# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/82 "2016-04-27T17:00:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So the idea that the banning wasn’t position-based is not correct in your view? That seems undesirable. > > Consider the position that same sex marriage is “icky”. I don’t hold this view, but some do. That position is inflammatory, and unusual on this board. It’s an emotional position, not a rational one. So if someone were to ask why, the response could honestly be, just because - and that could be construed as refusing to answer questions. That shouldn’t be bannable. > > I really like consistency. This banning seems inconsistent with the rules as they were understood up to now. Opposing SSM is not even close, not even in the same ballpark, in terms of unusualness and inflammatoriness, as being pro-Nazi. So yes, I think pro-Nazi assertions are treated differently, but they’re not automatically banned – just that, in this case, such an incredibly unusual and inflammatory assertion, paired with a refusal to discuss it and answer questions when challenged, is a clear sign of trolling, according to the moderators. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/83 "2016-04-27T17:03:37Z")
I’m ambivalent about this banning and with the reasoning behind it. The thread itself, for what parts of it I did read, struck me very much as suicide-by-mod. I would tend to agree that he was acting like a jerk, but to a certain extent I’ve understood that such behavior is given much more leeway in the pit than other forums. As, for instance, is it disingenuous and debate etiquette to refuse to address questions about one’s positions? Sure. And I’d absolutely expect that sort of behavior to be enforced in most forums like GQ and GD. I’d certainly even consider it poor form in the pit, but I’m not sure I’d consider it obligatory behavior. After all, aren’t rants by their very nature typically irrational? > [@Miller](#): > > 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 like that this was announced for a long-term member, even if generally troll bannings aren’t announced. I’m in agreement with not announcing trolls, but I think anyone who has contributed significantly, in time and/or posts, even if it gives a troll a little bit more attention, I think it’s a good service to the other members of the board who may have been confused. What concerns me is the precedent of banning without even a mod note, much less a warning. I’m not inclined to go on that kind of tirade, nor do I have, or purport to have, such opinions that would get that sort of response but, putting him aside for a moment, it would seem to me that a reasonable person might believe they are permitted to rant and are under no obligation to defend their assertions in there and might, with a mod note or warning, realize they were out of line and be wiling to correct himself. I am, of course, disinclined to believe that this poster would in this case, but just like how I feel an explanation was owed for the banning of a longtime member, I feel at least the opportunity to correct himself should have been offered, even if it was quickly ignored. And I could even see an immediate banning for a thread that quickly got extremely hostile and action needed to be taken to keep the board under control. But, as far as I could tell, all of the behavior was limited to that one thread, and the thread was allowed to go for several days. > [@](#): > > So, first, was **handsomeharry** banned just for being a self-admitted Nazi? No, or at least, not entirely. The “or at least, not entirely” part bothers me. If we’re going to be a community devoted to fighting ignorance, especially against unpopular opinions, I think it should not have factored into the decision to ban at all. If one’s views are going to be a factor in banning at all then, perhaps, at least a pm to a user or a mod note should be made letting people know they’re championing positions that could lead to their banning. Absolutely, anyone who is or pretends to be a Nazi has some reprehensible motivation, but we’ve seen some interesting threads in the past with people defending some other similarly reprehensible positions. You do go on to articulate the other behavior, which is pretty much text book trolling but, again, I feel that’s something that should have been warned and then perhaps given a very short leash. I think if he’d been warned, made a few posts afterward continuing the behavior and was then immediately banned, even if the warning and banning were, say, 30 minutes apart, I’d feel much more comfortable with this action, at least from this perspective. > [@](#): > > Secondly, is trolling against the rules in the Pit now? Yes, and it always has been. Again, I agree that it was almost certainly deliberate and even with a warning probably wasn’t going to change, but I think trolling in the pit should be considered more carefully. After all, it’s even said in the thread itself that this sort of behavior is common for internet Nazis. Would it have been so hard for a moderator to point out the particular parts of his behavior, as was done here, and tell him to quit? > [@](#): > > Thirdly, can people be banned with no warning now? Yes, and once again, that’s always been the case. I get that the board doesn’t owe anyone posting rights. You’re perfectly within your rights to ban someone because you don’t like their user name or because they’re fans of your favorite team’s rivals. I’d still argue that it’s a bad precedent to set. What if someone else wants to discuss a controversial topic legitimately, but decides not to because of concern that they’ll be banned without warning? To sum up, yes, almost certainly the guy was a troll and deserved the banning. I really just would have liked some sort of mod action prior to a banning, especially given that he was a longtime poster. I do, however, appreciate the transparency with the decision making and the opportunity to discuss it given the unusual circumstances. So thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/84 "2016-04-27T17:06:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So, you are going to ignore everything that has been pointed out that shows how wrong that is since the last time that was said and just repeat yourself. Well, it IS a typical Wednesday. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/85 "2016-04-27T17:09:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > … > > … If a mod calls you a troll in the Pit, you might be banned without warning. … > > Regards, > Shodan As I take this, your not defending what the departed did, but you have an issue with the lack of prior notice provided to the departed? Referring to the registration agreement… _Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever._ No warning or mod note is required. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/86 "2016-04-27T17:11:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Opposing SSM is not even close, not even in the same ballpark, in terms of unusualness and inflammatoriness, as being pro-Nazi. So yes, I think pro-Nazi assertions are treated differently, but they’re not automatically banned – just that, in this case, such an incredibly unusual and inflammatory assertion, paired with a refusal to discuss it and answer questions when challenged, is a clear sign of trolling, according to the moderators. There isn’t much that is in the same ballpark as being pro-Nazi so I struggle to find examples. Some folks equate the Republican Party to be evil. If a person self identifies as a Republican but doesn’t want to get into the reasons for that, should that be bannable? I don’t think it should be. To reason by analogy - I don’t think any position however inflammatory, should be required to be expounded upon else they earn a banning, granted the rest of the rules of the board are followed. This is a bright line position. Yours is not - and leaves open the possibility for instabans for things people really don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/87 "2016-04-27T17:14:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There isn’t much that is in the same ballpark as being pro-Nazi so I struggle to find examples. Some folks equate the Republican Party to be evil. If a person self identifies as a Republican but doesn’t want to get into the reasons for that, should that be bannable? I don’t think it should be. > > To reason by analogy - I don’t think any position however inflammatory, should be required to be expounded upon else they a banning, granted the rest of the rules of the board are followed. This is a bright line position. Yours is not - and leaves open the possibility for instabans for things people really don’t like. He didn’t simply self-identify and leave it at that. Read the thread in question. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/88 "2016-04-27T17:16:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There isn’t much that is in the same ballpark as being pro-Nazi so I struggle to find examples. Some folks equate the Republican Party to be evil. If a person self identifies as a Republican but doesn’t want to get into the reasons for that, should that be bannable? I don’t think it should be. I totally agree. Nazi is almost in a category of its own (maybe along with pro-pedophilia or pro-rape stances). > [@](#): > > To reason by analogy - I don’t think any position however inflammatory, should be required to be expounded upon else they earn a banning, granted the rest of the rules of the board are followed. This is a bright line position. Yours is not - and leaves open the possibility for instabans for things people really don’t like. I think allowing the mods to use their judgment in cases like this is appropriate – that making such an inflammatory and unusual assertion, pretty much out of the blue, and then refusing to expound upon it when challenged, is clearly trolling, and reasonably judged as such. And clear trolling earns disciplinary action, up to and including being banned. So he was banned for trolling, not the position – though the way he expressed this position was clearly trolling, when it wouldn’t clearly be trolling for many other positions. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/89 "2016-04-27T17:29:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > He didn’t simply self-identify and leave it at that. Read the thread in question. I just read his posts in that thread. He was being an insulting taunting asshole and nothing I read would make me want to respond. That’s true of tons of stuff in the Pit. HH basically did pffthh over and over again. That’s not novel - the only part that is novel is his pro-Nazi and related positions. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I totally agree. Nazi is almost in a category of its own (maybe along with pro-pedophilia or pro-rape stances). I’ve seen someone speak positively of raping a person to death on TV as entertainment and they are still around. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/90 "2016-04-27T17:31:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’ve seen someone speak positively of raping a person to death on TV as entertainment and they are still around. Go figure. Were they challenged on it, and if so, did they refuse to engage and answer questions? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/91 "2016-04-27T17:33:31Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > That’s an invalid test for anything related to membership on this board. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Referring to the registration agreement… > > _Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever._ > > No warning or mod note is required. One of you guys is wrong, but I’ll let you work that out between the two of you. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/92 "2016-04-27T17:35:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’ve seen someone speak positively of raping a person to death on TV as entertainment and they are still around. Go figure. Did she/he have a thread on the subject and refuse to explain themselves? You can’t just keep pointing at any one straw and say “What the hell is that camel bitching about?” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/93 "2016-04-27T17:50:47Z")
With all the odd claims that he was banned for his views, I went back to the Mod loop discussion to review how the decision was reached. Three quarters of the Mods did not even mention his claimed political views, noting specifically that he had dragged up an ancient thread to attack inactive posters and then posted nothing but nonsense comments in attempts to insult anyone who challenged him. Among the one quarter of the Mods who mentioned his political views, half of them said that they were irrelevant to his behavior. Whether we made the right or wrong decision to ban a troll, claims that his beliefs were the driving factor are just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/94 "2016-04-27T18:05:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > With all the odd claims that he was banned for his views, I went back to the Mod loop discussion to review how the decision was reached. Three quarters of the Mods did not even mention his claimed political views, noting specifically that he had dragged up an ancient thread to attack inactive posters and then posted nothing but nonsense comments in attempts to insult anyone who challenged him. > Among the one quarter of the Mods who mentioned his political views, half of them said that they were irrelevant to his behavior. > > Whether we made the right or wrong decision to ban a troll, claims that his beliefs were the driving factor are just wrong. Now you’ve done it, Nina Totenberg. We will be expecting summaries like this for every future Mod Cabal action. Maybe with some nice sketches. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/95 "2016-04-27T18:10:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > With all the odd claims that he was banned for his views, I went back to the Mod loop discussion to review how the decision was reached. Without being privy to that information, readers can’t be expected to draw the same conclusions. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Were they challenged on it, and if so, did they refuse to engage and answer questions? No - but again, exact parallels are hard to come by. In any event, I pretty much agree with Blaster’s post #82 in its entirety. That’s all I got on this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/96 "2016-04-27T18:21:14Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > When they came for the Nazi in the Pit I said nothing… Oh, I remember that story. \*First, they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing, for I was not a Nazi. Then nothing happened, because there’s no slippery slope here, and again, I’m not a Nazi. They just got rid of a Nazi. At last, they reminded me, “Dude, the original saying is **also** about how terrible Nazis are, did you forget?” And I said, no, that’s why I said nothing when they came for the Nazis.\* ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/97 "2016-04-27T18:24:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > With all the odd claims that he was banned for his views, I went back to the Mod loop discussion to review how the decision was reached. Three quarters of the Mods did not even mention his claimed political views, noting specifically that he had dragged up an ancient thread to attack inactive posters and then posted nothing but nonsense comments in attempts to insult anyone who challenged him. > Among the one quarter of the Mods who mentioned his political views, half of them said that they were irrelevant to his behavior. > > Whether we made the right or wrong decision to ban a troll, claims that his beliefs were the driving factor are just wrong. Doing a little math, and considering there are only 15 mods total, that comes out to 8 mods voting, and it pretty much sounds like an 8 to 0 vote. Sounds like the jury returned an unanimous verdict to me. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/98 "2016-04-27T18:28:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because they banned him with no warning or mod notes. > Yes, it was. As you mentioned, the rules are different for this poster exactly because of his position. > Then again, what **Miller** claimed about silencing is untrue. > I have quoted the original words, and pointed out the contradictions. Do you have any substantive response, or should you be banned for refusing to explain yourself? I dont like the fact he was banned with no warning. I suggest a suspension, then given the 99% chance he’ll repeat himself, then banning. :(But a insta-ban for a established poster is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/99 "2016-04-27T18:30:29Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > What concerns me is the precedent of banning without even a mod note, much less a warning. I’m not inclined to go on that kind of tirade, nor do I have, or purport to have, such opinions that would get that sort of response but, putting him aside for a moment, it would seem to me that a reasonable person might believe they are permitted to rant and are under no obligation to defend their assertions in there and might, with a mod note or warning, realize they were out of line and be wiling to correct himself. I am, of course, disinclined to believe that this poster would in this case, but just like how I feel an explanation was owed for the banning of a longtime member, I feel at least the opportunity to correct himself should have been offered, even if it was quickly ignored. > > To sum up, yes, almost certainly the guy was a troll and deserved the banning. I really just would have liked some sort of mod action prior to a banning, especially given that he was a longtime poster. I do, however, appreciate the transparency with the decision making and the opportunity to discuss it given the unusual circumstances. So thank you. I concur. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/100 "2016-04-27T18:32:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So, you are going to ignore everything that has been pointed out that shows how wrong that is since the last time that was said and just repeat yourself. No, I will address everything, and note that you have no substantive response. > [@tomndebb](#): > > With all the odd claims that he was banned for his views… It isn’t an odd claim - **Miller** said that his statement about being a Nazi wasn’t the only reason he was banned, but it was part of it. I assume your next move is to deny that you said so, inform us that we can’t be privy to mod discussions, and accuse me of arguing in bad faith. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > As I take this, your not defending what the departed did, but you have an issue with the lack of prior notice provided to the departed? > > Referring to the registration agreement… > > Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever. > > No warning or mod note is required. They _can_ do it. The question is if they _should_ do it, especially if they claim they have reasons other than whim. Banning people for having repulsive positions, and for responding to insults with insults in the Pit, while simultaneously claiming that they don’t ban people for having repulsive positions and insults are appropriate in the Pit, is more than a bit hypocritical. Anyone can be banned at any time, for any reason at all. I get that. But that also means that the alleged statements about why they banned **handsomeharry** should be taken with more than one grain of salt. Look, it is more than obvious what went on. The rule is “If we find out you are a Nazi, you have to allow yourself to be piled on. If you refuse to play along, we will ban you”. That’s the rule. And no amount of "Is not! Cite! You’re being disingenuous! You’re taking it out of context! I didn’t say that! NONONONONO!!!’ changes that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/101 "2016-04-27T18:39:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Look, it is more than obvious what went on. The rule is “If we find out you are a Nazi, you have to allow yourself to be piled on. If you refuse to play along, we will ban you”. > > That’s the rule. And no amount of "Is not! Cite! You’re being disingenuous! You’re taking it out of context! I didn’t say that! NONONONONO!!!’ changes that. To be fair, it would be totally disingenuous to say you took that quote out of context. It was never in any context in the first place. The alternatives to your having discovered that quote in your imagination are very few. Did one of the mods post this in a private message to you or something? Did they post it on another board? Did they call you and say it to you? Barring some extraordinary circumstances, the words you put in quotation marks have nothing at all to do with the discussion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236.md?page=6)