# I don't perceive Brainglutton as a problem poster **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [June 26, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436 "2016-06-26T19:07:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/41 "2016-06-27T01:10:47Z")
Well, I should say that I’m sorry to see him go, but he was really abusing with his use of those links with no comment. After coming from 2 suspensions one should be even more careful considering the changes one was given. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/42 "2016-06-27T01:23:31Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > To be fair, the warnings linked in these two threads (which I had not reviewed when I wrote the OP) were far more egregious IMO than the 2 warnings that led to BG’s ban. This weakens my case. Slight hijack - could someone explain to me why the second warning was given? I apparently don’t get the reference … ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/43 "2016-06-27T01:31:16Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Slight hijack - could someone explain to me why the second warning was given? I apparently don’t get the reference … The one that mentioned concern-t? He was referencing “concern trolling,” where someone disingenuously pretends like they’re on your side but are just concerned about your strategy, when in reality they’re trying to undermine you and sow you with doubts. “I’m not racist, really I’m not, and I support black people. But when you’re so loud and angry, it turns off white people, and I’m afraid you’re going to lose your struggle. Black Lives Matter is doing more harm than good.” That kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/44 "2016-06-27T03:18:06Z")
I wish there were some other way to define this that hasn’t already been aired in this thread to make it clearer. But BrainGlutton picked up 14 warnings under our new system - I don’t have a count before that - prior to his second suspension and had increased in speed as the years went by. He also had two following his most recent suspension and showed no sign that it had gotten through to him. Whether someone gets a note or a warning is inherently a judgment call. Ditto on suspensions and eventual bannings. Some are banned and some are discussed and not. But any poster who believes they’re somehow immune to the rules or that they have no responsibility to follow moderator direction is cruising for an eventual banning. Look exactly what happened here: 2009 1 Warning 2010 1 Warning 2011 2 Warnings 2012 2 Warnings 2013 3 Warnings 2014 1 Warning 2015 4 Warnings 2016 2 Warnings BrainGlutton, for all of his prolifigacy as a poster, was simply not learning to follow the rules of this board. Had he done so - or had he responded to the warnings, notes and suspensions enacted to alter his behavior - he would still be a poster in good standing. But he didn’t, so he isn’t. There’s really not a lot more to say. In terms of who should and shouldn’t be suspended or banned? As with everything, it can be very context sensitive. There’s no set rule that says ‘1 warning following suspension equals banning’. However, it’s not a good idea to continue the behavior that led to the banning following it. One would hope that would be self-evident. To some people it is apparently not. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/45 "2016-06-27T03:29:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The one that mentioned concern-t? He was referencing “concern trolling,” where someone disingenuously pretends like they’re on your side but are just concerned about your strategy, when in reality they’re trying to undermine you and sow you with doubts. > > “I’m not racist, really I’m not, and I support black people. But when you’re so loud and angry, it turns off white people, and I’m afraid you’re going to lose your struggle. Black Lives Matter is doing more harm than good.” > > That kind of thing. Yes, that’s it. I was trying to figure out what the “t” meant. Guess I should have figured it was troll. 😛 Thanks! ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/46 "2016-06-27T03:36:42Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > He received multiple warnings and two suspensions. He then returned and racked up two more warnings. I’d say that answers the description of “problem poster.” YMMV. Definitions are… a matter of definition. You use a different one than I use in the OP. > [@](#): > > Again, he received multiple warnings and two suspensions. If you haven’t found “comparable examples,” then you haven’t really been looking. I noted that most banned posters tend to create a lot of drama and contentiousness around them. I was claiming that this pattern didn’t fit BG that well. I might be wrong about this, but it doesn’t seem like you addressed it. > [@](#): > > I honestly have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. What does it have to do with **BrainGlutton** ’s ban? If you are saying that he “[threw] in substance and softeners in longer posts,” then I don’t believe you are familiar with his posting history. Because what you have written does not describe his body of work. At all. Hm. In my experience evidence doesn’t invariably line up in the same direction. So you must weigh it. I was suggesting that BG would have done better if he had foregone his one sentence posts when he was under the ban hammer. One sentence posts necessarily contain little substance or softening. This is relevant because best practices on this message board are About This Message Board. Not all topics that are worthy of discussion in this forum need necessarily involve drama, as diverting as it may be. > [@](#): > > I would guess that a poster who racks up multiple warnings and two suspensions does not qualify for a label of “low maintenance poster.” YMMV. Generally speaking this is the case, as I noted upthread. wolfpup and I discussed the matter. The warnings given to BG didn’t typically seem to me to be single handedly sending threads off the rails, which is what absorb moderator attention. Or so I perceive. I think a moderator’s opinion on what absorbs their time would be more valuable though. Thus this thread. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what any of this is supposed to prove. > > Again, we are talking about a poster who received multiple warnings and two suspensions, then racked up two more warnings. > > It really is as simple as that. It’s information: kunilou found it interesting. You are free to find it uninteresting. I didn’t see any strong pattern towards greater numbers of bannings, which I found reassuring. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I usually don’t like seeing posters get banned (I was even disappointed when **Dio** was banned), and I don’t celebrate **BG** being gone, but it’s just not that hard to post within the rules here. You get banned, it’s no one’s fault but your own. ## Fair enough, but I think that Dio, Collounsbury and BG contributed to the board. There’s no injustice here, but losing posters who provide solid content is unfortunate. Not that this happens often, judging from my skim of the banned announcements. (Dio and Collounsbury had an aura of drama about them though, which I perceive BG lacks, though again I might be wrong.) ETA and crosspost: Yeegads 14+2=16 warnings? At least once per year since 2009? Er, I’m guessing that involved a certain amount of moderator attention. I thought it was more like 8 before the last suspension. Even adjusting for high posting output, that seems problematic. > [@DrDeth](#): > > In any case, what purpose was served by his banning? I sort of agreed with you, but now I’m thinking that the mods have an interest in seeing changes in behavior following a warning. Because otherwise they are just bits on a database. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/47 "2016-06-27T03:52:33Z")
Did you not think that before? We don’t hand out warnings punitively. Warnings - and to a lesser extent notes - are a means by which we can alert posters that their behavior is outside the lines and should be corrected. Each warning is - hopefully - enough to catch a poster’s attention and make them rethink the posting style that earned them the warning. Some get it but, sadly, some don’t. Some elect to go out in a blaze of glory while citing the first amendment and some just keep doing what they do until things pile up on them. As John Mace said, it’s not hard to go through one’s time here and not get warnings. One has to work to pile up a large number of them. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/48 "2016-06-27T04:26:47Z")
I don’t know why you’re focused on the metric of taking up moderator time. If a person were to haphazardly post “eat shit and die” outside the Pit it takes little effort to issue warnings but it is clearly rule breaking. It’s rule breaking that is at issue, not moderator time - though there could be correlation. ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/49 "2016-06-27T06:04:45Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I noted that most banned posters tend to create a lot of drama and contentiousness around them. I was claiming that this pattern didn’t fit BG that well. I might be wrong about this, but it doesn’t seem like you addressed it. I did address it, and I’ll address it again. He was banned for racking up numerous warnings and two suspensions. None of that crap about drama or contentiousness means anything. You seem to think there is some kind of unwritten rule that posters you like personally should never be banned. There is no such rule, unwritten or otherwise. Once again, with feeling: **BrainGlutton** received a bunch of warnings, was suspended, received more warnings, was suspended again, received more warnings, and was banned. That’s it. That’s the whole explanation. There is no subtext. There is no hidden agenda. That’s the whole story. What is it you fail to understand about this? ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/50 "2016-06-27T06:12:04Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > I did address it, and I’ll address it again. He was banned for racking up numerous warnings and two suspensions. None of that crap about drama or contentiousness means anything. You seem to think there is some kind of unwritten rule that posters you like personally should never be banned. There is no such rule, unwritten or otherwise. > > Once again, with feeling: **BrainGlutton** received a bunch of warnings, was suspended, received more warnings, was suspended again, received more warnings, and was banned. > > That’s it. That’s the whole explanation. There is no subtext. There is no hidden agenda. That’s the whole story. > > What is it you fail to understand about this? Agreed 100%. I have no idea where the this “aura of drama” came into play. Very few banned posters had an “aura of drama” about them. No need to make this any more complicated than it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/51 "2016-06-27T06:42:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Active & controversial posters will ultimately always get banned, since your warnings never expire. I have been a member since 1999 – nearly seventeen years. I have nearly 50,000 posts here, which I assume qualifies as active. I have two warnings. One of which I deserved, and one in which the SDMB and I have agreed to disagree as to the merits. But with an average of one warning every eight years, it’s difficult for me to imagine that I am in danger of being banned before I succumb to old age. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/52 "2016-06-27T06:56:35Z")
Well as I see it, it’s shit stirring, trainwrecks and general unpleasantness that is the issue. Also maintaining a venue amenable to fighting ignorance and pitching the occasional wisecrack. Making things easier on the volunteer mods may not be our prime directive, but I do think it’s a good guideline for posters tempted to cause trouble. As I saw it, the implication of Dr. Deth’s post was that an annual low drama warning wasn’t that big a deal insofar as it didn’t reflect a broader pattern of bad behavior. But we’ve gone a little beyond that. > [@splatterpunk](#): > > I did address it, and I’ll address it again. He was banned for racking up numerous warnings and two suspensions. None of that crap about drama or contentiousness means anything. You seem to think there is some kind of unwritten rule that posters you like personally should never be banned. There is no such rule, unwritten or otherwise. Happily, I made no such argument. > [@](#): > > Once again, with feeling: BrainGlutton received a bunch of warnings, was suspended, received more warnings, was suspended again, received more warnings, and was banned. > > That’s it. That’s the whole explanation. There is no subtext. There is no hidden agenda. That’s the whole story. > > What is it you fail to understand about this? Oh I’m not _questioning_ why Brainglutton was banned. I was discussing whether we wanted the sort of framework whereby those who don’t cause too much trouble get banned now and then. Except this thread has shown that BG had more warnings, etc that I was aware of. > [@John Mace](#): > > Very few banned posters had an “aura of drama” about them. You think most of the banned aren’t troublemakers above and beyond their warnings even? Because if so, I’d have to disagree. Quite of few of them had previous pit threads directed against them. And most don’t have compensating solid content to their name, a factor which is reasonably ignored here. I’m just saying that I disagree that the warnings themselves reflect the entire degree of their bad behavior, though they typically are solid indicators. The overall goal here is to create a good online environment. Warnings are the way those goals are implemented. When setting the civility bar, the overarching goal is what should be kept in mind. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/53 "2016-06-27T12:17:11Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > We don’t hand out warnings punitively. Warnings - and to a lesser extent notes - are a means by which we can alert posters that their behavior is outside the lines and should be corrected. Each warning is - hopefully - enough to catch a poster’s attention and make them rethink the posting style that earned them the warning. Some get it but, sadly, some don’t. Some elect to go out in a blaze of glory while citing the first amendment and some just keep doing what they do until things pile up on them. That kind of behavior does make me wonder about free will. Then again, there certainly have been posters who do get the message and do tone it down. Just fascinates me how some people simply are utterly unable to change their modus operandi until the inevitable finally comes along and claims them. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Quite of few of them had previous pit threads directed against them. **BrainGlutton** had [12 such Pit threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=13315037). ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/54 "2016-06-27T12:21:07Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > That kind of behavior does make me wonder about free will. Then again, there certainly have been posters who do get the message and do tone it down. Just fascinates me how some people simply are utterly unable to change their modus operandi until the inevitable finally comes along and claims them. I’ve said in the past most dopers aren’t the typical Internet commenter seen in so many horrendous news websites or YouTube. Some people, however, have that sort of culture so inculcated into their behavior that they simply can’t adjust. Occasionally we get someone who tells us that ‘that’s the way it is everywhere else’ as if it were a justification. My goal as a moderator is to make Great Debates and Elections an adult zone where real discussions can be pursued without that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/55 "2016-06-27T12:40:26Z")
I will just leave my thoughts stating that I appreciated BrainGlutton’s contribution to the board very much, and that he will be missed by me. The moderation team does an unpleasant and often thankless job, and sometimes has to infract or suspend someone. Doesn’t seem like they were eager or rushing to do so here. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/56 "2016-06-27T16:28:06Z")
I have clashed repeatedly with BrainGlutton in elections and GD. In fact i was getting ready to reply to a post by him about Bernie Sanders when I noticed the Banned. I wish s/he was still around and might suggest a 3rd suspension. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/57 "2016-06-27T16:33:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have been a member since 1999 – nearly seventeen years. I have nearly 50,000 posts here, which I assume qualifies as active. > > I have two warnings. One of which I deserved, and one in which the SDMB and I have agreed to disagree as to the merits. But with an average of one warning every eight years, it’s difficult for me to imagine that I am in danger of being banned before I succumb to old age. Yeah, but he said **controversial** posters. You really think you count? (I’m in something of the same boat–member for the same length of time, two warnings, one rescinded, the other I think due to a misunderstanding of what I’d posted. Admittedly I might be a titch less controversial than you.) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/58 "2016-06-27T16:44:34Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > That kind of behavior does make me wonder about free will. Then again, there certainly have been posters who do get the message and do tone it down. Just fascinates me how some people simply are utterly unable to change their modus operandi until the inevitable finally comes along and claims them. I think you need one extra bit to understand people like BG. My interpretation is that he was fairly decent unless he got angry. So it’s not about a _modus operandi_–the way you normally act, which is actually not too hard to change. You just consciously act differently until it becomes second nature. But this is about how you act when you’re angry, which is much harder to practice correctly. People often say or do things when they are angry that they regret. They convince themselves that the horrible thing they are saying isn’t really all that bad. Or that they have a right to do what they are doing. Judgment is impaired by the desire to “win.” It’s why anger disorders are hard to deal with. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/59 "2016-06-27T16:45:31Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > I have clashed repeatedly with BrainGlutton in elections and GD. In fact i was getting ready to reply to a post by him about Bernie Sanders when I noticed the Banned. I wish s/he was still around and might suggest a 3rd suspension. AFAIK, no one has ever gotten a 3rd suspension. Can a mod comment on whether that is correct or not? I’m all for leading a horse to water and all, but at some point you give up. You know what they say a definition of insanity is, right? ---
**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:** [June 27, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436/60 "2016-06-27T17:03:06Z")
Well this is one of those times that it’s great we have a registered internet psychologist on staff to help us understand these tough episodes! Frankly, I am quite surprised by this banning. BG kind of bugged me for his lazy post-a-link argument style but I never thought his rather soft “personal insults” would get him banned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-perceive-brainglutton-as-a-problem-poster/758436.md?page=4)