You owe me a quarter. 
So to recap, the problem is not that scrambledeggs started 100-some threads in 30-some days; the problem is that he is not posting enough. even when he presumably has nothing to say.
as a result, scrambledeggs’ thread was closed not to punish the people who were contributing and enjoying it, but to punish scrambledeggs, for not visibly enjoying it, or at least not acknowledging that he enjoyed it.
And lastly, it’s been pointed out that this is not an arbitrary codification of something as subjective as netiquette, but in fact the enforcement of the well-defined Jerk Rule. The reason that no one can remember anyone getting bounced for this specific infraction before is that scrambledeggs is the first person to be a jerk in this precise manner in the ten years of the SDMB.
Yeah, yeah, ignored warnings, some of them polite, I know, “Respect my authoritay!”, right.
It’s no skin off my nose, but I can’t help feeling that this is one of the most bizarre bannings-in-progress I’ve witnessed. Of all the goofballs the board has tolerated over the years, this one seems harmless.
Only when you use your Mod position to be a condescending fuckwit about it.
You’ve continued to ignore that fact that other posters were enjoying dialog in some threads, absent the input of eggman. Whether he comes back or doesn’t isn’t relevant.
As usual, the Mods aren’t clued in to the fact that you’re the CSRs of this business. Before you charged admission, you could do whatever the fuck you wanted, but now, we, the paying members, are owed a level and dependable standard. I’m not the only person complaining, so you can address the issue or continue to stick your head in the sand, or wherever else you’d like to stick it.
The threads themselves were mostly “nothing to say.” Personally I think he was asking idiotic questions in the hope people would waste their time answering them. But maybe I’m wrong.
Far as I know, yes. Anybody else know of someone who actually tried to do something like this? I don’t.
It’s an unusual situation.
It’s clear the mods get hard-on for somebody, then get hair-trigger on whatever subject got their panties twisted up.
Example: Anyone have experience buying from irotors? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
Czarcasm closes it for non-participation a mere hour after it was opened. Fucking ridiculous.
I’m pretty sure we users can decide for ourselves whether we want to waste time answering something or not.
I’m just bummed to find out the Expos are leaving Montreal.
I’m sorry my explanation dampened your outrage.
And we let most of those threads go. Only a handful of his threads were locked, and most of those were nipped in the bud because we were trying to get him to make the effort to put them in the right forum. The “obese women” thread, the one about liberal arts degrees, the one about rape… the ones that got interest stayed open. Most of them didn’t last very long because they were stupid, but that was about the choice of topic, not the moderation. I think we locked seven of his threads. 7/100… you can do the math, I bet.
Ah yes, the invented outrage of the customer is always right.
You’ve got one, your desire to find something to complain about notwithstanding.
Yeah, that thread was sure to be the one scrambledeggs decided to actually participate in. I mean, he was due. 
Not to the extent of eggs but I believe there were a few whose “Let’s You and Him Fight” threads contributed to their banning.
So it’s OK to close threads because the user will probably break an unwritten rule some time later. Wonderful.
I closed it because he was asked repeatedly(via email, IM, and in the threads themselves, without response) to participate at least superficially in the threads he created, then asked by me the night before for a clarification on a thread he started the day before, and his response was to get online just long enough to start thread #100 then sign right back off. As far as I’m concerned, if he wants to start some sort of record for posting the most number of questions in the least amount of time with the least amount of personal participation, he can do it elsewhere.
Which has nothing to do with that thread, where no rule, unwritten or otherwise, was broken. Unless you people made yet another rule that applies to one person only, that scrambledeggs has less than an hour to follow up in a thread (even though there were no other posts to respond to) or it gets closed.
Here’s another hint: if you wanted him to participate more in his threads, closing them minutes after they are opened makes that less likely, not more likely.
That just happened to be the thread where we acted because we’d gotten tired of asking him if he’d pretty please like to think about learning the rules. He’d received an email from another mod earlier in the day, plus Czarcasm’s messages.
I could see all this bitching about “unwritten rules” if we hadn’t told scrambledeggs exactly what he was expected to do, repeatedly, for weeks. Do you think he didn’t know, or something? And he also had weeks to ask about what we were trying to get him to do if he didn’t understand it somehow. This wasn’t exactly an ambush.
Again, you’ve missed the point. He was asked over and over to participate in his other threads and didn’t. That one was locked because it was his response to our request that he visit his other threads before starting any new ones.
So it was closed because he was suspended at that time? That’s more understandable. If that’s the case, it should have been described in the closing message instead of the snark that’s there.
It was closed because that’s when we started discussing the suspension. He was asked to come back to the older threads before opening another one, and when he signed on, started yet another new thread and signed off without answering questions in the other threads, it was decided that we had to talk about doing something more drastic.
Then you should have put that explicitly in the closing message.
I thought that was clear enough. But I hope it’s been explain enough now.
So, have there been a lot of reported posts and emails from other members complaining about these unattended threads, or is this coming from the Pitting a few weeks ago or are you mods just bored? Because, speaking for myself, I don’t care if someone doesn’t feel like participating in their threads. I simply don’t feel the need to participate in theirs. No modding necessary.
(I’m becoming more and more sure that modding should be restricted to moving threads to the right forum, dealing with personal attacks, and banning socks. I’m getting tired of this “The thread was too stupid to live” crap. I’ll decide that for myself thank you very much.)
Sorry, I meant the message in the thread that was being closed, not a message in this thread.
Yes, it’s clear now, thanks. I agree the closing was justified, but the message in the thread itself should have described the reason better. It looked like a pretty ridiculous closing to me until you guys explained it here.