How do you get BANNED?

[silenus]

Alternately, you could call [redacted] a [redacted] [redacted] with delusions of [redacted.] That should be good for a banning.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@aldiboronti

As I posted in a similar thread a while back you really need to work hard to get permanently banned here, unless of course you’re a sock or a spammer in which case it’s easy. I’ve been on quite a few boards over the years and many of them you merely have to look awry at a moderator to get the boot. In this place the mods always have a reason other than it is their will to have it so.

Indeed so. Remember, to get banned - other than sock puppetry and so forth - one has to get a series of warnings over some definite span of time. In addition, bannings are done by committee on the mod loop. By the time a problem poster is in jeopardy of banning, it will have been discussed by all of us en banc and eventually - should it get that far - voted on. Even then it takes a majority to ban someone and in my experience one mod speaking up for a poster can make the difference.

[Sunny_Daze]

IME, long time posters will also generally have a notice posted in the ABTM forum, so that folks know what happened. It’s newer folks and the spam/sock folks who go gently into the cornfield without notice.

[Andy_L]

@Jonathan_Chance

Indeed so. Remember, to get banned - other than sock puppetry and so forth - one has to get a series of warnings over some definite span of time. In addition, bannings are done by committee on the mod loop. By the time a problem poster is in jeopardy of banning, it will have been discussed by all of us en banc and eventually - should it get that far - voted on. Even then it takes a majority to ban someone and in my experience one mod speaking up for a poster can make the difference.

Which is why I said looking at a poster’s last few posts often will give a clue as to why they were banned…

[AtomicDog]

@silenus

Alternately, you could call [redacted] a [redacted] [redacted] with delusions of [redacted.] That should be good for a banning.

I’d give him a tribble. That would be punishment enough.

[ftg]

Noodling around led me to some previous threads about this. All of which seem to have a least one BANNED poster. E.g., this one from 2000.

(And the circumstances of that poster being wished into the cornfield was uncommon: posting about certain stuff despite repeated warnings not to.)

So apparently posting in a thread like this increases the chances of being banned. Well, … see ya.

[Irishman]

@Senegoid

I has often struck me (but I was never seriously injured, tyvm), when reading ancient zombie threads, how many of the posters there are banned. It sometimes seems like the probability of any poster getting banned approaches 1.000 as a poster’s tenure here approaches ∞ so that older threads tend to have surprisingly high proportions of the banned and the damned in them.

Technically, this is true of any situation where members can be removed and not reinstated. It’s just the specific curve varies by individual user.

(I almost typed “individual loser”. :smack: )

[dropzone]

A. I remember that thread, as well as its participants. Miss the ones who went away.

B. Chronos has been a mod for 17 years? Dude, I’d say, “Get a life,” except it looks like you and I found one.

[Leo_Bloom]

@engineer_comp_geek

You can get instantly banned for trolling, socking, or threatening legal action…

I remember some dingus in BBQ (from one of two or three times I ever stopped in that brawling barroom) who went all detective on somebody and found some IRL details, and would sue, etc. etc. for being libeled here, or some such.

Do you ever get guys who grumble, in print here, about how they’ll sue you, SD, or Chicago Times, or whatever?

Or is that actually the kind of case you have in mind?

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Leo_Bloom

Do you ever get guys who grumble, in print here, about how they’ll sue you, SD, or Chicago Times, or whatever?

Yes. We’ve had several cases where someone has threatened to sue, either in a post or in a private message to a mod. In all cases, we are under strict orders to ban the user and forward everything to the admins who will send it all to the legal department. After that, we’re not allowed to speak about the matter. At the moderation level, we are not permitted to represent the SDMB in legal matters in any way. After all,we’re not even employees here. We’re volunteers.

It’s one of the few things that we have no latitude with whatsoever. Threaten legal action, and we ban and forward. Period.

[Chronos]

Actually, the rule is about threatening the board in general. Legal action is the most common such threat (as such threats go, at least: We fortunately don’t get very many), but we’ve also had a few cases of someone threatening a virus or other cyberattack, and they get the same treatment.

And dropzone, I was a mod 17 years ago, and I am one now. Interpolation is not necessarily always justified.

[Leo_Bloom]

Re lawsuit threats and bans:

Thanks. I never figured on that, and how when it does occur your words, let alone board actions, as mods potentially have a lot more at stake than the more common on of making some Doper mutter.

But for this type of thing—

@Leo_Bloom

I remember some dingus in BBQ (from one of two or three times I ever stopped in that brawling barroom) who went all detective on somebody and found some IRL details, and would sue, etc. etc. for being libeled here, or some such…

I can see this being a pain for you to adjudicate. I assume that dingus got zapped (I think I remember a running side commentary on the countdown to the swish of the blade). Just as a matter of SD cultures in different forums, has something like that ever occurred outside BBQ?

I’m trying to think of a GQ thread in which to concoct such an argument…

[DSYoungEsq]

@Chronos

Interpolation is not necessarily always justified.

But SOOOOOOOOOOO much fun, sometimes!!

[jz78817]

@Senegoid

I has often struck me (but I was never seriously injured, tyvm), when reading ancient zombie threads, how many of the posters there are banned. It sometimes seems like the probability of any poster getting banned approaches 1.000 as a poster’s tenure here approaches ∞ so that older threads tend to have surprisingly high proportions of the banned and the damned in them.

Eventually, apparently, everybody gets banned. Marley23 was one who realized that long ago, and far-sighted enough to make it fast and painless for everyone.

I think it’s simply because it’s really easy to be abrasive online, and even long-time worthwhile posters can kill themselves with a thousand cuts. I know I’ve come close.

[watchwolf49]

Biting people will get you banned … or so I’m told … not that I’d like to find out or nothing … honest …

[digs]

Ow… Watchie bit me. Waaaatchie, that really hurt!

@Andy_L

Which is why I said looking at a poster’s last few posts often will give a clue as to why they were banned…

That’s one of my favorite pastimes. Usually when I’m reading a current thread and the one over-the-top insulting poster suddenly gets the “BANNED” label. It’s a big dose of schadenfreude to go back and see that they’d been acting up in other threads as well, and often collecting warnings.