Johnny Hildo's banning reason

So, Johnny Hildo has been banned.

I don’t recall reading any post by this poster, so I don’t really have any specific issue with the banning. I just wonder about the reason given. Johnny paid the subscription fee. He wasn’t happy with the service and the answers he got, so he threatened with a lawsuit. And as a result, he was banned ?!

That’s no way to treat a paying costumer!

Can you imagine a conversation with, say, a telephone company that went like:
“Hello? Yes, look here. Ever since I joined up I’ve been having calls disconnecting, noisy line, and general low-class service. Your costumer service was no help at all. Unless you improve, I will sue you in… hello? hello? HELLO?”
“Honey, they have disconnected our line!”

He posted enough, here is the list:

As for his banning, when he signed up and payed, he agreed to certain terms and conditions, which included not threatening TPTB. I guess making a rally call for legal action against TPTB counts as a threat and that is exactly what he did, and he got banned for breaking his service agreement.

ETA: Funny thing that this post had to wait 4 hours to get posted because the site was down. Quite the parting present for Mr. Hilldo. :slight_smile:

There’s a difference between a private conversation with a representative of a company/service provider/message board/whatever, and a public threat.

Was Johnny’s banning fair? I’m not sure, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. I kinda suspect that if he had been a more beloved and inoffensive Doper in general, he might have been given the benefit of the doubt. But instead, the way he was going, he might eventually have found himself banned under the “don’t be a jerk” rule even without the threats.
And, for what it’s worth, I don’t think of myself as a paying customer of the SDMB (let alone a paying costumer), but as a paying member—as per the distinction made in this thread. I think of the money I pay as more like dues to belong to an organization than as payment in exchange for a service. But, YMMV.

Yeah, a lot of people are unhappy with the service, and I’m started to get irritated my own self, but he was an antagonistic fuck about it. The rules TubaDiva quoted are pretty unambiguous in this respect, too. He threatened them, they didn’t like it, they threw him off.

And this:

is getting to be the most laughably stupid cliche around here. Paying $15 a year doesn’t give you the right to be a nasty little shit, regardless of the issues involved.

Actually, didn’t Sprint – a few months ago – tell about 300 customers, “we don’t want your business anymore” because they complained too much?

The SDMB isn’t the phone company, and threatening a lawsuit here is not like threatening a faceless operator from India with a lawsuit.

You threaten a lawsuit here, it’s more like telling your drycleaner that you’re going to sue him for taking too long returning your pants. I can guarantee that drycleaner will tell you “good day, get out, and don’t come back”, even if AT&T’s operator won’t cut off your service.

One of the rules here is that you don’t threaten to sue the Reader. As idle a threat as it may be, anyone in this country can be sued at any time, even if they do nothing wrong, and it still costs a buttload of money to make it go away.
With all due respect, Bosstone, once you pay for a service, you are a paying customer. That doesn’t make the staff your slave, or entitle you to be an ass, but you do deserve a measure of respect and honesty in dealings, as a person with whom they have a business relationship.

While I am thinking about the points you have raised, I’ve taken the liberty of making that hypothetical conversation more in tune with the complaints made by the banned member in question.

You find this surprising? Seriously? You think that a company has some sort of obligation to continue to provide services to someone who is threatening to start legal action against them? That’s pretty fucking bizarre, dude. I can tell you that if I ran my own business, anyone who started spouting off lawsuit threats would no longer be welcome in my place of business.

Keep in mind, as well, that if a lawsuit against the SDMB ever started to go anywhere, it’d be the end of the SDMB. There’s no way the Reader would keep this board up if it became a legal liability. So Hildo was threatening the entire existence of this board. That’s someone whom I’m personally fine with not having around any more.

It’s in the rules. What part of that is troubling you?

I work for a Heating and Air Conditioning company and if someone sues us threatens to sue us, we probably don’t want them as a customer anymore anyway. There are plenty of other HVAC companies they can threaten to sue.

There are also plenty of other message boards for Johnny Hildo to threaten to sue. Good riddance.

And yet it gets used constantly to justify behavior that is remarkably ass-like in nature.


Ravenman, while I understand your intent, I must remind you of the rule against making substantive changes to quoted material attributed to another poster. For that reason, I have deleted the material within the quote tags.

You may repost something similar, as long as you don’t attribute the quote to Puzzler.


Between ~10 p.m. EDT yesterday and ~2 p.m. EDT today, I had connection problems (though admittedly I was asleep during most of that interval), but threatening a lawsuit? I like this place, but I’m not so addicted to it that temporary deprivations, while irritating, move me to anger.

Of some minor annoyance is fluiddruid’s link to a “thread” that is actually a single post, locked, effectively an announcement. I dislike and never use the “Hi, Opal” thing to fill out a list to three items, but it seems to me a “thread” should consist of more than one entry.

Johnny Hildo will be remembered by me as the Doper who said of the 1980 Christopher Reeve/Jane Seymour movie, Somewhere In Time: “I want to punch this movie in the cock.”

I laughed until I cried.

But then he got all crazy with the stupid and threatening the Reader, so see ya!

The guy was a total ass. All his posts I saw were inflammatory and he kept throwing gas on the fire.

I’m not defending him by any means, but I don’t know what his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have to do with it. Many agnostics consider themselves to be “soft atheists” and hold the only tenable negative position there is. It is possible that God does not exist is not the same as it is not possible that God exists. Again, not to defend Hildo, but there are plenty of board members who are not “fucks” about it. Just saying is all.

Was that a lame joke, **Liberal, ** or have you just misread “antagonistic”?

Maybe he was an antagonistic agnostic. :wink:

(Hey, was I just wooooshed?)

I’m confused. If you’re talking about the page that pops up when you click on the link you give, you’ll find the title of the thread it is from in the upper righthand corner; click on that and you’ll get the whole thread. If you’re talking about the thread linked to in the post that you linked to, I suspect the deal is the software doesn’t allow anyone to “post” a mere note. To do that one has to open a thread. But since he was just posting a note, not starting a thread, there was no reason to leave it open. (Just a WAG, of course.)

Anyway. I looked at some of Johnny’s posts in that thread and think he could have otherwise been banned for violating a more basic rule of this board (not to mention polite society): don’t be a jerk. Grumbling about the hamsters is one thing; this was way over the top.

Talk about a Madalyn Murray O’Hair-trigger.

Yeah, it was sort of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, wasn’t it? It was just the easiest charge to prove in “court”.