If you are talking about the case of someone being banned for having two usernames, we’ve already explained that if the offense was actually inadvertent and the person has no other offenses, they can apply for reinstatement. Such requests are normally granted.
If you are talking about some other case, I have no idea what it might be. Without more specifics, there’s no way to comment on it.
We do ban people who appear to be spammers, socks, or trolls without warning. But when someone gets in touch with us via email or webmaster mail, we do evaluate whether or not we might have made a mistake. If we are convinced the offense was not deliberate, they may be allowed back in.
We’ve occasionally banned trolls who publicly admitted they were trolling.
If Lazlo is talking about someone admitting to having two usernames, well, yeah, we’ll ban someone for that. But I suspect that Lazlo isn’t actually giving us the full story.
When we find someone is using two names, usually we do ban both, while we contact the offender and explain that s/he can only have one name, so pick one, and we’ll merge the names, or we’ll unban the picked name and leave the other one banned. In cases like these, we assume that the offense was innocent, and the poster didn’t mean to break the rules.
Now, if someone has been banned, and then comes back with a new name, and we discover this, then yes, that’s an instapermaban. The poster knows full well that s/he was banned, and is trying to get around it.
I suppose that spammers would claim that they didn’t read the Terms of Service before posting their spam, and that they innocently offended. However, I find it impossible to believe that someone is ignorant enough to think that it’s really OK to post spam.
I’m disturbed and offended to learn of the sock puppets .999… and 1 which, through extensive and labor-intensive investigations, have been proven – PROVEN! – to be the same (as discussed and repeatedly proven in a recent GQ thread). I demand they both be banned immediately!
Might have happened where someone was a general nuisance and that was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, but usually no.
If someone’s confessional about something and strives to do better, we usually agree that’s what they should do and we go forward. For example, we’ve had people admit to multiple screen names. If they 'fess up we don’t ban them for it, even though it states clearly in the registration agreement that we will ban multiple screen names from the board. If you tell us, we merge up the names into one screen name and that’s the end of it.
Sorry. I missed the edit cutoff time period. So I’m re-submmitting my post with some changes.
My move?
I sent you two private messages on Oct. 12 approx 4:30 pm (Board time) but you never replied to me.
I can’t see how that makes it my move. I see that as being “Your Move”.
I decided to communicate with you privately because you seemed like a very reasonable individual.
However I must say that I have had some private communications with a few of the mods and admins (E.G. TubaDiva & Marley) and others and they have always been very polite, and friendly to me in private. But it sure seems different in public.
I think I’m reasonable. I got your messages. I didn’t see where they required an answer.
You explained that your friend was banned about 5-6 years ago. You also contended that he never was warned and never acted like a jerk.
How can I(we) possibly respond to your accusations without knowing the screen name(s) of your friend. I’ve said twice publically that we’ll investigate and see what happened. I just need the screen name…
As an aside, I think there is value to responding to PMs and emails if only to acknowledge that you received it. There are probably some that are obvious in not needing a response, but messages that part of some larger discussion certainly warrant at least a minimal response.
I don’t think the results of that conversation should be private. There was a public accusation that a member was treated badly by staff and banned for no reason. I think we should have the screen name of that person so we can judge for ourselves how fair or unfair their punishment was.
Perhaps you are not the “trusted” staff member that Lazlo will confide in. It would be nice, should that “trusted” staff member actually exist and receive a name, that it be shared with the rest of us.