And it was reported, which ended up with him being banned from that category completely. In other words, his dangerous misinformation was no longer allowed. The question here seems to be, how long do we have to put up with it before we shut down said posters of dangerous misinformation.
The answer seems to be, just report it and the mods will decide case-by-case.
ETA: Having read the BBQ post, there is no benefit of the doubt that the QZ post might have been an error of composition. It contains dangerous and demonstrably false information. I will personally report it, for my part, though I’m not sure it’s technically a rule violation.
~Max
To be fair, handy’s main sin was volume, volume, volume.
Yeah, but I don’t think that’s why he was banned, though.
This is from memory and it happened before I was a mod.
Handy was posting medical advice to people despite having no medical background and being told he was wrong by actual doctors on the board.
This was not in a general discussion about a medical topic it was in threads like “What is this on my foot?”
It happened at a time when these questions were in GQ and there was a specific rule against giving medical advice. It was before we allowed medical advice to be given at all. If someone started a topic like that even doctors were prohibited from giving specific advice and could only speak in generalities. Now those topics are allowed in IMHO but with the understanding that random advice from internet strangers is worth what you pay for it. He blatantly broke the rule.
And he did it over and over. I seem to remember he was given a mile of rope but he won’t stop. That’s how I remember it anyway.
IIRC, the rule against giving medical advice was instituted specifically because of handy. I wasn’t a mod at the time, either, but I believe he was able to do it for so long because there was no bright line rule he was violating. He was just wrong, consistently and constantly, on every single health-related topic in GQ.
Links
Handy’s topic-ban (11/01/2003)
Handy’s ban (11/25/2003)
~Max
The link takes me to a seemingly innocuous post by @TokyoBayer. Am I correct in assuming that the offending post has been deleted? Or am I confused (entirely within the realm of possibility)?
See this post (click the link):
Try to expand the quote, and you’ll see a trash can logo to show that there’s a deleted post.