User handsomeharry has been banned for trolling, on the basis of his performance in this thread.
Normally, we don’t announce banned trolls in ATMB, but given that the user in question has been around since 2001, I felt it was appropriate in this instance. The situation is also unusual, as compared to most other bannings, in that the user had not been given any previous warnings for bad behavior. I’m going to explain the reasoning for that, and in a third break from normal procedures, I’m going to leave this thread open for a little bit in case anyone has questions or concerns. However, I don’t want to see a bunch of people in here just celebrating that we banned someone unpleasant. If the thread starts to turn into a “pile-on the banned guy” thing, I’m going to close this thread. In the meantime, I’m going to do my best to anticipate some likely questions, and answer them ahead of time.
So, first, was handsomeharry banned just for being a self-admitted Nazi? No, or at least, not entirely. The SDMB has always operated under the principle that repulsive speech is best met with more speech, not with suppression. Openly advocating for fascist or explicitly racist policies is not, in and of itself, reason enough for a ban. In the Pit thread in question, harry was not actually advocating for any position at all: he was self-identifying as a Nazi, insulting anyone who drew the most logical assumptions about someone who would self-identify as a Nazi, and then refusing to explain how his version of being a Nazi was any different from anyone’s preconception of what being a Nazi means. He was also clear that this was not something he would merely refuse to explain in the Pit, but was rather something he would not discuss with anyone on the board, in any capacity. That’s not discussing your honestly held political beliefs, that’s just trolling.
Secondly, is trolling against the rules in the Pit now? Yes, and it always has been. However, the definition of trolling in play in the Pit necessarily requires some modifications given the intended purpose of the Pit. The normal definition of “posting things just to provoke a response” doesn’t entirely work in a forum that exists specifically to call other posters assholes. There is, however, a general expectation that if you’re calling another poster an asshole, you’re doing it out of some genuine grievance, and not just because you like stirring shit up. It was clear, in the Pit thread in question, that harry was not posting to defend or advance any particular political position, but simply because he knew that saying, “I’m a Nazi,” would be a good kick to the beehive, and get everyone agitated - and that the less he described his actual beliefs, the more agitated the other posters in the thread would become.
Thirdly, can people be banned with no warning now? Yes, and once again, that’s always been the case. We’re not required to give out warnings or suspensions for rules violations - per the user agreement, we can ban anyone on a first offense. We generally avoid doing this, because we think the 'Dope works best with a diverse range of voices, and we usually recognize that just because we disagree with a particular poster, that doesn’t mean they don’t bring value to the board. So we’re usually pretty liberal (heh) with second chances. But we’re talking about an honest-to-God Nazi here. While we’re willing to tolerate views even that far out of the mainstream, on the basis that sometimes Dopers like an easy fight, that’s not a position that anyone on the moderation staff is particularly happy to see on the board, and not one that we’re going to go out of our way to allow to be heard here if they can’t otherwise abide by the rules. Particularly one who, as in harry’s case, had just demonstrated pretty conclusively that they weren’t interested in actually discussing their views.
I think that covers the major questions around this particular banning, but I’m sure I’ve missed a couple. Go ahead and ask for clarifications on any point you think I didn’t touch on, but again, please try to keep the questions focused on moderation policy, and not on the character of the banned poster.