Instead of locking thread announcing the bannation of a member, why not leave it open for comments and discussion?
Assuming, like all ATMB threads, the rules are followed. Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow comments in the first thread than requesting a new thread be opened to make the very same comments?
People would abuse it? Probably, but it’s well moderated as it is, and those comments would most likely end up in the subsequent thread. It just seems like an extra step to the same result.
We used to do that. It didn’t work very well. There’s a reason it was changed.
If we left the thread open regarding the banning, that is an invitation for any and all comments about the banning, and the end result is a lot of negative comments that the banned user cannot respond to, which is unfair.
If you have a separate thread about the banning, that thread is limited to the issue raised by the OP of that thread, which eliminates a lot of the drive-by comments and forces the discussion along a particular path, which historically has worked a lot better around here.
The long and short of it is that we have a proven history that the new way is better and that we shouldn’t go back to the old way.
This is silly, IMO. And nobody believed in or enforced this idea until Liberal(tarian) started hijacking every thread with his “It is unseemly to mock those who can’t respond” crap which Dex eventually bought into once discussions about mod actions (including banning) were no longer allowed in the Pit.
If you are banned, you are no longer a board member and are as much fair game as LaToya Jackson, Rosanne Barr, etc to being snarked upon. And who cares if the banned member can’t respond. They don’t have to read the thread.
It’s a silly…no…stupid rule that’s accreted over time to the detriment of the board.
Bannations?
Note the omnibus thread in the Pit got a bit of discussion about Clothy this morning.
I think he meant “banninations.” 
Being bannated by a bannator.
The correct word is, of course, bannimence.
Bananations?
Other than saying good riddance. If ya hate them or asking why God why if you liked them what’s the point of responding at all?
Ban-a-na-na-ban-a-na-na-hey-hey-goodbye.
I wouldn’t know. I never understood the appeal of banning somebody.
Remember Gallagher? That comedian who made a living smashing watermelons with a large banhammer in front of the audience. Those watermelons were miscreant posters.
What a seedy analogy.
I always thought of it more as bancommunication but that could be my Catholic upbringing.
Did the hammer make a whooshing sound?
I had no idea that was how this rule came about. The bizarre fascination with ensuring fairness to banned users has always seemed just so strange - if you want to be able to respond, don’t do the thing that got you banned in the first place.
Eh, I wouldn’t just trust Fenris’ memory on this. He could easily just be remembering thiings from around the same time and assuming one caued the other.
It’s not at all true. You should never rely on Fenris’s accounts of board history. He isn’t privy to the behind the scenes discussions, and frequently misremembers things.
The rule is not the result of a single event, or a single mod’s decisions or opinions. It’s been discussed and developed by the staff over a long period.
Fenris’ question remains unanswered though. Why on earth should we be fair to jerks that have been banned? It’s their own damn fault that they wouldn’t be able to respond.