First, I have to say that I don’t like Weirdave, but I do believe in being fair.
Among the deserved reasons for his suspension:
This one, though, deserves a little bit more explanation IMHO:
Yes, he was misleading, but IMO it was clearly a joke, and even the offended ones were getting on the joke, on top of that he put a smilie in the OP, reading it again I do wonder were the trolling accusation came from when in his reply he also had his tongue firmly in cheek. Can you give **Weirddave ** a break here?
Meh. It’s not like they’re hinging their entire case against him on that one thread. It’s just one link in a long string of warnings and repeated bad behavior, and a minor one at that. If that was the sole reason for the suspension, I’d be right there with you.
I was going to say something about how most of the rest of the cites are pretty old, too, but there’s probably enough recent activity to justify a suspension anyway. I don’t actually know though, because I am not wading through those stupid guild memorial threads.
When I read the title of this thread I thought “Isn’t that the guy that got really worked up about the WoW funereal thread?”
Yep.
A couple of the examples of “suspendable actions” [sub] my term[/sub] are questionable IMHO. Petty things that barely deserve a warning, or are questionable at best, are only brought out when one needs to bolster one’s case with sheer volume.
I don’t care what happens to Weirddave, I don’t know him. Not that I want to see him gone of course.
What’s troubling, is that the SDMB seems to become more and more of a “regular friendly” message board. The mods seem to be less than objective when certain issues are brought up (yes I’m referring to the whole Wally/CarnalK nonsense) but they do a good job at keeping assholes and spammers out of the fora.
We noticed that too. It was not merely the number of warnings, several of which were old, it was that he had three Warnings for direct personal attacks in the last three months, two in the last couple of days. This gives a strong impression of an escalating situation which we felt needed a response.
Oh, OK, but it still feels like some silly old warnings in the official post are given the same weight as serious ones, and I still wonder where the trolling accusation came from.
When we post a notice of suspension or banishment, we simply post all the records. The alternative is to post only the recorded warnings that some Mod or Admin feels is “hot,” then get blindsided by some poster who is upset that this Warning was mentioned while that Warning was “hidden.”
Rather than get embroiled in a argument over which Warnings were the “real” ones, we simply post all the Warnings.
To the immediate (if implied) question: No, we did not regard the “misleading thread” warning as a significant infraction when we discussed this suspension.
As to the “trolling” charge: based on a(n arguable) definition of “trolling” as “seeking to get a rise out of other posters,” the thread qualifies. Since it was not the the thread that either kicked off the discussiuon or swayed the vote regarding suspension, it is probably not going to shed any light on this thread to argue the point, (although you are certainly free to do so).
While the “Wally” issue has raised a lot of emotion in the past, this latest thread on the subject went very calmly and even fairly objectively, as far as I can tell.