A couple of insults have already been tossed around this thread and ignored, if I’m not mistaken.
If so, there had better be some consistency.
You should apply for a Mod position.
By his posts in this thread, I’d say his application is already in.
Fair disclosure: I did- I applied for Giraffe’s job in the Pit when he resigned (and was turned down, I might add).
Seriously, though- if your only reason for posting here is to complain about posting here, the logical solution is “don’t be here”, surely?
I get short with people who complain about board policy and moderation and so forth, but I’d never support banning someone for doing so. I do support banning someone who doesn’t do anything else.
You’re welcome to review my posting history; I’ve been in bed with TPTB pretty much since I first signed up, so you can be assured my posting in this thread has nothing to do with wanting to be a mod.
AFAICR, the only time I voiced genuine disagreement was when Otto got banned because Ed was feeling pissy.
Did you report the posts so the mods and admins have a good chance of finding them? I did.
-brown-nosing [del]nonny[/del] tool
Then I believe you to be acting in error here and doing seven a disservice - to the best of my knowledge, seven has made many offers to share his database expertise in improving the board, giving his time and expert advice for nothing. I’d day that counts as making a positive contribution, wouldn’t you?
I would say that the solution is to work through whatever issues you have. Almost always, when a poster has been here for a considerable time, the raging against the machine is temporary. Those who have given up are in the “don’t be here” crowd. Those who snark, bitch, and complain generally still hope for positive change.
So the thousands of other posts he’s made over the years are negated by 100 complaining and anti-Lib posts? If we are going to use this as a standard for banning, could you please clarify what the ratio should be? Let’s see, using this situation as a guide - I have about 520 posts. So, if I make 13 posts in a row bitching about the board, I can get banned?
I can do that, easy!
Bolding mine. I reported the first post. I do believe it’s against the rules.
If that’s the case, I’d certainly withdraw my support. TBH, I’m not hugely familiar with Seven; I read what Marley and TD said, looked at his last 100 posts, and found it was true.
IANAMod, but I am not saying he was banned because of his participation on other messageboards. My understanding is that you can post to whatever other boards you like, but you may not link to them.
ISTM the emergence of the splinter boards has led to the exodus of an undetermined number of former Dopers. Some of those former Dopers are still members (or, usually, Guests) on the SDMB. But they no longer give a shit, and post in such a manner as to solicit banning. Or at the very least, in a spirit of “I am going to say whatever I want and fuck it”. Seven was, I believe, one of those. There are others.
Gee, no kidding.
FWIW, this is the sort of thing that looks to me like a yen for the ban. We saw it from sailor, now we are seeing it from Xploder and Syntropy. Either they have forgotten that complaints about the mods are no longer in the Pit, or they don’t care anymore.
If nothing is done, they’ll just escalate. Just like Seven did, IOW.
Regards,
Shodan
sailor was banned?
Yes, but he got better.
Why don’t the mods just come out and say “We will ban whomever we want, we can always justify itafterward, and anyway, fuck you if you don’t like it.”
That would be accurate and honest.
Because you’re not allowed to say “fuck you”, silly.
You can’t just go around punishing people for crimes they haven’t committed but might in the future. **Seven **didn’t actually break a rule to provoke this banning.
Tell that to Dick Cheney! 
I’m still waiting for a link to the rule that says you can’t post the accurately quoted content of a PM in a sig. It may not be “nice” but I’ve never seen a rule against it–and if Tuba has the balls to say something she ought to have the balls to own it when it becomes less than private. We’re all aware that on the internet, one should assume that anything one discloses can and probably will become public knowledge, and quite frankly I’d say Ms Tuba knows quite a bit more than most about how private information can become public at any time–this shouldn’t have been any sort of a shock to her, nor should Seven have incurred a penalty this major, considering how precedent was established that others may commit infinitely more grievous offenses re violations of privacy and yet remain unscathed.
What a fascinating idea–let’s see how it works in other situations:
“That bitch was looking to get raped, and she got her wish. If she didn’t want to be raped, she wouldn’t have worn clothes that allow her body to be seen.”
“That guy was looking to get mugged, and got his wish. If he didn’t want to get mugged he wouldn’t have had money in his pocket.”
“You were looking to have a car accident, and you got your wish. If you don’t want to be slammed into by another car you shouldn’t be driving.”
Wow, it’s amazing how you can use that to blame the victim in pretty much any circumstance! And so convenient, too, since it means nobody ever has to take any sort of action or fight for a principle–the victim WANTED it, so it’s all nothing to see here, folks, just mooooooooove right along!
Count me in as wanting to see substantive answers to these questions. I’d really prefer them not to have sphincter marks on them from being yanked at high speed out of an anus, but I realize that might be difficult to accomplish around here and am willing to make allowances for [ahem] fundamental incapacity.