I see banning from here like being fired from your job. You don’t get to go back to your desk and send a bunch of farewell emails to the cute chicks in accounting. You get walked out of the building with your shit in a box. End o’ story.
That doesn’t answer the question of whether a BANNED account can log in to see someone ELSE’s profile page. But thanks for the intended snark - I’m sure you’ll land a hit one of these days.
I thought it was obvious, but after they find out they’re banned. PM, or something.
crowmanyclouds, look over here.
Really Not All That Bright
Is that 24 hours from when the PM is sent, or when they check the board and read the PM? Because some people might, I don’t know, take a day to do other things and then come back to find they’ve been banned and the 24 hours grace period has lapsed, and then they’ll be whining to the mods via email that they “didn’t get my 24 hours, so you should reinstate me for another 24 hours so I can say my goodbyes” waaaa.
My apologies*, got it backwards.
Just tried it, you can’t access poster profiles without being logged in.
CMC fnord!
No snark intended, sometimes, ya just feel invisible! 
Posting drunk is prolly a better idea than posting on no sleep for 39+ hours. :smack:
I think they can, although if they are logged at the time they are banned and don’t clear their cookies, they might not be able to do it at the time. We don’t usually block people from viewing the SDMB itself unless they’re persistent pains in the ass.
None of which addresses the core problem, which is that this is a really bad idea for a variety of reasons. I understand that people want an opportunity to say goodbye when a longtime member gets banned - I remember that being the case with Weirddave also - but it’s not really practical or a good idea. And the truth is that at the time someone gets banned, that is not the moment you really want to be saying goodbye to them. A person is not in a great state of mind at that point and you’d do better to remember them from better days.
Giving someone 24 hours after they’ve been banned during some sort of “Dead Man Walking” scenario is a well-intentioned but kinda crazy suggestion. Someone who’s been banned has already screwed up often enough, and badly enough, to be shown the door permanently. Why should they afforded more courtesy than they apparently showed the rest of the community? Why should the mods oh-so-generously allow these recalcitrant rule-breakers – who are now likely resentful, with nothing left to lose – a day’s worth of opportunity to screw up again? And why should the mods now have to be on guard for 24 hours, waiting for the shoe to drop, watching every one of this person’s posts?
It’s just not gonna happen. Honestly, Really Not That Bright, if you give this more thought, I think you’ll see that it’s just not workable. A nice idea but sadly one that is asking for trouble.
Also re: mood disorders, depression, and other various fun mental quirks, I appreciate Zoe’s compassion, but I do hope everyone will please remember that it’s all too common for any ol’ putz to claim s/he has ____ disorder in order to get excused for bad behavior. It does us all a disservice to act as if we’re not responsible for the consequences of our actions, and the community at large certainly shouldn’t have to tolerate the constant rule-breaking and bad behavior; warnings and suspensions are usually plentiful before bannings. If someone is really acting out in the throes of a manic episode or whatever, then when s/he recovers, s/he should send a polite note to the mods to apologize and explain what’s going on. If this happens repeatedly and the person is banned? Well, someone being treated for his or her situation is probably aware of the warning signs that they’re spiraling downwards, and should be taking steps accordingly. And if s/he’s not getting help, then perhaps seeing the permanent consequences of his or her actions will be the impetus s/he needs.
It’s also incredibly condescending and only pushes the stigma – “it’s not my fault, I can’t help it, I have a disorder!!!” that goes around. This was an argument used when Curtis LeMay was suspended. When he came back, he was rightly upset that such an exception should be granted to him. (He’s said in the past that he has Aspergers)
How is it condescending? If mswas and Curtis Lemay hadn’t volunteered information about their respective conditions, no one would know that they were affected, right? If they are responsible for their own actions, as you seem to assert, then they are responsible for drawing attention to their own mental states and for opening the door for dicussion.
If he’s so aware, he could have tried simply not posting outside the Pit while “on a tear like that”.
FUCK! I just replied to this in detail and the hamsters ate it. I’m going to the movies in a little while, so I’ll try again later or over the weekend.
And just whenI thought the board had improved, because that hadn’t happened in a while.
Yes, you are exactly right. Such problems with mood disorders are an explanation for such behaviors, but they are not an excuse. As I indicated earlier, mswas alone is responsible for his banning. I think he knows that – or will.
I know. You are more patient than I would have been under similar circumstances.
Cszarcasm, I’m relieved to know that the Straight Dope still takes things one decision at a time. That was all I needed reassuring about. Thanks.
I find that this board can be very aptly analogized to an office environment quite often. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
You surely are mistaken. The board never improves. It has gone steadily downhill since 1999. 
10 years and 19,009 posts on the Dope and nobody can get the he/she thing correct…
Was **mswas ** a chick or a dick?..
honestly, just askin’,
tsfr
His name is Erek, so I’m guessing the latter.
Another drawback - or advantage depending on your views on the potential entertainment value - to this 24 hour period is that the banned person can basically post whatever he wants. He can disregard every rule known in the SD. He’s already banned - what else can he lose?
That’s exactly why there is no way in hell we’d ever consider such a rule.
To those who wish mswas wasn’t banned:
The next time you see a favored poster circling the drain, perhaps you might chide them and encourage them to keep their nose clean, rather than getting on the volunteer mod’s case. It might not work (it didn’t work with Collounsbury) and maybe it would only delay the inevitable. But it would be more constructive than whining about the application of the (rather permissive) rules.
Heck, if I was running message board, I would make it clear to begin with that I am an wholly arbitrary jackbooted Pol Pot sympathizer – on a good day. Methinks it’s best to lower expectations.