Suggestion: can we give people not banned for really serious infractions (threatening other posters, etc.) 24 hours post-banning to say goodbye?
Can it come with a hand-graved invitation that reads “please troll the board?” 
EDIT: To put it mildly I see nothing good that would come from doing that. And I think creating distinctions in bannings (‘you’re getting banned, but not for a really serious infraction’) would create some very annoying problems.
Well, if they do use the goodbye period to troll the board, you can always just cut them off.
I always think that if I got banned there are quite a few people I’d like to share a fare-thee-well with, and I think it’s sad that people who get banned don’t get that opportunity.
I mean, they can always go to one of the splinter boards nowadays, but most of us don’t post on them.
I see what you’re saying, but when you screw up often enough to get banned you give up the option of going out on your own terms. mswas did start a goodbye thread, after all, and I don’t think a lot of people are going to take warm fuzzy memories from that. Mostly it just confirmed that he was intent on getting himself banned.
Then send them a PM.
Can the banned send PMs? I know they can log in.
I’m sure they can’t.
Quick question for magellan01 (and Sam Stone).
You really want to be seen as supporting this guy?
For the above he was suspended.
So magellan01, mswas should be given yet another chance, but Der Trihs should be banned for saying the same kinda shit that mswas did? Really?
CMC fnord!
Interesting.
An E-Mail address and an AIM IM contact are in his profile, under the Contact Info tab.
CMC fnord!
Marley23 said:
Knowledge and ignorance were topics that came up and were discussed appropriately. Ignorance does often carry some negative connotation to it, which means using it is sometimes more of a hammer than just a lack of information. But I stand by my characterization of Czarcasm’s comment. His first post in that thread was a “zinger” to compare mswas to an ape (meaning gorilla or chimp or orangutan, not humans who are technically great apes). As I said, I would have reported that post immediately. I don’t assume that would have modified the thread or mswas’s response, but I can’t help but think a timely moderator intervention at that point might have cooled things down.
But I can’t assume you were reading at the time, so playing “what if” doesn’t get us anywhere.
I know you weren’t trying. My point is that the board administration gets accused of things like bias and favoritism on a regular basis. Seems to me having examples where moderators get called out for their actions just like any other poster would be reasonable examples to have around to counter those claims.
I understand moderators are chosen in part because they are reasonable and rarely violate board rules. That is the point - you don’t pick the biggest hothead to keep a lid on things. But it seems to me that when a mod comes close to crossing the line, reminding them visibly that they are being watched, too, is a reasonable way to demonstrate to the rest of the board that the admin plays fair here.
Or should I start another thread as a suggestion for consideration?
Dan Norder said:
Why don’t we also ban anyone who posts a complaint about board moderation? I mean, if they don’t like the moderation, they don’t belong here either. And while we’re at it, let’s ban anyone who posts in ATMB. If they don’t know how this board works yet, they don’t belong here, either. Heck, let’s ban everyone in the Pit - they obviously don’t belong here since we had to make a special forum for them that doesn’t conform to the rules of the rest of the board.
Hell, let’s ban everyone but the people who post exclusively in Cecil’s Columns. And maybe Staff Reports. Those are the only real categories anyway, everything else is just fluff.
Really Not All That Bright said:
Nobody gets banned for having a pleasant conversation with friends. If they want to have a pleasant conversation with friends, they should refrain from getting banned.
Seems to me to be asking for trouble. Even if that poster didn’t go trolling or otherwise intentionally creating trouble, you would be bound to get a nice, pleasant thread saying, “Why don’t you just go away already, you’re not wanted here.”
So what? They’re free to not use the 24-hour… grace period, or whatever.
I’d imagine they’d still be able to access a doper’s user info, which contains an e-mail address (if the doper has provided a public one), right?
If someone gets banned, fuck 'em.
If they valued the board or the people they interacted with then they should have done a better job of not getting banned or perhaps keep up outside contact information.
It would correct the clear atrocity of how right wing posters are treated here. Haven’t you heard, dope mods have it out for right wing posters while leftist pinko commies get a pass. 
“Good afternoon, sir or madam. The police have received a great number of complaints about your disturbing the peace, asking us to stop your offensive tantrums. However, it is our official policy to allow you a 24-hour-grace period to continue appearing in public. We of course hope that you will not resume the pattern of disturbance that has everyone in the neighborhood so upset but please understand it is entirely your decision about how to proceed.”
“What’s that, Complaining Citizen? Yes, we know that the offender has been cited and jailed on numerous occasions in the past for identical behavior, but Really Not All That Bright has assured us that This Time It Will Be Different. What can we say? We’re helpless in the face of such logic.”
:rolleyes:
Letting a poster post for 24 hours post banning is nothing like letting a suspected criminal be a threat to society.
The only damage a poster could do is virtual, and rectifiable.
And there’s no reason to let a banned poster continue to post on the board for any reason at all.
Agreed, but comparing the idea to letting a suspected criminal have 24 hours is needlessly dismissive.
You’re right. It’s more like kicking out tenants for deliberately destroying your property, but telling them they will not be billed for their damage, and they have 24 hours to get out.
Hilarity ensues, but it’s okey dokey because you can always clean up after, right?
Do you mean after they find out they’re banned? Or right after? Think about this – said person might not learn that they’re banned until said 24 hours are up.
Closer, but first, I agree it shouldn’t be policy, and second, it’s still taking a virtual world way too seriously, and third, I hate you all.
Just 'cause I’m in the mood to nitpick,
Bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans are all “great apes”.
Um, post 108? Link and everything!
CMC fnord!