I don't perceive Brainglutton as a problem poster

[watchwolf49]

My impression of this matter was that BG slipped in a personal insult and received a warning about it. A day or two later he slipped in yet another personal insult. Yeah, this is completely damnable. As far as I’m concerned, this is just flat ignoring the moderators and that cannot stand. It’s as though BG intended to break the rules, I just don’t see burdening our volunteer moderators with this kind of bullshit.

I liked BG, enjoyed reading his posts. I’m sorry to see him banned but that’s life … I will get over it.

[DrDeth]

@splatterpunk

Ditto. I’d like to see cites for these claims.

The mods can verify the socks, ask them. I suggest a PM. I know I spotted and reported one, and it was gone quickly.

I dont want to go back into the wayback machine for several hours of searching for the other, besides that not what this thread is about.

[CarnalK]

I am almost positive you’re thinking of a different poster wrt to the self blog cite. Pretty sure that involved Heinlein which was not a Dio thing.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@John_Mace

AFAIK, no one has ever gotten a 3rd suspension. Can a mod comment on whether that is correct or not?

I am unaware of anyone getting three suspensions. There are very few posters who’ve gotten a second one.

[octopus]

@CarnalK

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.

If warnings and suspensions don’t have consequences based on other arbitrary posters’ affinities then why even have the pretense of rules or fairness?

[CarnalK]

@octopus

If warnings and suspensions don’t have consequences based on other arbitrary posters’ affinities then why even have the pretense of rules or fairness?

I just thought he was pretty innocuous, despite his massive post count and apparent warning collection. I often gave him crap for his <url=salon-link>This sums it up </url> posting style but his insults always seemed more eye-roll worthy than “tut tut” situations.

[Shodan]

I didn’t find his violations of the rules particularly offensive, but I can’t disagree with the ban. Rules is rules.

Now we will never know the eighty six different divisions of Republicans, why we are just about to invade Iran again, and what Michael Lind thinks. The SDMB’s loss is RationalWiki’s gain.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bone]

Personally I think bans should only be reserved for trolls and spammed where rule violations are treated with suspensions of increasing length. That’s just my opinion though. With the current rules the action is cut and dry.

[Skywatcher]

@Bone

Personally I think bans should only be reserved for trolls and spammed where rule violations are treated with suspensions of increasing length.

Wikipedia does that. No, thanks.

[DrDeth]

@CarnalK

I am almost positive you’re thinking of a different poster wrt to the self blog cite. Pretty sure that involved Heinlein which was not a Dio thing.

Nope, Dio. He only had one cite he used over and over and that was to a website he ran or helped run and wrote for.

[Peter_Morris]

Can you show us an example?

[Jackmannii]

@Shodan

The SDMB’s loss is RationalWiki’s gain.

Why do you hate RationalWiki?

[Colibri]

@Jonathan_Chance

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.

He also had two in 2005 and two in 2006 under the previous system, making a total of at least 20 in all since he jointed in 2003.

The question with a poster like BrainGlutton is when you say enough is enough. While he wasn’t often a major problem, he was a continual one. We really don’t want to have to go on warning someone every six months indefinitely while never seeing a change in behavior.

We really don’t like to ban posters. But I think at some point we need to draw the line. BrainGlutton was given plenty of chances.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

He also had two in 2005 and two in 2006 under the previous system, making a total of at least 20 in all since he jointed in 2003.

The question with a poster like BrainGlutton is when you say enough is enough. While he wasn’t often a major problem, he was a continual one. We really don’t want to have to go on warning someone every six months indefinitely while never seeing a change in behavior.
.

Why is a warning every six months and 5000 posts such a bad thing? I mean, there was nothing served by this banning. You lost a active poster, in exchange for ten minutes work every six months. That’s a bad trade.

[Bone]

@DrDeth

Why is a warning every six months and 5000 posts such a bad thing? I mean, there was nothing served by this banning. You lost a active poster, in exchange for ten minutes work every six months. That’s a bad trade.

“any law that is not enforced and can’t be enforced weakens all other laws”

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

Why is a warning every six months and 5000 posts such a bad thing? I mean, there was nothing served by this banning. You lost a active poster, in exchange for ten minutes work every six months. That’s a bad trade.

It was a judgement call. Our judgement on what’s most beneficial to the board differs from yours.

[John_Mace]

@Bone

“any law that is not enforced and can’t be enforced weakens all other laws”

More or less. If there are rules with no consequences, then the rules serve no purpose. And, once again, It ain’t that hard to not break the rules. The vast majority of posters here do that all the time.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

It was a judgement call. Our judgement on what’s most beneficial to the board differs from yours.

Certainly, because i am not doing the work. No doubt. Fair enough.

But I think this is controversial enuf to warrant a reconsideration?

[Jonathan_Chance]

And again, we find we disagree.

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

But I think this is controversial enuf to warrant a reconsideration?

We had considerable discussion about this in the mod loop previously. While a few people such as yourself disagree, a lot of others agree with the decision or at least don’t object to it. I don’t see this as being very controversial, nor do I see a reason to reconsider.

As far as I know, BrainGlutton himself hasn’t asked for reconsideration. And I am not aware that he has ever apologized or indicated he would change his behavior after a warning. In fact, his attitude to the moderation staff has usually been “you’re not the boss of me.”