Astroboy stops with only one leg in the clown pants, and drops the Bowie knife… he likes toast, but not THAT much!
Zenster, I’ll miss your posts, man! Take care, and if you DO have the option to come back after a cooling-off period (I wasn’t aware that this was an option, other than in specific cases where the Mods say so…), please do.
I don’t know Zenster all that well. However, he seems to be well liked so if he is reinstated, I will be sure to keep an eye out for his pearls of wisdom.
[slight hijack]
IIRC, not long ago there was somebody who was banned and reinstated, and their user info still said BANNED even after they were allowed to continue posting. I wonder if this is always the case.
[/slight hijack]
And folks aren’t allowed to post a dissenting opinion about a particular banning whilst not wishing to revoke their membership of this (generally well-moderated) board? :rolleyes:
Yea, I about had a heart attack one day when I checked my email and saw I had something from one of the Admins. Dex, I think it was. I spent about five minutes doing the “Ohshitohshitwhadididowhadidido?” mental inventory. And it was something completely benign, like I’d reported a particularly lockable thread in record time or something. But I nearly died.
No opinion on the Zenster matter. I enjoyed some of his threads, but I can see why they banned him. I guess that is an opinion. Whatever.
Zoe, that was the point I was trying to make back on the previous page…that the longer a poster is here, the more likely they are to stuff up occasionally. I don’t think it necessarily indicates a willful disregard of the rules, more that they are just more likely (by the sheer weight of post numbers) to post some things that are controversial and that attract the mods’ eyes.
Again, I feel (at least from the instance cited) that Zenster has been given a raw deal, and I hope that the mods at least reconsider their judgement before disallowing him back on the boards (if in fact he even wants to come back).
Let me just say this as someone who agreed with this banning.
There really should be something(like a forum) to say why people were banned. The whole discussion of bannings by email isn’t good. You should be showing very clearly what gets you banned and what doesn’t get you banned. I don’t even think that the discussion of the banning is particularly necessary, but the announcement of what got that person banned is.
I’ll second that. I usually read “why was soandso banned” threads for precisely that reason, so as to not repeat other people’s mistakes. One can learn a lot from such real life examples.
Sorry about that. I HAVE been known to initiate email correspondence with people without snarling at them. Really. Heck, just this week I asked Jin Wicked about her doing some artwork for me.
Maybe your email subjects should be “SDMB-This is not a banning or a warning or anything, no, really, it’s a completely innocent email! Probably about pie, or something! Go ahead and open it!”
AAAAAAAAAGHHMMMmmmmm, pie.
I’ll miss Zenster, too. He was one of the more intelligent people on this board, and has contributed to it in many positive ways.
He had been disregarding administrative admonitions of late (“Junior Mod Hat” and whatnot), and he had been notified that his posting priveleges were under discussion. He’s been around long enough to know he was on thin ice.
It’s a sad day, to be sure; but I saw it coming.
Now I’ll never know what happened with the tin ceiling.
Come back if you can, Zen. The place won’t be the same without you.
I never really crossed paths with Zenster but his infractions seem pretty mild which is not to say that accumulated over time may not have amounted to a reason to ban him. I agree with the posters that think he was being hyperbolic and no real threat was intended but I guess it could be a last drop in a series of minor infractions.
I get the impression though that you can get banned after the same number of warnings whether the warnings be for very minor things or for major transgressions and that dos not seem fair. It is not the same thing to post such a contrived hypothetical which cannot be reasonably construed as an actual threat and which Zenster never really got a chance to even explain or apologize for than the post something really hateful and full of bile even if no threat was implied. I think this is a case which deserves some consideration and I hope he can be reinstated after he satifies the mods with whatever explanations and demonstrations of contrition are appropriate.
Maybe a point system would be useful. You get banned when you reach, say, 10 points. A warning can carry from zero to 9 points and when you accumulate 10 points you get banned. That would serve to very clearly put people on notice as to where they stand. Points could be reduced for good behavior after a certain time if the poster requests it and at the mods’discretion. Such a system would make people’s standing much more clear. It would serve as a guideline to the mods to assess the gravity of infractions by comparing with past infractions and penalties.
I miss Coll more than I’ll miss Zenster, but the fact is they were both being assholes in the wrong places. Hell, they even let Coll back in and he blew it again. Saying “oh I’m sorry” wears thin when you keep doing the same damn thing over and over.
I’ve never been attracted to a board for its mods. The attraction is for the members.
Yeah, I was just about to say something about the girl from Roswell getting suspended for thoughts. I am a regular contributor to a forum that is 10x the size of the Straight Dope. A pretentious conditional threat like Zenster made would not even get you a warning. In fact, it would be so totally overlooked, that I seriously doubt anyone would even comment on it except to laugh.
This board is seriously weird to me; it does appeal to my sense of intelligent debate and discussion but the rules are weird as hell. I have never been a part of a board with so many zero-tolerance policies and rules. Hell, I post on boards where profanity is forbidden, and telling someone to go kill theirself is perfectly fine. It almost seems as if this board tries to create an ad-hominem free paradise, but then personal attacks are ok as long as they don’t cross a “line.” Personally, it has confused the hell out of me and I am not sure if this place is that fun to post at. I might be talking out of my ass being new and all, but I wanted to give an relatively unbiased viewpoint for some to see.
You might be thinking of me. Lynn put “BANNED” under my name (I still have the screenshots…) but I was in no way “BANNED”. Long story short, it was to throw off a person who was “stalking” me (a non-SDMB Member). So I still had all my posting privledges, but just didn’t post, since that would sort of defeat the purpose. It turned out that caused a bit more trouble than we expected, since about 1,000 e-mails got sent in wondering what happened… :o
Sailor, my man, look at what goes on every time someone with more than 300 posts is banned. Can you imagine how the barracks-room lawyers would pick that apart?
"OK TubaDiva…on warning number 3, you gave her 6 demerits for threatening to “set sailor’s car on fire”, but sailor doesn’t even have a car, he has a boat, and thus it should only have been worth a 4. And here on warning number 7…girl, I don’t know what precedent you used, but giving 8 demerits for saying pepperlandgirl is “history’s greatest monster” is uncalled for, as she may very well BE that, so I challenge that ruling. And on the subject of giving 7 demerits for calling someone a “fucking liberal loser”, may I refer you to the case of AssClown versus Coldfire, where Coldfire stated in the preliminary arguments that:
(Warning! Not a real quote! He didn’t say this!)
I don’t want to see that sort of thing on this message board.
I will greatly miss Zenster’s contributions to the Boards. Hope he gets back in soon! As most others have already stated, it seems that the rules need more clearly defined. Sailor’s suggestion for an actual system of banning seems to make a lot of sense. Maybe the Mods will take this under consideration.
Don’t you feel that that is a bit of a hyperbolic statement here?
How many people were NOT banned for their rants, flames, slams, slurs, nitpicks, fights, and other madness in the Pit yesterday? Scanning the Pit over the last 24 hours I can see quite a bit of ranting, flaming, fighting, etc. in there in which no one was banned. In fact, about 90% or more of the threads couldn’t even exist on my message board without being closed at the point they are in.
How many times do bannings happen of Members who have lasted more than 6 months and 1000 posts?
Zenster has a lot of positive going for him. I’m sure the Staff will either set conditions on his return and allow him to do so, or else they will determine that in their opinion they don’t feel it best for him to return. However, I believe someone said recently (Gaudere?) that they were now very highly reluctant to let banned people back under any circumstances, as there has been a negative past history of banned people being re-banned.
It seems too that I’ve seen the same people appear in several recent bannings say how wrong, unjust, and terrible a banning was; and imply, hint, or outright say that they don’t want to be on this Board. But those people are still here, posting merrily away, so I don’t expect any mass defections over anyone’s banning at all.