboard
Thanks, TD. I take it TPTB intend that anouncements of suspension will be posted in ATMB (Ha! Got it right that time!) just as bannings are?
Poor Gum.
“In the midst of the word she was trying to say,
In the midst of her laughter and glee,
She softly and suddenly vanished away – -
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”
(With apologies to Lewis Carroll)
Well, you’ll ask if we don’t, so we should, doncha think?
your humble TubaDiva
Well, yeh, of course we’ll ask. Wouldn’t be Dopers if we didn’t have inquiring minds, right?
I doubt you’ll need to do it very often anyway. This is only the second case in how long? But yeh, it’s as good an idea for suspensions as it is for bannings.
Is gum OK? I think she has a lung condition of one kind or another.