# I disagree with Weirddave banning **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 2, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086 "2009-02-02T04:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/81 "2009-02-03T11:57:26Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > You know, I don’t see a lot of jerkiness around here, and when I do, someone usually calls the person on it. That is not the same as being banned. Not even close. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2009, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/82 "2009-02-03T12:08:07Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > Meh. > > Plenty of warnings, given plenty of chances to ratchet back but he didn’t heed any of it. His choice, his decision; personal responsibility and all that. > > A no-brainer, IMO. Right there with you. I’m with others who think that a few more bannings, and a few more warnings, could make this board a better place. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/83 "2009-02-03T12:12:33Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I miss Satan. Do you think he’d be interested in coming back, though? He’s been back (and banned) under different names several times. Which, I’d guess, is high up there on the list of reasons why TPTB ain’t ever letting him back in. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/84 "2009-02-03T12:44:12Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > A compromise idea regarding banning: > For every warning, your default font color gets set to something lighter than before, and you can’t change it. > > If you get too many warnings no one will be able to read your posts, but you won’t be banned, win-win. > > For example: > I’ve been warned > Dang, I did it again > I just can’t help myself > HELP I CAN’T SEE MY OWN POSTS Brilliant. Yes, people can highlight and read, but that is precisely how this would work. The lighter they get, the less people will be able to read without making an extra effort and the least likely they would be to make it. Anyhow, I also liked the idea above that instead of warnings, people should always get suspensions. Make them of ever increasing time, and soon enough they are bannings of a sort. First offense, suspended for 48 hours. Second, for a week. Third, for a month Fourth, six months Fifth, a year (almost a banning, really) After that, just keep doubling the time. They will get the point eventually, I am sure. If you are feeling lenient, make them go down a notch after a full year (of posting) without offenses. You could even make someone’s level part of the membership status: Sapo Guest ready for a six month suspension. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/85 "2009-02-03T12:50:21Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Brilliant. Yes, people can highlight and read, but that is precisely how this would work. The lighter they get, the less people will be able to read without making an extra effort and the least likely they would be to make it. Except that with a simple CCS file, you can make all the colors anything you want. I, for example, use a grey background because the default white background hurts my eyes. I see all the text that people try to “hide” by making it white. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/86 "2009-02-03T13:16:05Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Find me another forum on the internet comparable to the topics that we discuss here, and show me a guy on that forum that can go _ten_ posts without calling someone a boner-biting dickfart fuckface and/or posting a “Fail” picture. I’m not saying it’s unheard of _here_, but if you look at the internets as a whole, 524 is Herculean. But we’re not looking at it in the context of the internet as a whole, as **Contrapuntal** neatly pointed out. The SDMB has a demonstrably higher standard of posting than most of the internet, and this is precisely because the rules are, in the majority of cases, correctly and strictly enforced, as is the case here. QED. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/87 "2009-02-03T13:23:31Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Brilliant. Yes, people can highlight and read, but that is precisely how this would work. The lighter they get, the less people will be able to read without making an extra effort and the least likely they would be to make it. > Anyhow, I also liked the idea above that instead of warnings, people should always get suspensions. Make them of ever increasing time, and soon enough they are bannings of a sort. > > First offense, suspended for 48 hours. > Second, for a week. > Third, for a month > Fourth, six months > Fifth, a year (almost a banning, really) > After that, just keep doubling the time. They will get the point eventually, I am sure. > > If you are feeling lenient, make them go down a notch after a full year (of posting) without offenses. > > You could even make someone’s level part of the membership status: > > Sapo > Guest > ready for a six month suspension. 48 hours for a first offense is too much. A poster gets caught up in the heat of the moment in the wrong forum, just the warning is plenty. I think our system seems to work. I’m more lenient than the mods I guess as I still think some of those banned were worth keeping around but I can’t make a strong argument in defense of **Weirddave** , I’ll miss him though and I’ll hope at some point they will reconsider if he asks to come back. > [@Liberal](#): > > Except that with a simple CCS file, you can make all the colors anything you want. I, for example, use a grey background because the default white background hurts my eyes. I see all the text that people try to “hide” by making it white. To be fair, very few posters use a CSS file and few would bother I think. I still think the fading fonts is a silly idea though and was really mostly a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/88 "2009-02-03T13:50:16Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > To be fair, very few posters use a CSS file and few would bother I think. Perhaps more would bother if it allowed them to see “forbidden” posts. But of course, you would know better than I. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/89 "2009-02-03T13:55:52Z")
To refer back to the OP, what is IYO a major offense that deserves banning? IMO, a direct personal insult out of the blue counts as one. Really, the only offenses that can occur on a meessage board are all about the words we choose to use, so what is worse than that? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/90 "2009-02-03T14:00:24Z")
Destructive hacking? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/91 "2009-02-03T14:04:14Z")
You don’t have to be a member or guest to do that. But you’re right, I should have asked my question limited to within the context of posting on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/92 "2009-02-03T14:34:49Z")
I have no dog in this fight. I have nothing against Dave. But whenever anyone is banned there is always someone who comes in and says: but, but, but … \*this \*time we should handle it differently. What was the one a few weeks ago, the newbie who wouldn’t stop opening new threads about the word squaw? After several very pointed warnings the newbie was banned and we had someone come in and whine that there should have been special treatment because after all, this was clearly a newbie. Now we see a thread stating that there should be special treatment, because after all, this poster has been here a long time. The only sane way to work is to try to enforce the rules as evenly as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/93 "2009-02-03T15:18:48Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > To refer back to the OP, what is IYO a major offense that deserves banning? If the past is a guide, any threat to bring legal action against the boards is basically synonymous with “and hit me with the ban hammer, please.” ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/94 "2009-02-03T15:48:50Z")
> [@Kal](#): > > He’s been back (and banned) under different names several times. Which, I’d guess, is high up there on the list of reasons why TPTB ain’t ever letting him back in. Woah. That’s news to me. Yeah, I guess that’d be a reason. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/95 "2009-02-03T16:10:27Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > 48 hours for a first offense is too much. I dunno. I once got banned from another board for 48 hours for the heinous crime of mentioning another poster’s name in a thread title (seriously, that’s what my ban notice said), when I had never attracted attention previously. You can guarantee I’ll never make that mistake again. Maybe 48 hours is long enough for offenders to sit up and take notice, but not long enough to drive people away forever. I wouldn’t advocate handing out two-day suspensions willy-nilly, but maybe if certain offenders had been told “That crap doesn’t fly here, capiche? Have two days to think about it,” we wouldn’t have situations like this one. [sub]Then again, looking at **Weirddave** ’s recent history…you get warned by **Ed** not to do something, then you do it again two days later? He _wanted_ to get banned, folks.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/96 "2009-02-03T16:12:17Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > If the past is a guide, any threat to bring legal action against the boards is basically synonymous with “and hit me with the ban hammer, please.” Which pales of course to “threatening to hack the boards” (not that I want to bring that case up again). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/97 "2009-02-03T16:20:52Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > If the past is a guide, any threat to bring legal action against the boards is basically synonymous with “and hit me with the ban hammer, please.” Interesting that you should bring this up, as I find this the _least_ reasonable banning offense. Why should a poster be banned for referring to what is essentially the legal right of every citizen – filing a lawsuit to redress some percieved wrong? ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/98 "2009-02-03T16:46:20Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Interesting that you should bring this up, as I find this the _least_ reasonable banning offense. Why should a poster be banned for referring to what is essentially the legal right of every citizen – filing a lawsuit to redress some percieved wrong? What do legal rights have to do with anything on a privately run message board? I’m within my legal rights to call poster X a scum-sucking cowardly prick in a Great Debates thread – free speech and all that – but the SDMB doesn’t have to allow it. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/99 "2009-02-03T17:02:23Z")
> [@choie](#): > > What do legal rights have to do with anything on a privately run message board? I’m within my legal rights to call poster X a scum-sucking cowardly prick in a Great Debates thread – free speech and all that – but the SDMB doesn’t have to allow it. IANALawyer, but it seems to me like hurling personal insults has more potential legal consequences than talking about a lawsuit. Insults might be libelous, slanderous? – whichever. I have to resume that SDMB is protected from this kind of concern only because we are using pseudonyms. Thus we are insulting maginary people istead of the real people who stand behind them. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086/100 "2009-02-03T17:10:17Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > IANALawyer, but it seems to me like hurling personal insults has more potential legal consequences than talking about a lawsuit. If the lawyers felt that were the case, message boards probably wouldn’t exist. So I think we have to conclude that isn’t the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-disagree-with-weirddave-banning/484086.md?page=6)