Don’t let it go to your head. 
So does that mean someone’s going to be apologizing to **Guin **for the massive pile-on she got at the start of this thread? To wit:
.
Let me be the first:
Guin. I’m very, very sorry you can’t seem to remember our preferences on the Board.
XOXOXO
samclem.
OK, mine should be dhkendall@manthemodsheresuck.especiallytwickster.com. 
(Hey, I gave you an email address! Can’t ban me! )
The preceding was an attempt at humour. I’m sure the mods are jolly folk who do enjoy humour and that my post was taken as such, right? Right?
That’s sexual harassment.
More importantly, you failed to make you statement by way of lyrics from Finian’s Rainbow.
Wanna cry, wanna croon
Wanna laugh like a loon
ETA: In retrospect, I probably should have chosen Guys and Dolls.
Oh, sure. You come in here to steal the spotlight.
Damn your love of musicals.
Wait…hmmmmmmmm… know who else had a love of musicals…?
Really? Really? Honestly, I expected better from you of all people, sam.
1.) This is a preference, not a rule, and yet **Guin **was castigated by no fewer than three members of the SDMB staff, one of them twice. And some of them in a snide way that might get at least a smack on the nose for a poster if they directed that attitude at a mod or admin in ATMB. Seriously, guys–could you imagine directing this much concentrated snark at a member who repeatedly failed to bold the username of a mod in ATMB? Because that’s what this is the equivalent of.
2.) This user was, in fact, *not *banned for being a sock or a troll.
3.) As a result of this thread:
(a) The user is more likely to learn why they were banned and be in a position to do something about it;
(b) Other board members aren’t left thinking that said user was a sock or a troll; and
(b) A useful change was made to the way that such suspensions are indicated in the future.
Doesn’t that suggest to you that it was, in fact, a useful thing for **Guin **to have done?
Not unless you buy me dinner first. Unless that was appended to the note to Guin, in which case, on her behalf, not unless you buy her dinner first.
Actually, it’s not. I didn’t think I needed to parse it that finely, but apparently I do. Bolding user names is a custom–it’s not mentioned anywhere in the rules etiquette provisions. The preference for PMing about banned users is. See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9034110#post9034110 and http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697012&postcount=6 So they aren’t in the same category.
It’s true we won’t issue warnings for doing it (in the future, we won’t be responding to this sort of thread, so it shouldn’t be an ongoing issue), but that doesn’t mean we won’t ask you to cut it out if we think you are doing it too much.
That said, I do agree that one reminder should have been sufficient in this case, and I apologize to Guinastasia for the heavy-handed response.
True. But,
- Guin didn’t know that when she started the thread.
- The preference serves a dual purpose:
a. Preventing publicity for trolls (I realize many dispute the effectiveness, but we think it works).
b. Protecting the privacy of those who were banned, suspended, or disappeared for other reasons.
The second purpose was thwarted by this thread. I agree some good did come of it, but we didn’t know that up front, and Guin certainly didn’t know when she started the thread.
So this thread is the exception that proves the preference, as it were. In any case, Guin, I apologize on behalf of the staff for the pile-on.
That was my main objection, so thanks for this.
Yes, it does “prove” it–as in *test *it. And IMO the preference has *failed *that test, as this thread clearly demonstrates that it can be useful for members to inquire as to why other long-time members were banned.
Gfactor’s apology was a good call, but I am slightly curious as to why this inquiry was dealt with in such a fashion, whereas Cheshire Human wasn’t scolded/told to PM a mod in the thread about Happy Poster a few posts down. In fact the names of multiple socks were even revealed and put out in the open.
Not that ignorance is an excuse or whatever, but… if my email I signed up with 10 years ago had lapsed (it hasn’t, for the record!) and you sent me a PM here on the boards to inform me of it, it’s quite possible I wouldn’t notice the PM, especially since the email informing me I had a PM would go to the… lapsed email. It doesn’t even occur to me to check my PM’s.
And speaking of banned posters, I always associate the bolding usernames with Zenster. He likely didn’t start it but he was one of the people I noticed using it most in the Dark Ages and it annoyed me. (Mostly because he annoyed me. ;))
Q: Who else had a love of musicals?
A:
C’est moi! C’est moi, I’m forced to admit.
'Tis I, I humbly reply.
That mortal who
These marvels can do,
C’est moi, c’est moi, 'tis I.
Are you implying that GFactor is ME?
Accusations of sock-puppetry go in The Pit, mister. Do this again and <cough> I’ll make sure that GFactor gives you a Formal Warning
I’m still hoping for a better articulated reason for why it is a good idea not to inform people that one poster is actually a sock of another poster, even if you only do it by merging their accounts.
I did come up with an idea about the troll thing, that, even after a troll is banned, if they get some satisfaction they may try again, and thus encourage others. But I don’t get the sock one. And, no, I don’t consider them the same thing.
Rasa, your PM count is at the top of every page, just under your Username. When you have an unread message, it highlights. It’s not exactly “obvious”, but it isn’t hidden, either, and it does provide a visual cue. It catches my attention even though I don’t necessarily look for it.
Irishman, what is obvious to you isn’t always obvious to other people. I have to have email alerts set up for PMs at any forum I post on, or I *never *notice them.
In practice they’re pretty much the same thing. As a rule we don’t deal harshly with people who make a new account because they forgot their password or didn’t know the SDMB rules. Most of the time we just merge their accounts and handle it in private. There’s no reason for us to make that public. And when someone who has been banned in the past comes back under a new name, we don’t want to give them the attention.
I think BigT, like me, is thinking more of situations where a *current user *creates a second account, where it might be useful for us to know who was all really the same person. To me, a banned user coming back under a new name and people creating new accounts because they don’t remember the details for the old ones don’t really fall under the definition of “sock.”
You can also set it to give you a pop-up when you’ve got a new PM.
True, but I find those obnoxious. And if someone rarely used PMs themselves and rarely received them, they might not think to do so.