Oh, ALRIGHT dammit.
We’ll ban DavidB already. Geeze, what an elaborate way to make a point! 
At least the last two occurred after Ed’s final warning, I think there were more. Why didn’t Ed cite those? I dunno, he’s a big galoot. 
I had notified him about the two warnings, then Ed read the post to Muffin and I guess that was evidence enough to him that Satan was not going to respect his warning.
That would be sufficient.
The whole thing seems to have been handled like a clusterfuck, though.
-David
Well, if you must know, it was a metaphor. I don’t really have parties. Although the last time I did, I did have to throw out an asshole, for threatening violence. I was making a parallel for what happens here.
Verbally, this place is a mugging, about half the time. (In the Pit, that is.) While GD is a bit more Marquis du Queensbury about it, the smell of blood does waft through the air, at times.
And as an observation, to those who question why the people who “run” this virtual Donnybrook feel that Unbanning Satan might precipitate harsh feelings, and exchanges of acrimony I have this to ask. Have you been reading this thread? And this is just the discussion of whether it should happen. How can you doubt the sincerity of a group of people who think the actual event described in a thread that is a six page knuckle binge might well be a bit troublesome?
Brian is a nice guy. His wit is entertaining. But for whatever reason, the mere mention of his name is attended by people throwing around insults, or leaving the board. If it were my job to sweep up the body parts, I would be a lot more vociferous about not letting it all start up again.
Now, lets give back the broken teeth, and the eyeballs we gouged out of each other, and get back to fighting ignorance.
Tris
The dopers knew about the final warning, and about his two (or more)recent warnings, and a clusterfuck still ensued. Clusterfucks appear inevitable in these sorts of circumstances.
However, if this sort of listing of a poster’s offenses results in happier dopers, maybe I will try it next time. It just seems kind of mean-spirited to me, to drag all these details back up. “Well, here he calls poster x anal leakage and here he tells poster y to lick his bag and here he calls someone an idiot sixteen times and here he says poster z has no penis.” I would think posters who flame people might regret that sort of behavior and not want it sprayed across the board again. I felt we should let banned posters leave with what dignity they can muster rather than listing that sort of thing in gory detail. Particularly since banned posters can’t defend themselves on the boards.
I’ll read it when I get home tonight.
I will still post the list. After I asked posters to e-mail me for the full list of infractions, we have someone (you) posting in the thread asking for more details, and another (Stoid) saying that it wasn’t fair. I predict more people coming in here and demanding for us to reveal publicly exactly what happened. Since several posters claim that airing our dirty laundry in public is a good thing, I’m willing to try the experiment.
As Gaudere said, several warnings happened after the final warning. Which you would have seen yourself, if you carefully read the links in Satan’s banning thread (you linked to it above, so obviously you know about it) and compared dates. Satan already had received a couple of extra chances.
Because the moderators do not send an e-mail to EdZotti every time we give someone a warning. Because EdZotti said in a previous warning that he would ban Satan when Satan said something that, in EdZotti’s opinion, was being a jerk. Because the decisions on what makes a jerk vary for each person. Because something not considered the final straw by Gaudere or DavidB was considered the final straw by EdZotti.
[crush]Well if you moved to Thunder Bay you would.[/crush]
Well… it’s not a perfect situation, true (and it’s certainly lamentable from the banned poster’s point-of-view that he/she can’t pipe up to either defend or lash out), but I think the benefits of the explanations outweigh the ever-possible dogpiles.
Obviously (and especially with our numbers) you’re going to encounter complaints from current members (some who might never feel at ease with the explanations, no matter how much is explained or how much time has passed–and that’s just a general statement which doesn’t need to refer to anyone in this thread), but I think you’ll largely find that the majority of us are at least grateful for the attempted clarification.
Speaking as a lurker from the AOL days (and for most of my tenure at this version of the board), I’ve never yet gone into a thread wondering if I’m gonna piss off whatever moody mod/admin that’s on duty during my posting(s), furtively wondering if I’m going to discover a “Go away, jerk, you’s no longer welcome here!” the next time I try to log on.
So, really, good on you higher power-type thingies.
Of course, I’m the kinda guy who thinks some suicidal mod should out-of-the-blue-like ban Ed Zotti simply to see what his first return post would be. Grain of salt, BA-BY; swallow my words with a grain. Of. Salt.
It seems that I made a mistake here, and Gaudere did tell EdZotti about the last two warnings. EdZotti chose to highlight something else that he found offensive in his official pronouncement. I wish he would have done otherwise, but as I said before, anyone willing to investigate the issue carefully would have learned from the Satan banning thread that warnings were issued after his “final” warning. I wish that posters would try and give the staff a little credit instead of assuming a priori that we are dictators.
It’s not because of the dogpiles. As Gaudere and I each said, we don’t like to do it because it looks like picking on someone after they can’t defend themselves.
[Rick Mayal] Fascist. [/Rick Mayal]
Ah, so Ed caused the clusterfuck.
I suspected as much.
So can I assume that Ed will be issued a warning for falsely attributing a quote to Brian?
I know you’re frustrated by all this being dragged back up, Arnold– but you should blame it on Ed. Had he not brought up the name-calling thing, this wouldn’t even be an issue now.
-David
As a general rule, to be perfectly honest I don’t have all that much respect for people who hold grudges, pout and complain, make demands, and stomp outta the room when they don’t get their way. The negative behavior you see is attached to a fundamentally negative attitude, I think you’ll find. So if we are to entertain the idea that bringing him back is bad because some * other* people are going to behave badly, I think that’s an incredibly shitty and unjust reason.
Saying no to Satan should be about * Satan *, not the bad behavior threatened or displayed by some other posters.
Because you know, then the hissyfitters win. 
Another thing I’m a bit concerned about is the comparisons we’re going to get. We’re going to hear, “look, Poster X has to call someone a fucktard five times to get banned and Poster Y got banned after only calling someone an idiot once and an asshole three times! blah blah blah inconsitent standards blah blah you like poster x better blah blah clique blah blah blancmange” I mean, some do that now, but if every banned poster gets a list of their offenses it makes it so much easier and in the end we can only say “we made our best judgment”. Which works spectacularly, as you can see from this thread. Well, we shall see how it goes.
I’m not sure how many people participating in this thread have actually read **Satan’**s posts to the SDMB Community livejournal, but he made it pretty clear that while attending the Dopefest was a catalyst for his seeking reinstatement to the SDMB, he would abide by the decision on the admins in respect of his request. His entry clearly states that he gives permission for only one post from the livejournal entry (the one in which he has published his email requesting reinstatement and Ed’s email in response) to be reposted over here.
His final comment in that post, “Secondly, sometimes, you really can’t go home again.”, would seem to indicate that he now considers the issue closed. Can’t we do the same?
Well, I think so, I’d have to check my email. I mean, this was frickin’ two years ago, I’ve had to review threads and emails already to remember what went on. (And like Brian I still have no idea what Saxface thinks she did.)
Soulfrost, if you accept the banning was justified, why the ire at Ed? Is there some bad blood between you to or something? I’m honestly puzzled. And I’d blame at least a bit of the clusterfuck on you not reading the info in the thread you linked to. If you had you would have seen those two warnings.
Feh… my last post sounded a bit snarky.
It was only intended (mostly, anyway) in fun.
I appreciate the work done by all the mods here-- y’all r0xX0Rz or something. And I know what a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position you are all in.
Well, it’s not good and it’s not fair, but many of us have been on boards where the Staff are dictators. Sorry that y’all get some of that splashed on you, but once bitten, twice shy…
-David
Nah… just some remnants from Melingate. No biggie.
I really do wish that he’d post a retraction to his contention that Brian called anyone a weasel, though.
But hey, it has been two frickin’ years-- so I doubt that it’s really on the top of his mind…
-David
I think you contribute to it by dragging out this whole thing again without taking the trouble to read the banning thread all the way through.
If you’re talking about the recent rule “don’t falsely attribute a quote to someone”, the rule was instituted way after EdZotti’s post. If you meant that EdZotti, when saying that Satan called someone a weasel, was lying, then I am going to reply to you that when Satan says «Or the weaseling back-tracking where you tried to NOT say that but never once just saying that your previous statement was sensationalist garbage that didn’t make the point you intended?» and stating «you weasel» while probably using weasel as a verb, the difference is so minor that I wouldn’t call him a liar, just say that he should choose his words more carefully.
Yes David I’m getting seriously pissed off here. Satan himself admits that he was a jerk and his banning was justified, and now people come in here months later to say “Oh no it wasn’t!”
Will Brian post a retratction to his contention that he called Muffin a weasel?