I know it IS an option. But what was so egregious that he had to be banned without the benefit of a Warning? Especially when multiple mods were responding to him. It seems like a long time poster deserves a note or warning. And I’ve yet to hear a reason why that was not done.
I, for one, denounce the Mods who have joined the Cecil Adams Brigade to fight in the civil war against Ignorance, with the phrase “This Machine Kills Trolls” their spam hungry clarion call.
I have in my inbox a list of [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]205[/DEL][/COLOR] [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]57[/DEL][/COLOR] [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]Hi Opal[/DEL][/COLOR] 81 Straight Dope employees that were known to the administration of the Straight Dope as being members of the Anti-Fascist-Troll Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the Straight Dope.
Clearly these ban happy “Moderators” are nothing but radical premature Anti-Fascists.
I propose an in-House Committee be formed to investigate these subversive Un-Straight Activities!
CMC fnord!
Well, SqrlCub got the banhammer with out benefit of warnings. That was, as I’m told, 15 years ago. Seems to me there’s 15 years of precedent there.
Yet to hear a reason? The Mods gave reasons in posts they made in this thread, but you refuse to accept those reasons. You keep pretending that answers aren’t forthcoming, when the real problem is that you aren’t being given the answers you want to hear.
They used their judgment and determined that the specific way he was trolling was so egregious as to be immediate-banning worthy. It’s a judgment call – they decided that this was so bad that he didn’t deserve a note or a warning before being banned.
That’s why. You might disagree, but that’s why they did it – they thought that the violation was so bad that he didn’t deserve a warning before being banned.
I’m unfamiliar with that poster or his history. But, again, I accept that the mods can do whatever they want. I just think that a long time poster deserves a warning or a note first and am flummoxed as to why that was not done.
I think it’s hilarious that a moderator will take the time to insist that an explanation as to why HH was not warned has been given, neither he nor anyone else was able to provide a quote when I politely asked. (I figured, “Hey, maybe I missed it.”) Well, one poster, TokyoBayer was nice enough to point me to Miller’s post #246, but that really doesn’t address the issue.
Perhaps pigs will appear in the sky and drop leaflets emblazoned with this reason I’ve been asking about, or perhaps a little more fantastical, Czarcasm will dip his toe into new territory and make himself useful by facilitating the discussion which he obviously has some interest in. I’ll keep an eye out for the pigs.
But that doesn’t jibe with the fact that this all happened in a four-page thread in which multiple mods conversed with him. If he had opened a thread with an ban-worthy OP and the mods let the hammer drop immediately, your explanation would make much more sense. But four pages? With multiple mods communicating with him? Exceedingly odd. Which is why I ask, “why”?
The fact that the detailed explanation the Mods gave doesn’t give you what you want pretty much tells us that you cannot be given what you want, unless the Mods change their reasons for why they did what they did and/or change the outcome. You either accept the reasons and the outcome, or you don’t.
Considering that the mods regularly converse behind the scenes for days (or more, perhaps) before taking major action, this doesn’t surprise me at all. I think it’s very likely that they were discussing it for a while behind the scenes, at the same time that some were engaging in the thread as posters, not as moderators (except perhaps for minor moderating), and after discussing it and deciding on the ban, they executed the ban.
Explanation already given by the Moderators: He wasn’t banned for just one post, but for his actions throughout the whole of the thread. They have said this over and over again.
Correct. We are not all on-line at the same time. We generally allow time for everyone to comment and for a consensus to form before taking action.
I really hope you’re kidding about that because IMHO, it couldn’t be further from the truth.
As I said, I hope I’m misreading your post.
To me, these are the reasons. 1) He trolled too hard. 2) Even if his behavior changed after a warning, other users would not have been able to let it go and it could have gotten ugly.
Like them or don’t like them, they are the reasons that have been given.
You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
It’s called “parody.” Or maybe “sarcasm.” In any case, the whooshing noise you hear…
You are-Fenris got it.
SO? he was banned for one thread, without warning.
There have been a number of posters banned for one post–not even one thread, without warning. None recently, but it used to be an uncommon but not unheard of option. 24KaratGoldie (or something similar–circa 2001) comes to mind.
I don’t particularly object to it in obvious cases of trolling combined with racist/anti-Semitic posts.
Sometimes if you’re even hardly fascist, the banning comes hard and fast-ish.
Yeah, we know, but thanks for pointing it out yet again. That part has been talked about already, by both the Mods and the posters. The Mods gave their reasons, and the posters either accepted their reasons, or they didn’t.