# handsomeharry has been banned **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 27, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236 "2016-04-27T02:34:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**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:** [April 29, 2016, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/242 "2016-04-29T13:09:06Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Wasn’t Squirrel Cub banned for a one time troll too? **SqrlCub** , but basically yes. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/243 "2016-04-29T13:44:16Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Wasn’t Squirrel Cub banned for a one time troll too? Yes, a mere 15 years ago. [Creepy thing happened this morning](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96741), what got him banned [For the formerly banned people who now have socks.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245992),what got him re-banned. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/244 "2016-04-29T14:16:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > [For the formerly banned people who now have socks.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=245992),what got him re-banned. That has to be the thread with the highest ratio of banned posters to not banned posters. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/245 "2016-04-29T14:43:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But that’s precisely what trolling is: insincere postings made just to provoke a reaction. Any and every determination of trolling is ultimately based on subjective judgments about sincerity. To demand objective proof before moderating someone for trolling would effectively mean that we don’t moderate trolling at all. Now I’m confused. **handsomeharry** was banned for trolling. According to you, here, trolling involves insincere posting, and I agree, that’s what trolling is. So, how did you guys come to the conclusion that a guy who chose an “HH” user name 15 years ago was insincere in his claims to be a Nazi-sympathizer? That seems like an awesome amount of lead-time for a troll. I’m not awfully upset HH got banned, but the stated justification seems weak. It seems more likely HH posted an odious but sincerely held view, became disliked by members and mods alike, provoked an uproar which he refused to do anything to quell, and got banned for it. I think there’s an unwritten rule around here that if you kick over an ant hill, you better stick around to deal with the swarm. Maybe you should just Bush v. Gore this, and say decision stands, but should not be treated as precedent in the future. HH may have done something worthy of banning, but it wasn’t trolling. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/246 "2016-04-29T16:27:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Does anyone claim that these are equivalent to Nazis? > > Since no one does, the comparison fails. **Shodan** does, in fact he would say that supporting advocating rick rolling is the equivalent to Nazis. This is way I don’t engage with him. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/247 "2016-04-29T16:53:07Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > Now I’m confused. **handsomeharry** was banned for trolling. According to you, here, trolling involves insincere posting, and I agree, that’s what trolling is. So, how did you guys come to the conclusion that a guy who chose an “HH” user name 15 years ago was insincere in his claims to be a Nazi-sympathizer? That seems like an awesome amount of lead-time for a troll. The sincerity in question isn’t about whether he’s really a Nazi, it’s about his intentions in revealing himself as a Nazi on the board. If he’d shown up here with the idea of identifying as a Nazi, and demonstrating the dangerous of Jewish Banking Cabals, that wouldn’t have been trolling. If he’d shown up here to identify as a Nazi, and rail at us filthy liberals for letting so many Muslims into the country, that wouldn’t have been trolling. Instead, he showed up here with the idea of identifying as a Nazi, and then giving out only enough insults and information to keep people engaged and enraged with him. Like I said back on page 2 (?), his intent here was to deliberately become a pariah on the board. It’s that deliberate part that’s important. There are a lot of posters who are widely unpopular on this board, who we don’t ban, because it’s not obvious that their _intent_ was to become disliked. A good example (and I hope he doesn’t mind me using it here) was **Starving Artist** and paper towel tubes. **SA** got a lot of people angry with his posts in the Joe Paterno thread, and that spilled out all over the board for a while, to the point where it was disrupting entirely unrelated threads. It was a huge headache for the mods, one we could have solved pretty easily just by banning **SA**. But it was clear that **SA** wasn’t trolling - he was legitimately trying to convince people that his position was correct. So we made a bunch of special rules and rapped a lot of knuckles to get people to stop taunting his with posts about paper towel tubes in other threads, and to get him to stop replying to them. So, to **handsomeharry**. It was clear that **handsomeharry** _wanted_ the sort of board-wide anger that **Starving Artist** attracted for a while. It seems impossible to me that **harry** ’s admission in that Pit thread would not be brought up frequently against him in inappropriate threads. We’d probably end up having to note or warn otherwise good posters who understandably lost their temper with an honest-to-God _Nazi_ - and probably lost a poster or two permanently, because we’re “protecting” him. And what are we protecting? A troll. Why? Why go to the effort to keep around someone who’s deliberately trying to fuck up the boards? ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/248 "2016-04-29T16:57:53Z")
I’d be fine if the mods really banned him because he declared himself a Nazi. It was the trolling, wink wink. HandsomeHarry doesn’t get to claim a kinder, gentler Nazism. The word already has a meaning. Why not discriminate? If someone wants to promote Nazism, or pedophilia, or the KKK, well, fuck them. Go somewhere else. What’s the upside of tolerating that shit? Some make-believe world of absolute free speech? It’s actual evil that does actual harm. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/249 "2016-04-29T17:10:21Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Up to now, for an established poster, the _modus operandi_ has **always** been to warn him to knock it off, or face further punishment, suspend him first if he keeps it up, then ban only after it is clear that he cannot stop being a jerk. Can any of the mods explain why he didn’t deserve at least that normal progression of mod correction here? Exactly. Look, no one would have been upset if he had been suspended and warned. Then, when (as is super likely) he repeated his behavior\*, then\* ban him. 100% support for such a action. But this was wrong and sets a bad precedent. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/250 "2016-04-29T17:22:08Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Our fine board already has a reputation for being far too friendly to 911 deniers, racists and pedophiles, sadly, et al, Cite? The only rep I know we have is that the Stormfront folks hate our guts. Which is kinda a badge of honor. actually. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/251 "2016-04-29T17:23:40Z")
It’s not as if mods have been holding themselves back from banning people at the drop of a hat due to _lack of precedent._ The alternative interpretation is that this was a singular case that was handled in this fashion. FWIW, there was recently a long time poster who banned without note or warning for racial hate speech. I can’t recall who it was off the top of my head, however. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/252 "2016-04-29T17:27:40Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This is not a public forum, no one has a right to post here, and the administration doesn’t owe us constitutional levels of due process. > > They should have the freedom and flexibility to ban people who make this an unpleasant place without jumping through hoops, which is exactly the flexibility that the “don’t be a jerk” rule is intended to give them. > > So for people demanding detailed explanations that are subject to trial level cross-examination or strict reconciliation with comparable but conflicting past cases—that’s just not something this board owes you. > > I want the system to run in such a way that it preserves the nature of the discussion here. I really don’t expect for them to create iron-clad defenses for instabanning a self-declared Nazi who used that declaration to troll the board. “We didn’t want the miserable fuck around any more” is a good enough explanation in some cases. I haven’t posted in this thread so far, but I agree 100% with every point **Ascenray** has made. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/253 "2016-04-29T17:30:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This is not a public forum, no one has a right to post here, and the administration doesn’t owe us constitutional levels of due process. > > They should have the freedom and flexibility to ban people who make this an unpleasant place without jumping through hoops, which is exactly the flexibility that the “don’t be a jerk” rule is intended to give them. Note that many of us, like you and I-\* are paying customers\*. So, yeah, they do owe us. “unpleasant place”? From\* one thread\*? In _the PIT_? The whole fucking Pit is a " unpleasant place ", if they wanted to make the SDMB a more pleasant place they’d just dump the Pit altogether. You can (like I do) simply rarely venture there, then how was HH making the board unpleasant for you? No one said HH wasn’t breaking the rules. We disagree with the disproportional punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/254 "2016-04-29T17:32:44Z")
Miller, you have the patience of a saint. At this point, I don’t think you’re going to convince the rules-lawyers of anything. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/255 "2016-04-29T17:33:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This is not a public forum, no one has a right to post here, and the administration doesn’t owe us constitutional levels of due process. > > They should have the freedom and flexibility to ban people who make this an unpleasant place without jumping through hoops, which is exactly the flexibility that the “don’t be a jerk” rule is intended to give them. > > So for people demanding detailed explanations that are subject to trial level cross-examination or strict reconciliation with comparable but conflicting past cases—that’s just not something this board owes you. > > I want the system to run in such a way that it preserves the nature of the discussion here. I really don’t expect for them to create iron-clad defenses for instabanning a self-declared Nazi who used that declaration to troll the board. “We didn’t want the miserable fuck around any more” is a good enough explanation in some cases. That’d be a fine argument if there wasn’t in fact a sub forum called The Pit whose purpose in part allows one to post as an irascible asshole. As long as one is part of the majority point of view. Otherwise it’s trolling. Outside The Pit I don’t think there’d be any debate. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/256 "2016-04-29T17:42:31Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > If someone wants to promote Nazism, or pedophilia, or the KKK, well, fuck them. Go somewhere else. What’s the upside of tolerating that shit? Some make-believe world of absolute free speech? It’s actual evil that does actual harm. The upside of tolerating that shit is that exposing hateful ideas to logic and ridicule can be a good way of combating them. It’s part of the mission of fighting ignorance. It’s also fun! The other reason you tolerate that shit is because there is no bright line separating the KKK from Donald Trump or Jerry Falwell. Without a clear line, you risk discouraging speech on other controversial subjects. Obviously, the Board is free to do whatever the fuck it wants. People who think they’re clever for pointing that out are missing the point. If you think the Board is better when we get to pile on Nazis and when people with unpopular political opinions feel free to express them, then we should proceed cautiously when insta-banning someone based in part on their views. That’s all. That’s not a “make-believe world of absolute free speech.” It’s how humans actually work in real life. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Miller, you have the patience of a saint. At this point, I don’t think you’re going to convince the rules-lawyers of anything. Yes, it truly takes extreme patience to, uh, start a thread inviting comment and then leave that thread open for comment and debate? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/257 "2016-04-29T17:58:51Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > That’d be a fine argument if there wasn’t in fact a sub forum called The Pit whose purpose in part allows one to post as an irascible asshole. I trust you know this given your wording, but it’s worth mentioning that the core function of the Pit is to act as a safety valve for the rest of the board. That it is a haven for assholish behavior is a side effect. Sure, it’s entertaining to some in its own way. But that’s not its core purpose. Personally, I think it’s pretty rude to purposely create problems for the volunteer mods. Whether or not you pay, what? $15 per year? Give me a break. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Exactly. Look, no one would have been upset if he had been suspended and warned. Then, when (as is super likely) he repeated his behavior\*, then\* ban him. 100% support for such a action. Oh I doubt that would receive 100% support. But I get that you disagree with the _calibration_ of the punishment. There’s a lot of that in this forum. Folks render their opinions based on some abstract sense of justice. My take is that the extent to which posters create disproportionate problems for the volunteer mods -i.e. _practical_ issues - don’t get enough attention by the ATMB gripers. Or hardly any attention at all really. The precedent is fine. And apparently it’s not brand spanking new anyway according to Colibri on the previous page. > [@Richard Parker](#): > > Yes, it truly takes extreme patience to, uh, start a thread inviting comment and then leave that thread open for comment and debate? This board has an exceptionally high tolerance for public discussion of moderator decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/258 "2016-04-29T18:00:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, it truly takes extreme patience to, uh, start a thread inviting comment and then leave that thread open for comment and debate? I wonder if he anticipated all the asinine, pettifogging rules-lawyering he be subjected to, though. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/259 "2016-04-29T18:04:30Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I trust you know this given your wording, but it’s worth mentioning that the core function of the Pit is to act as a safety valve for the rest of the board. That it is a haven for assholish behavior is a side effect. Sure, it’s entertaining to some in its own way. But that’s not its core purpose. > > Personally, I think it’s pretty rude to purposely create problems for the volunteer mods. Whether or not you pay, what? , $15 per year? Give me a break. Oh I doubt that would receive 100% support. But I get that you disagree with the _calibration_ of the punishment. There’s a lot of that in this forum. Folks render their opinions based on some abstract sense of justice. My take is that the extent to which posters create disproportionate problems for the volunteer mods -i.e. _practical_ issues - don’t get enough attention by the ATMB gripers. Or hardly any attention at all really. > > The precedent is fine. And apparently it’s not brand spanking new anyway according to Colibri on the previous page. This board has an exceptionally high tolerance for public discussion of moderator decisions. And you don’t see how The Pit itself could be the problem? Unless it’s meant as a safety valve for a subset of the rest of the board. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/260 "2016-04-29T18:06:23Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > I wonder if he anticipated all the asinine, pettifogging rules-lawyering he be subjected to, though. I’m sure he expected rules-laywering. And probably some pettifogging rules-lawyering. But you’re right, I’m sure he would never subject himself to asinine, pettifogging rules-lawyering. That would truly be akin to death. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/261 "2016-04-29T18:08:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m sure he expected rules-laywering. And probably some pettifogging rules-lawyering. But you’re right, I’m sure he would never subject himself to asinine, pettifogging rules-lawyering. That would truly be akin to death. Whatever you say, chief. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236.md?page=14)