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.
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.
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.
Yes, that’s it. I was trying to figure out what the “t” meant. Guess I should have figured it was troll. 
Thanks!
Definitions are… a matter of definition. You use a different one than I use in the OP.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Happily, I made no such argument.
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.
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.
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.
BrainGlutton had 12 such Pit threads.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.