# What's with the flurry of bannings of late? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 11, 2019, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695 "2019-12-11T04:14:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/21 "2019-12-11T12:23:48Z")
In other words, bans (other than obvious cases like spammers, which aren’t the topic here) are never unilateral. Even if it be the case that one particular mod is unfairly biased against one particular person for some reason, that still won’t lead to that person being banned. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/22 "2019-12-11T13:45:00Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 16 years here Shit, it’s actually 18 years. My account is old enough to drink! ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/23 "2019-12-11T13:54:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Yep. > > I’m a pretty combative poster, I know this, I don’t suffer fools or bigots gladly and I have major disagreements about some moderation choices that I’m very vocal about. > > But I’ve racked up just 2 warnings and zero suspensions in 16 years here. And I somehow doubt it’s because the mods all love me. > > You really have to _work_ at getting banned. This last sentence needs to be a sticky ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/24 "2019-12-11T14:44:35Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > This last sentence needs to be a sticky Yep, I agree. I’m more or less in the same boat- been here a little bit longer I think, and I’ve got 3 warnings over that time- one of which was questionable at best (I quoted a rather un-PC line from “Idiocracy” as a joke, and got warned for it), one of which was totally warranted due to a personal insult from me, and the third was legitimate, but would have been better handled through a in-thread admonishment (it was a political jab about “coal rollers” in GQ). And I’ve gotten into quite a few arguments over the years. You DO have to work at getting banned- it doesn’t just happen apropos of nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/25 "2019-12-11T15:30:54Z")
I can’t be the only one who is expecting a new member named TropicalstormMcMahon, can I? ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/26 "2019-12-11T15:52:26Z")
Well, my first reaction was “Whew, maybe now we can get back to actual discussions.” I think the last couple of bannings were long overdue. Posters whose opinions and outbursts didn’t come from reasoned reflection, but their own emotional states. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/27 "2019-12-11T17:04:22Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If someone else were to post a Clinton or Buttigieg thread would they get warned for trolling? In this case, **HurricaneDitka** had previously posted a very similar thread about Clinton entering the 2020 race. He also added the comment that he “hadn’t given up hope yet” that she would enter the race. Since he was obviously not a fan of Clinton he was evidently glad because she would lose. This kind of comment was clearly intended to needle Democrats rather than to initiate a serious discussion. It was quite obvious trolling. If someone had posted a similar thread but indicated a serious interest in discussing it they wouldn’t have been warned for trolling. > [@](#): > > It seems sort of circular logic once you do get sanctioned for trolling that what you are posting may be trolling since you are a confirmed troll. **HurricaneDitka** had never previously been warned for trolling. His warnings were for insults, being a jerk, and failure to follow a moderators instructions. But it’s interesting that you assume that he was previously warned for trolling. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/28 "2019-12-11T17:41:51Z")
Its hard to see how mods could fail to ban Barack Obama after he posted this > [@Pete Buttigeig stops releasing bundler names and blocks press from fundraising events. S](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pete-buttigeig-stops-releasing-bundler-names-and-blocks-press-from-fundraising-events-s/844635/35): > > I didn’t expect this, because you dislike the content of this thread you’ll move it? > > Okay ill repost it since you said that, we’ll see if you move it again. The first rule of survival on the Dope is if a mod slaps you down, stay down. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/29 "2019-12-11T17:55:24Z")
Indeed. ‘Failure to follow a moderators instruction’ is an infraction we take seriously. Best practice one disagrees is to send a PM or take it to ATMB. Nothing good comes from defiantly declaring that you plan to disregard guidance. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/30 "2019-12-11T17:56:07Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > In this case, **HurricaneDitka** had previously posted a very similar thread about Clinton entering the 2020 race. He also added the comment that he “hadn’t given up hope yet” that she would enter the race. Since he was obviously not a fan of Clinton he was evidently glad because she would lose. This kind of comment was clearly intended to needle Democrats rather than to initiate a serious discussion. It was quite obvious trolling. Expressing the hope that the opposition party nominates a weak candidate is pretty common on this board (and IRL, to the point where it’s commonly discussed as a factor in “open primaries”). I would bet there have been thousands of such posts on this MB, with zero moderator action. The real story is that while the moderators don’t get together and say “let’s sanction this poster because he’s unpopular”, the unpopularity heavily influences what are very subjective interpretations of ambiguous rules (i.e. trolling, jerk). ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/31 "2019-12-11T17:57:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Shit, it’s actually 18 years. My account is old enough to drink! Crap, mine is old enough to catalog aches and pains every morning while… Dang, that’s just me, isn’t it? It is. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/32 "2019-12-11T18:05:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > On a related note, I am curious how a banned poster finds out they got banned. Do they just try to log in as usual and then find out “username and/or password does not work?” when you log in, you get a message saying you’ve been banned from the board and cannot view any of the forums. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/33 "2019-12-11T18:09:00Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Expressing the hope that the opposition party nominates a weak candidate is pretty common on this board (and IRL, to the point where it’s commonly discussed as a factor in “open primaries”). I would bet there have been thousands of such posts on this MB, with zero moderator action. As I pointed out, there was essentially no content to the post (which was in Elections rather than IMHO or the Pit) _except_ to needle Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/34 "2019-12-11T18:09:43Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I can honestly say that nothing Bone did was out of the ordinary. He had as much input into bans and sanctions while he was a mod as any of us do. That and no more. Any actions taken since his departure - and I wish him well - he had no input nor influence over in any way. > [@bone](#): > > When Ed asked me to become a moderator, I was glad. I had hoped to help leave this community better than it was when I got here. I was the one pushing for some of the more detrimental forces to be removed, like Clothahump and Starving Artist. As is plain to see in warnings and moderator action, I am responsible for the departure of other negative forces like WillFarnaby, and have put even more on notice. I have argued against more severe action towards some of our more liberal members who got over exuberant in their transgressions. This seems like there was a bit of bias. Maybe it is purely confirmation bias on my part. I have learned that even explicitly written words don’t always mean what they obviously mean around here. It’s Humpty Dumpty-esque at times. > [@Colibri](#): > > In this case, **HurricaneDitka** had previously posted a very similar thread about Clinton entering the 2020 race. He also added the comment that he “hadn’t given up hope yet” that she would enter the race. Since he was obviously not a fan of Clinton he was evidently glad because she would lose. This kind of comment was clearly intended to needle Democrats rather than to initiate a serious discussion. It was quite obvious trolling. If someone had posted a similar thread but indicated a serious interest in discussing it they wouldn’t have been warned for trolling. There are quite a few posts where posters wish death or harm upon the president, his supporters, or conservatives/Republicans that escape notes much less warnings or more severe sanction. I have my doubts that such posts are intended to indicate a serious interest in discussing an issue and I have no doubt that they are intended to be inflammatory towards the minority of posters here who are right of center. Since there is no critical mass of vocal folks willing to complain and post spreadsheets of their financial value to the board I suppose it’s not necessary to treat those posters equally. Plus, let’s be honest, you don’t want to ban 3/4th of your board. > [@](#): > > **HurricaneDitka** had never previously been warned for trolling. His warnings were for insults, being a jerk, and failure to follow a moderators instructions. But it’s interesting that you assume that he was previously warned for trolling. Why is it interesting? People make mistakes all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/35 "2019-12-11T18:19:49Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > As I pointed out, there was essentially no content to the post (which was in Elections rather than IMHO or the Pit) _except_ to needle Democrats. I don’t see where you pointed that out, but regardless, it’s not correct. The content of the post was to open speculation as to whether or not Clinton would enter the race, based on both her strong standing in the polls (which would encourage her) and her refusal to rule out doing so. This is completely par for the course in Elections. > [@octopus](#): > > Why is it interesting? People make mistakes all the time. I believe he was suggesting that you personally saw HD’s activities as trolling, which would cause you to make that particular mistake. Although one other thing which might cause that same mistake was the thousands of posts from other posters calling HD a troll and demanding that he be banned on that basis. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/36 "2019-12-11T18:26:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The content of the post was to open speculation as to whether or not Clinton would enter the race, based on both her strong standing in the polls (which would encourage her) and her refusal to rule out doing so. Except she already had, back in March, and the filing deadline had already passed in nine states. None of which had been acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/37 "2019-12-11T18:35:00Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t see where you pointed that out, but regardless, it’s not correct. The content of the post was to open speculation as to whether or not Clinton would enter the race, based on both her strong standing in the polls (which would encourage her) and her refusal to rule out doing so. Sorry, **HurricaneDitka** made no attempt to open a real discussion: > [@Skywatcher](#): > > Except she already had, back in March, and the filing deadline had already passed in nine states. None of which had been acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/38 "2019-12-11T18:40:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t see where you pointed that out, but regardless, it’s not correct. The content of the post was to open speculation as to whether or not Clinton would enter the race, based on both her strong standing in the polls (which would encourage her) and her refusal to rule out doing so. > > This is completely par for the course in Elections.I believe he was suggesting that you personally saw HD’s activities as trolling, which would cause you to make that particular mistake. > > Although one other thing which might cause that same mistake was the thousands of posts from other posters calling HD a troll and demanding that he be banned on that basis. I didn’t see them as trolling. I don’t think posting in elections or GD something that makes those holding the adversarial point of view upset is problematic. That just happens to be the natural result of a forum where debate on partisan issues takes place between emotional people. It can’t be avoided. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/39 "2019-12-11T18:43:21Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Sorry, **HurricaneDitka** made no attempt to open a real discussion: Not to mention this (bolding mine): “It’s not just the writer that’s stoking **the sad delusions of a washed-up politician.** The Harris Poll decided to include her in their poll.” Obviously arguing in bad faith. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695/40 "2019-12-11T18:45:44Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Except she already had, back in March, and the filing deadline had already passed in nine states. None of which had been acknowledged. It’s not uncommon for politicians to rule out running for things and then change when they see an opportunity or whatever. (Kristin Gillibrand declared her candidacy a mere few months after a campaign promise to not run.) Subsequent to March, HRC said she can’t rule it out, and noted that many many people were pressuring her to run. And Mike Bloomberg just jumped in last week or so. That said, you’re entitled to make these arguments, and you properly made them in HD’s thread. But believing that your arguments are not conclusive doesn’t imply that HD was trolling. FWIW, the likelihood that HRC will run is currently trading for 19 cents on PredictIt. If you really think that the likelihood is virtually zero, you can make some easy money buying the opposite side of that trade. But based on that price, and based on ongoing discussion in the mainstream media of that possibility (e.g. articles like [this one](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50399230)), or polls by Harris - as HD noted in that thread - the world at large takes the possibility seriously. The fact that this is considered “no content” trolling on this MB when posted by HD is very telling. > [@Skywatcher](#): > > Not to mention this (bolding mine): “It’s not just the writer that’s stoking **the sad delusions of a washed-up politician.** The Harris Poll decided to include her in their poll.” > > Obviously arguing in bad faith. It’s not clear to me whether the “sad delusions …” line was HD’s belief or what he presumed you were arguing. But either way, I don’t see why this would be arguing in bad faith. Perhaps you can clarify. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-flurry-of-bannings-of-late/844695.md?page=3)