# WTF? Otto was just banned by Ed. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 10, 2008, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971 "2008-09-10T18:35:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/661 "2008-09-15T06:54:28Z")
nevermind ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/662 "2008-09-15T09:35:06Z")
> [@](#): > > originally posted by **mutantmoose** : > I was reading the board for a while before I opened an account plus I learn fast. Plus it doesn’t take much prior knowledge to recognise a dumb question when I see one (as with Ottos). Hundreds of posts later, and no one has seen fit to observe that **mutantmoose** , despite claiming to “learn fast”, doesn’t realize the importance this board places on proper use of apostrophes? This place is going down the toilet’s. ---
**Author:** ![bbs2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e495f1/32.png) [@bbs2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbs2k)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/663 "2008-09-15T09:47:39Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > This place is going down the toilet’s. And look at how he spelled “realize”! LOL! ---
**Author:** ![Borborygmi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/borborygmi/32/217_2.png) [@Borborygmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borborygmi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/664 "2008-09-15T12:26:30Z")
**Otto** , dude, disappointing move after after so many of us stuck up for you. But ultimately: meh. Hope you find another board you like. Glad the other two were reinstated. No complaints here, now. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/665 "2008-09-15T12:56:40Z")
When I heard that **Otto** ’s banning had been changed to a suspension, I was willing to bet that upon his return he was going to start a pit thread complaining about what had been done and trying to defend himself. The references to him having a sock confused me for a while, because the sock’s post had somehow flown under my radar. But I agree creating a sock just to get in a final jab and practically insist on being banned was a dipshit move, especially since all he had to do was wait a few days for the chance to say whatever he wanted. Although considering his apparent martyr complex, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/666 "2008-09-15T13:15:09Z")
Sometimes being right and doing the right thing are not the same. I won’t go about the SOP of TPTB of harassing a member until he breaks a rule and get him banned. No point. My point is that no matter how much of a pain in Ed’s ass Otto had become (and I am sure it is purely because of the stupid book thing, Ed didn’t know Otto from CarnalK before he thought he could use the sdmb to plug his book), Otto generated a lot more page views than trouble. Moderating Otto is free, as the mods are unpaid. His own visits plus all visits to read his posts, were of value to the sdmb. He was a source of pageviews, the new currency of the sdmb. That his last warning was 9 months ago is a clear signal that he was not the trouble maker Ed wants to say he was. He just rubbed him the wrong way. Did Otto break a rule by creating a sock?. Darn right. Was that why he was banned? Of course not. ETA: Woo-hoo! post #666 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/667 "2008-09-15T13:33:11Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Did Otto break a rule by creating a sock?. Darn right. Was that why he was banned? Of course not. You’ve got a lot of inside info for a guy who left the site for nine months ago and was not involved in any of the disussions that went on late last week and this weekend. Everybody’s deeply indebted to you for your insight. Otto actually registered two socks Friday. [We decided to overlook the first one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php); it only seemed fair. Then he posted with a second one to complain about the terms of what was now a short suspension. We wanted to have him come back. He made it impossible. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/668 "2008-09-15T13:45:58Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > My point is that no matter how much of a pain in Ed’s ass Otto had become (and I am sure it is purely because of the stupid book thing, Ed didn’t know Otto from CarnalK before he thought he could use the sdmb to plug his book)… Untrue, actually, as I’ve recently come to discover. While Ed doesn’t post much, he is a lot more plugged in to board happenings and problem posters than you might think (in some forums more than others). I liked some of Otto’s posts but I think any reasonable person understands that we can’t continue to tolerate rules violations forever just because someone is “contributing pageviews”. I have no doubt that a bunch of trolls in the Pit could generate a ton of pageviews, in the short term, but ultimately a moderated board is what we have to offer and it seems to work. Otto chose to break the rules and further to lie multiple times to Ed. I’m sorry things had to end this way but nobody’s above the rules, not even long time posters. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/669 "2008-09-15T13:51:43Z")
Gosh, **Otto** really was more of a douche than I was aware of…TWO sock puppets? If one wasn’t caught, he had a backup? You know, I’ve always been someone who had a soft spot in his heart (head?) for folks who may have messed up their chances by accident or bad judgment. But if you make me look like a fool for sticking up for you by being a complete tool, don’t expect me to think of you the same way again. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/670 "2008-09-15T13:55:27Z")
Sweet! I still don’t like Otto; now his ban is permanent and justifiable as a clear violation of board rules. He’s almost certainly reading this thread, so I’d just like to send out a Nelson Muntz laugh to Otto. ---
**Author:** ![Borborygmi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/borborygmi/32/217_2.png) [@Borborygmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borborygmi)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/671 "2008-09-15T13:55:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Otto actually registered two socks Friday. [We decided to overlook the first one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php); it only seemed fair. I dunno… are you _ **sure** _ that this was a sock account? _:: d&r ::_ ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/672 "2008-09-15T13:56:40Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Gosh, **Otto** really was more of a douche than I was aware of…TWO sock puppets? If one wasn’t caught, he had a backup? > > You know, I’ve always been someone who had a soft spot in his heart (head?) for folks who may have messed up their chances by accident or bad judgment. But if you make me look like a fool for sticking up for you by being a complete tool, don’t expect me to think of you the same way again. Oh, I’m still glad we (as a group) mostly stood up for **Otto** at the start, given the facts **as we knew them** (problematic history and all.) I would do it again, because I think the original banning was not merited by its circumstances. Now? Banned and rightfully so. I think it is important to remember, however, that the two bannings are only connected by context, and that one incident cannot and should not – in advance or retroactively – justify the other. ---
**Author:** ![Eleanor\_of\_Aquitaine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Eleanor\_of\_Aquitaine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/673 "2008-09-15T14:02:36Z")
How disappointing, for him to throw away his membership after so many people spoke up for him. I will miss \*\*Otto \*\*in Cafe Society. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/674 "2008-09-15T14:05:34Z")
> [@Noone\_Special](#): > > Oh, I’m still glad we (as a group) mostly stood up for **Otto** at the start, given the facts **as we knew them** (problematic history and all.) I would do it again, because I think the original banning was not merited by its circumstances. > > Now? Banned and rightfully so. > > I think it is important to remember, however, that the two bannings are only connected by context, and that one incident cannot and should not – in advance or retroactively – justify the other. Agreed on the positives of standing up for him with the facts as we knew them, but think about something. I can’t imagine that **Otto** wasn’t following this thread (his name’s in the title) and seeing all of us getting his back. All of us sticking our reputations as posters out there for him. And then he goes and makes TWO socks. Not only makes two socks, but makes at least one a completely obvious sock. And takes the other one out trolling for a banning. Thanks for being an asshole backstabber to the people who were fighting for your goddamn SDMB life, **Otto**! I honestly don’t think you’d even have gotten the reprieve that you did if we hadn’t been setting up a near-constant clamor for 10 pages of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/675 "2008-09-15T14:12:08Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Agreed on the positives of standing up for him with the facts as we knew them, but think about something. I can’t imagine that **Otto** wasn’t following this thread (his name’s in the title) and seeing all of us getting his back. All of us sticking our reputations as posters out there for him. > > And then he goes and makes TWO socks. Not only makes two socks, but makes at least one a completely obvious sock. And takes the other one out trolling for a banning. > > Thanks for being an asshole backstabber to the people who were fighting for your goddamn SDMB life, **Otto**! I honestly don’t think you’d even have gotten the reprieve that you did if we hadn’t been setting up a near-constant clamor for 10 pages of this thread. Agreed on both counts. And I’m **still** gald we stood up for him, **despite** his later (and earlier!) behavior – because this was about **us** , not about him. it showed that we’ll stand up, as a group, for what we feel is right within our little “e-community,” even if the guy we’re defending **isn’t** Mr. Popularity. And this has made me like this community just a little bit more for the fact. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/676 "2008-09-15T14:13:31Z")
> [@Noone\_Special](#): > > Agreed on both counts. And I’m **still** gald we stood up for him, **despite** his later (and earlier!) behavior – because this was about **us** , not about him. it showed that we’ll stand up, as a group, for what we feel is right within our little “e-community,” even if the guy we’re defending **isn’t** Mr. Popularity. And this has made me like this community just a little bit more for the fact. You are right on this count. I’m still glad we did it. I just wish the subject of our defense had been a little less of an ass. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/677 "2008-09-15T14:24:27Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > He broke a rule because he couldn’t even bear to wait until Monday to resume complaining, and you blame **Ed**? Well, if Ed hadn’t been a douche, **Otto** wouldn’t have broken a (stupid) rule. Continuing to repeat that he made a sock and thus deserves what he got won’t sway me, because I don’t feel that creating a sock, especially a one time sock, justifies being banned. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/678 "2008-09-15T14:31:35Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Well, if Ed hadn’t been a douche, **Otto** wouldn’t have broken a (stupid) rule. Continuing to repeat that he made a sock and thus deserves what he got won’t sway me, because I don’t feel that creating a sock, especially a one time sock, justifies being banned. Well, you have the right to your opinion, but I think you’ll find that most posters here disagree with you (and I certainly do.) \*\*Especially \*\*in this case, where the creation of the socks was **designed** to circumvent the weekend suspension he had received. I agree he should have been reinstated immediately and not after the weekend. That is nither here nor there, though. He should have waited for this morning, or even escalated his greivance – **via email** – to any or all moderators and administrators. But not this. Creating a sock is an automatic banning on the SDMB. Rightly or wrongly (and I think rightly, but again it’s not my opinion that counts), that’s the way it is. He couldn’t wait 24-48 hours rather than break one of the cardinal rules? He’s gone, and as much as it may be a shame, this is right and proper under the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/679 "2008-09-15T14:37:32Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Well, if Ed hadn’t been a douche, **Otto** wouldn’t have broken a (stupid) rule. But this cuts both ways: Otto picked an exceptionally stupid way to react to that rule, and then twice broke another major rule - once before getting in touch with administration to dispute the ban, and then again after it had been cut down to a weekend suspension, by posting instead of by email. It probably goes without saying that I think the sock rule is a good one. I was okay with ignoring the first sock, and I was the one who found and banned that one, but when he did it again our hands were tied. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971/680 "2008-09-15T14:43:43Z")
> [@MannyL](#): > > I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t recall ever getting a warning from a mod but I think Otto should not have been banned just because they suspected him of sockery for one post. It’s possible that his friend could have used Otto’s computer to make that post and it would have the same IP. > > Hell I could be on one computer and have a friend on one of my other computers and it would show both of us on the same IP. So I don’t feel basing the banning on that is fair Do his previous 13 warnings mean nothing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-otto-was-just-banned-by-ed/462971.md?page=35)