I don’t get this - we’re not supposed to speak of banned posters, or ask about them. Yet some posters get an announcement when they’re banned? Isn’t this conflicting? Also, what determines which posters get announcements?
Some time ago we as a board asked we be informed when long-time posters get banned. Otherwise it was just a big fat mystery. Putting up a thread (mostly) reduces the chatter.
To scare the rest of us.
Neither of those things is true. We sometimes tamp down arguments about banned posters and if you have questions about users who’ve been banned without explanation, we ask that you contact us by PM or email instead of starting a thread.
To my view, we announce bans in the interest of openness and honesty and to give people more understanding of how the rules are enforced. And in the case of bans of longtime members, people are going to notice whether we announce something or not, so it makes sense to explain why we did it.
What good is the cautionary example with the piked head?
Without, rather.
Damnit.
I mean, in public. So, experienced posters who get banned get a thread?
Again: not so.
Basically if they’re not a sock and they’ve been around for a couple of months or more, long enough for people to notice them, yes, they get a thread.
Ok, thanks for your replies.
This is what I mean.
That’s only for posters who are banned without explanation (which in practical terms means socks, spammers, and trolls).
AaronX, there are a couple of policies with regards to banned members being discussed.
First, in order to reduce attention to trolls, the policy is that if a member is banned without an announcement, do not inquire publically, but rather PM a mod. This is purely to reduce attention that might encourage said troll to return.
Second, if a member is not a spammer or troll and has been active for a while (undefined term, but basically means long enough to be missed by someone), then they get an announcement thread in ATMB. First, because people are going to ask anyway. Second, in the interest of transparency, to spell out the infractions that led to the banning. These threads are immediately locked to prevent those threads from becoming flamefests, given that for a poster to become banned he/she had to have some repeated patterns of rule infractions, often including insults, hostility, etc. There is often a lot of animosity towards members who are banned, and so it is a high probability people would take the opportunity to say “Good riddance, it’s about time, that worthless poster was here far too long, and I hated his guts. I’m glad we no longer have to put up with his shit.” Etc. You know, stuff that belongs in the Pit, not ATMB.
Third, I’ve got a first, a second, and then a sub-first and second. I’m thirding.
What’s a sock?
Shortening of sock-puppet; a made-up persona in addition to your real one.
Picture someone putting a sock on their hand as a puppet.
Short for “sock puppet,” and it means either a person who posts under more than one name, or the accounts used by that person. On other boards it means something more specific - the term was first used to mean using more than one account to make it look like more than one person agreed with you - but around here it’s used to mean anybody with more than one username.
A second username name for the same poster. They are not permitted here. Originally, it referred to a sockpuppet, a second identity used by a poster to agree with himself in a thread and look like he was getting more support. Here it generally means someone who registers a new name to come back after being banned, or sometimes because they want to express unpopular opinions they don’t want to be identified with under their main name (or because they’ve embarrassed themselves and want to distance themselves from that name).
Oops.
One of you is a sock!
All of us are socks. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)
The cases I’ve often wondered about are those posters who have been here for a “medium-short” time, say, from a month or so to several months, who have actively posted in various threads, and who then suddenly get banned without any obvious reason. ISTM this has been not-uncommon around here.
In the cases I’ve noticed, I’ve sometimes searched up all their posts to see what their warnings were, and been unable to find any. (Meaning, I’m referring here to those particular cases where I couldn’t find any obvious jerkish behavior nor any warnings.) If they opened any threads of their own, they have often been closed without comment, and without notice in ATMB.
When someone gets banned very very quickly (like within a day or two of signing up), without any obvious reason, I get that it must be a sock (or possibly a spammer whose spam posts have been disappeared before I see them). But why do some members and guests get banned after several months here, without “obvious” cause and without comment from the Mods?
ETA: Related question: I asked in a recent thread: How much of the Mods’ time is spent addressing reports (and PM’s)? Same question here: You guys are always telling us to ask via PM why someone got banned. How many people actually ask you? How inundated are you with individual (and possibly redundant) requests of this sort? I’ve always refrained from asking via PM about bannings because I envision that if lots of users did that, you’d never dig yourselves out!
Hey! I was suspended for a coon’s age (it was the liquor talking) and nobody even noticed.
I hate you people. :mad: