No, Poly.
I am Spartacus.
Hmm, The Ryan vs Esprix. Didn’t someone accuse Esprix once of having the power to ban people in some SDMB-conspiracy-ridden “clique” wet dream by merely suggesting it to the Admins? 
HAHAHAHA
Ah, I tell ya, this place is always so darned amusing.
Hail Eris,
erislover
[Hoping this isn’t seen as a defiance of UncleBeer’s request, which it most certainly isn’t]
Would this be it? Would Are Eco Sytem be Ok If We Extincted Mosquitos? Great title, and not a bad thread. Gotcha ya, indeed. Cheers, WB, wherever you are out there.
I hate to admit it, but I kinda miss the twit.
But not enough to want him back.
Oh, this ought to be mildly amusing. Anyone taking bets in the Meltdown Pool yet?
Esprix
That’s precisely the one I was thinking of, Dijon Warlock. And it still got me laughing out loud!
Polycarp.
He’s going after Polycarp.
Pff…hunting elephants with a pea-shooter.
To be fair, we don’t know that he is specifically going after anyone. There has been a certain poster that did hound Ryan in several threads, calling him all sorts of names, but hasn’t Ryan also done the same thing to Scylla? Clash of the Titans, yo. At any rate, this all happened some time ago, and since it seems that the OP’s premise about the banning of the late, great Wildest Bill is in error the whole thread is moot.
IMNSHO.
Exactly, LindyHopper. Just the idea that Poly would make up lies about anyone is enough to make the eyes of any poster who’s been here longer than a week roll so far back into their head that you’d have to wipe off the gray matter once they rolled back.
If Poly is his target, The Ryan needs to have his head checked. With the possible exception of tomndebb, I don’t think there’s a more respected poster on these boards.
jayjay
Cha-ching. And until The Ryan drop back in, we won’t know.
>> I hate to admit it, but I kinda miss the twit.
>> But not enough to want him back.
As the guy said to the gal as he broke up with her:
"Missing you is easier than wishing you were gone" 
Perhaps I was confusing him with DanielInTheWolvesDen. Does this mean that in the future, if someone is banned, threads inquiring into the reasons will be strongly discouraged?
My recollection is that DITWD bit the dust for repeatedly comparing a poster to a Nazi (Joseph Goebels?). I can’t recall anybody who was banned for lying about another poster, since, ya know, it’s pretty easy to look up what somebody said and verify that, for instance, The Ryan is overreacting to a slight that is far more perceived than real.
Ryan, threads inquiring about reasons for banning have been discouraged for quite some time now, with at least one mod in each such thread begging for people to inquire by email instead.
And four times to my knowledge in the past week alone.
OK, just for The Ryan, who apparently missed this part of our policy so far:
YES. PLEASE E-MAIL A MODERATOR OR ADMINISTRATOR IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY A CERTAIN POSTER WAS BANNED.
Of course, you could just assume that we had a damn good reason for banning a poster, and get on with your life.
Because, of course, every decision the administration has made up to this point regarding the banning a poster has been sound, just, and without error?
Mmm Hmmm.
I wouldn’t worry too much about people continuing to bring this up, Coldfire. So long as you keep tightening up the rules on what can and can’t be talked about around here, including any discussion on why someone was banned, those that try to talk about it will soon be outta here anyways. If not, just create some new rules to get rid of them too. Problem solved. You’re back to being infallible by banning any and all of those that say you’re not.
Ahhh, the old condescending stand-by, ‘Get a life- There’s more out there than the internet and this messageboard.’
Coming from a guy who’s so prolific a poster that he knows the rules and regulations around here well enough that he became a moderator himself, not to mention being a regular 'ol member of this place since the summer of ’99, and it’s hard to buy your ‘There’s more out there than this place! Get a life!’.
Really?
Seriously, if this really was the non-issue that you’re trying to make it, and it hardly was worth the time to talk about it, then why all the talk of it lately and the threats, nay, demands, to shut up about it?
There’s just a bit of irony in all that.
Trying to defend an idiotic rule by using faulty logic and condescension really isn’t your style, Coldfire. State the stupid rule and get on with it.
Easy now CNote. Nothing as far as I can tell prevents you from receiving the answer as to why such-and-such was banned and then starting a Pit thread on why you think that the admins made a bad decision. I’ll do it. But first I’ll check so as not to stir up any muck for no reason.
hawthorne and Cnote:
We have no problem with a thread being opened in the Pit where the OP is “I disagree with the Moderators banning poster so-and-so for this reason” so long as it’s factually correct.
We do not, however, want threads started up asking why so-and-so was banned. This has nothing, despite Cnote’s paranoid ramblings, to do with wishing to destroy discussion of the matter. Rather, this has to do with the fact that threads discussing people’s bannings draw trolls and socks and other idiots at a higher rate than other threads. Therefore, by limiting the number of those threads- discouraging “why was so-and-so banned?” threads, for example- we keep our lives a little simpler.
Color me crazy, but I interpreted the recent talk from the moderators as saying just the opposite.
I suppose I need to e-mail a moderator to find out for sure.