The Banning of Starving Artist

It is traditional to give a list of posts where warnings have been given in a ban post; there is none in the post banning Starving Artist.

Could we see a list?

There’s his latest pitting…

and the one before that…

and the one before that…

or this one…

well, really, there’s this…
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=15343398

If he has zero warnings, his behavior was sufficiently execrable that multiple warnings aren’t necessary, IMO.

This was 100% the right call, and I’m glad it was made.

You may not find what you’re looking for as far as a list of warnings go. The thing about SA is he wasn’t generally breaking any specific SDMB rules that you could call him on. The #1 rule, “don’t be a jerk”, is subjective and open to interpretation, but sounds like the staff made a decision that being a rape/sexual assault apologist is, in fact, being a jerk. Good for them. They made an outstanding decision.

Great call, moderators. Thanks.

One thing confuses me. There are only 5 posts before mine. There should be hundreds all saying “Good decision” and such.

To the Mods-

Good decision and such.

I ‘thanked’ in another thread. Maybe people are just glad it’s over and don’t feel the need to state it. IMO

Yeah, I thanked in another thread too.

But I’ll say it again! THANKS MODS. :slight_smile:

Brilliant! Thank you!

Good decision.

He’s been here for 15 years and he was a consistent violator of the “don’t be a jerk” rule. I was amazed that he didn’t get banned when he asked Una if she didn’t agree with him that physics made it impossible for a big man like Jerry Sandusky to rape a small boy.

So he had more than enough time to make a positive contribution. He made his choices.

I got a strange feeling from Starving Artist’s recent posts. He’s always drawn a lot of opposition, of course, but he’s also always seemed to draw back when things got too heated. But in the last couple of weeks, it seemed different. It was like he had decided to get banned and was driving towards the cliff as fast as he could.

Not naming names but there’s another poster here I’m getting the same feeling from.

Really? We’re banning people due to pittings now?

Look, this was a bad call. Warn him, suspend him- and THEN ban him when he does it again- which he likely will.

Banning people due to popular demand is a really bad idea.

However, maybe he does have a list of warnings, in which case- good riddance.

There are some other warnings that are interesting. Warnings given out to people who lost their cool when interacting with the jerk. I have one, and I’m sure other people could show theirs off as well.

Thanks moderators! You’re vertebrates!

You know, sometimes it’s okay to say I have no fucking idea what I’m talking about.

Some things you might want to consider…

  1. This is not a democracy.
  2. This is a community.
  3. He was banned for breaking the first rule - don’t be a jerk.

Thank you mods. Should have happened looong ago, imho.

Repeating this doesn’t make it true. If that’s all you took from the last couple weeks of discussions, then I’m not sure what to say to make you see the difference between an unpopular poster and odious misogyny.

While he’s received relatively few warnings (just one in the last three years, and six total),the latest one was particularly bad and indicative of a long history that we should have addressed long ago.

Sometimes one is all it takes.

Nice try, but the mods never said it was due to pittings.

Re-read Jonathan Chance’s post about it, he explains it quite well.

Why do you always do this?

Better late than never.