I looked. Couldn’t find anyone mentioning it yet. Is Suspended as a member status something new? Or just the first time I’ve seen it?
I believe Techchick68 was suspended before her banning.
She is the first one that I’m aware of.
Lynn the Gweat and Tewwible can type anything she wants in the description field; it isn’t selected from a predefined dropdown. Somebody’s description was once changed to “Asshat” as a joke (it lasted only a couple of hours), and one returning sock puppet was labeled “Too stupid for words” or something to that effect.
Apparently “Suspended” is what they’re using now as a serious asspaddle — a sort of halfway house between “official warning” and “permanently evicted.” She could have put “In the Penalty Box” or anything else if she’d so chosen.
I believe that vBulletin allows administrators to put anything under the member name. The recent one is the only one I remember actually seeing “Suspended” as the status.
I already know about vB’s capabilities regarding this, but thanks for making it clear for others. (I know, my OP wasn’t too clear on that) 
What I was specifically asking was the newness or not newness of the term.
By the way, I loved the “Too Stupid For Words” status. I have that thread linked to somewhere in my CP…
Until a couple of days ago I hadn’t seem the term “suspended” used.
I think they ought to put something like “In the pokey until the X date”.
Without trying to pry into staff internal affairs, would an Admin. or Mod. be so kind as to explain the nature of the “Suspended” status?
My hunch is that it’s people who have committed some sort of offense that you’re discussing banning – and it’s a temporary lifting of posting privileges pending a decision on whether or not to ban. But it might also be something I know has been done on other boards, and for Libertarian here – a removal of posting privileges at member request.
I guess I’m asking, what do you feel free to tell us about what it is and why it’s imposed? If the answer is “We ain’t saying nothin’,” for whatever reason, feel free to delete this inquiry.
Exprix picked up a 7-day penalty for posting a joke thread in the pit.
So Sayeth Lynn Bodoni here.
I remember asshat.
He’s still here.
Suspended?
Noclueboy, would you like to be “suspended” (from the celing?!)
(I wouldn’t mind the mods geeting creative, and putting stuff like
leftist or dinky wink under certain mebers names.
It’s in the process of being discussed amongst the mods and admins, so you’re going to have to wait a bit for clarification, until we got it clarified ourselves.
Madam, I am your personal piñata.
Thanks C K Dexter Haven. I’ll stand by.
They can put anything? PLEASE PLEASE can I be ‘GoldMember’???
If we change your status to GoldMember, we’ll have to change your username to LobsHang 
The “suspended” title has been used on rare occasions by some of the Mods, as a sort of enforced time-out period. It’s usually meant to let a long-time poster know that we mean business, and it’s somewhere between a slap on the wrist and a grabbing by the shoulders and shaking, but less than the boot.
It’s not been used often, and some Mods have opposed using it at all, and so discussion is underway to arrive at a somewhat more consistent approach.
The Mods and Admins have to tread through the policy of not feeding the trolls (and other denizens) and enforcing a zero-tolerance policy versus giving offenders a chance to redeem themselves, apologize, rethink, think, etc.
If a member is warned, should that warning be known to the entire community? Should sex offenders and stop-light-runners be posted for all the community to know? If an individual warning should not be known to the entire community, then warnings should only be sent via email and not posted. If posted, warnings are publicly accessible but not broadcast. A change in member status would broadcast the warning.
IMO, I think that an action that affects the community should be broadcast to the entire community. Diving into a thread I could see whether that person’s credibility is in question. Does this lead to tarnishing of a reputation? Well, bannings, suspensions, etc. are convictions by the Admins and Mods, not accusations. A person has tarnished their own reputation, so sayeth those On-High, and so should be known by a change in status.
Besides, if a member is suspended and it is posted in one thread, other members will come along and say, “Hmm, haven’t heard from X in a while, and damn, s/he never answered my last question - the b****.”
In a more light-hearted vein, it would really be neat if the status field could be an image. Imagine :dubious:, :rolleyes:, :(, :o, :smack:, or :wally . Others could be: Warned, Suspended, AssHat, Going…, “Going…Going…”
“Zero tolerance policy”?
Well, yeah, on some things. Racist hate propaganda, selling porn, blatant advertising, there are a few bits on which we have “zero tolerance.”
Being obnoxious? Failure to be respectful of other members? Posting in the wrong forum? Use of personal insults? Usually such infractions get warned, whether publically or privately… and sometimes, several warnings. So I’d hardly call it “zero tolerance.”
That was Otto.
I use “Suspended” because nobody will let me use a cattle prod. The spoilsports. I gotta have SOME way of getting people’s attention.
Lynn
Cecil’s own Angel of Death