Why is a reversed suspension being used as a reason for a permanent banning?

UltraVires has been permanently banned. The first reason for the ban is that he was suspended for a comment made about outdoor mask-wearing during Dick Clarke’s Rocking New Year’s Eve.

That suspension was reversed.

I disagree with the banning because it removes from the SDMB a poster with an interesting perspective. Sometimes interesting people can be controversial. I’m happy to expand my viewpoint further, and debate the other warnings, which I think should be insufficient for a banning. However, that’s not my objection.

My objection is that a case is being made for the banning, and the first instance cited for the banning is a non-instance. That makes the case for the banning both suspect and unfair.

That was incidental to the decision and just listed.

But overall it was his consistent behavior of being a disruptive poster and hijacker that got him banned. He was a very problematic poster.

The list of warnings and suspensions is not the case. It is just a list and was partially used in the decision making. The reversed one didn’t particularly come up in fact.

ETA: And I removed that link from the thread. Thank you.

You can say that about most long-time posters who have been banned.

Thank you for the answer and for the responsive action.

I still question the decision to remove a poster because he was disruptive. Isn’t fighting ignorance a disruptive activity? There are two instances listed for hijacking a thread, but one person’s hijack is another person’s interesting diversion. I participated just a few hours ago in a diversion started by a moderator. I haven’t looked at the threads where warnings were issued, but will note my observation that hijacks are rarely one-person events.

Two questions:

  1. Are the moderators willing to reconsider UltraVires banning? I think it’s a mistake, and would like to argue against it. However, I don’t want to waste my time banging my horns against an adamantium dam.

  2. Will you and other moderators engage in such a discussion? I don’t mind a lively exchange of views with UltraVires critics. But discussion of speculation on why a decision was made, without the decision makers providing actual bases of the decisions, ends up being nonsense.

If you and the other moderators are willing to discuss this, I’ll open another thread.

Honestly no, this was a long time coming I feel and was only put off as he took a self imposed 6 month hiatus after his last suspension or warning.

He was very disruptive. He engaged in strawman tactics and hijacks. He did not show improvement.

There is absolutely no reason to open another thread on this. I don’t follow the logic there.

Or, as an attorney like UV might say, a brick is not a wall (but the bricks help make up the wall).

You can say that also about thousands of historical figures who changed history. I’m not going to compare UltraVires to any of those people. Other than saying that if you want a lively discussion that isn’t a narrow variance of groupthink, you need dissenting views. Sometimes the people who are willing to go against groupthink are the same people who are inclined to push the rules.

That’s no doubt true, but irrelevant to posting on a message board, where rules are enforced.

From my memory, you have dissenting views from most posters here, but I don’t of you as a disruptive poster or strawmanner.

We have all kinds of lively discussions, with many different viewpoints, all within the rules. If one wants to go outside the rules of GD and P&E, open a Pit thread.

I’ve said this before, but it’s really not hard to avoid warnings, and definitely easy to avoid suspensions. It has nothing to do with your political point of view, but with your posting style and habits, and willingness to listen to moderators and change if necessary.

We welcome dissenting views.

As for “lively”, we expect discussions here to be basically civil. If you enjoy stirring things up just to watch what happens, that’s not what we are about here.

UltraVires wasn’t banned for his views. He was banned for his behaviors.

The rules exist for a reason. It’s not that difficult to present a dissenting view without resorting to constantly violating the rules.

I’m not. You have to work pretty hard around here to get yourself banned. UltraVires was given plenty of opportunity to change his behaviors, and he refused to do so.

This is just a polite response to your second sentence. Your “no” to my first question was a sufficient answer. My second question had a dependency that I thought I had addressed, but writers and readers have different contexts. I didn’t want to engage in a debate where the premise was “feel free to discuss it”, but where the decision makers would not be participating and offering insights.

I’m genuinely curious about his final offense; yeah, there’s a rule against saying or implying that one’s fellow posters achieve sexual gratification, or soil themselves in glee/distress — but, AFAICT, the whole point of that is that it’s within the rules to say that various posters achieve non-sexual gratification (regardless of whether the posters are said to do so upon reports of some non-poster doing something sexual or non-sexual).

Did he actually cross that line?

I’m not sure how much I can reveal, but I think this is OK:

  • He basically had no defenders. The one defense boiled down to “don’t feel strongly that he needs to go. But I can’t make a strong case for keeping him
  • He was considered disruptive often
  • He insulted others often, possibly unintentionally but all the same.
  • He hijack threads.
  • His contributions of substance to debates were virtually non-existant
  • Basically he fell under the “more trouble than he’s worth” rule.

Lots of bad things are interesting. Car wrecks are interesting. Poison ivy is interesting. The cold vacuum of space is interesting. The day-to-day routine of life in a maximum-security prison is interesting. “Interesting” is not - in and of itself - a good reason to subject yourself to something. It’s definitely not a good reason to subject others to it.

I… hm. Okay.

I’m not sure that’s a very strong argument in UV’s favor. Vague appeal to historical figures. History is riddled with examples of individuals who influenced the world around them for the worse. Some of them led countries. A few are even extant.

Wow! Just Wow!

This is my last comment. I reiterate my thanks for answering the question in the OP. I also note the pointlessness of opening a new thread discussing the reversing of the banning of UltraVires.

I’m going to say something harshly critical to you, which will probably be taken as insulting. I respect the interactions we’ve had on this message board, and based on those interactions believe you’re a respectable person. But reading your reasons for the banning, while I’m probably overreading things, your arguments, read as purely textual, are nearly horrifying.

Please reread what you wrote. Then imagine if those were the arguments delivered to an oppressed minority on why he was being punished. Other than #4, which is purely Internet based, and maybe #5, you’re saying that someone who disagrees with the way things are is wrong and deserves to be excluded. The SBMB isn’t a 1930’s white jury judging a black defendant. But read your reasonings in that context. It’s not a nice rereading.

[As stated, “This is my last comment.” in this thread. If further commentary from me is desired, I would prefer it to be in a new thread. But if moderators would like to keep it within this thread, I’m willing to be cooperative. I’ll even try to avoid jackboots jokes.}

No, @What_Exit is clearly saying that someone who disagrees with the way things are while being disruptive & insulting and shows no signs of improving their behavior deserves to be excluded.

There is an interesting dynamic that ought to obvious. That is, in today’s day of easy outrage when one falls outside of the ideological in-group’s range of tolerated opinions anything one posts in the contentious forums can be considered disruptive.

Furthermore, with the byzantine rules that are approaching Magic: The Gathering being weaponized, a poster with a minority opinion is going to be reported for behavior that is common among the majority yet somehow never sanctioned.

@Wrenching_Spanners — save your time. I’ve never seen the mods budge on something like this unless an OVERWHELMING number of posters make the case.

Why is the in-group position the position that deserves special treatment? Agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant. Disruptive and insulting are relevant. However, what is considered disruptive and insulting is not consistent.

Anyways, it was obvious that the ban was a long time coming due to the utterly farcical and tortured abuse of the poor verb “enjoy.” That is telling.

Oy Vey! And this is what I get for answering questions.

That was not the intent of what I wrote. It wasn’t his opinions or views but how he derailed conversations and debates on a regular basis.

I gave a terse and quick summary and possibly gave too much info. But I gave no nuance. I’m not the best communicator.

There is constructive disruption which gets a person out of a rut, leads to new/creative thinking, enlightens people, and so on.

There is destructive disruption which causes hurt, does nothing to combat ignorance, is stirring the pot just to upset people (a.k.a. “trolling”), or otherwise does nothing constructive.

The first in general don’t get into trouble with the moderators and are generally capable of following the rules of polite discourse, the latter not so much which is why I don’t cry to see them escorted out the door.

That’s… quite a leap.