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.
These “wake” threads are fascinating; it says a lot about the meaning of our participation here.
I absolutely adore Zenster for exactly the reasons that got him banned. His strong personality, his righteousness - they’re well tempered with a fine sense of humor and delicious flair for the English language. And a genuinely moral heart.
I saw his junior modding heating up & just knew he was one phrase away from being given the boot. Yet it was clear that something strong was driving him and there was no changing course. I hope he comes back, but I also hope he doesn’t change a whit.
Personally, I think the extremism should be tolerated. Okay, not overt threats (and his was pretty vague, just a straw in a sense), and certainly not any type of hacking; but the quirks and neuroses and slightly unacceptable behavior, those should be given a home here, where other people will take umbrage at them. Being an ass from time to time - well, it’s a part of life. Meltdowns happen - particularly to intelligent people. But to kick someone out for being flawed & maybe a little obnoxious? No. Otherwise it’s all a Seinfeld episode, where people just walk away once they spot a flaw. Or a fucking McNeil-Lehrer debate, and where’s the fun in that?
It seems to me that there are two problems: People want to know the reason, and people want to discuss it.
There’s a reason they’d prefer we not discuss it; too many people get bent out of shape on both sides of the issue, and in the end nothing is accomplished. No one feels better, and a lot of folks may feel worse.
But there’s still that nagging feeling, the itch that wonders what exactly instigated the banning. What did the person do? How can we ourselves avoid doing it? These are fair questions.
To scratch this itch for us, but without encouraging discussion, a moderator could create a thread in, say, ATMB that’s just an announcement: “So and so has been banned, because he posted copyrighted articles even after being asked not to several times.” Then the thread is locked. (I know vB has an Announcement feature; maybe that would be it.)
This would satisfy those members who’d like to know what went down and those moderators who don’t want people going off willy nilly in their discussions.
Um…“why the fuck are you asking?” and “just a fucking message board” / “stop it with the potty mouth”? O irony, thy name is Blonde
And I’ll tell ya babe, the mods seemed to bend over backwards to not ban Zen. How many newbies woulda gotten…what? 6 warnings and possibly e-mails warning that they were on thin ice before being banned? like Zen got? Just because you think he’s the bee’s knees doesn’t mean that he was right here.
The rule: “Thou shall NOT threaten a fellow poster” isn’t murky and fuzzy and hard to understand. It’s not tricky and it’s not brand new. It’s been around for at least two years that I know of. The “don’t throw out political shots in GQ” has been around for about a year. The “The Pit, not MPSIMS, is for attacking people” has been around as long as the Pit has. The “Junior Mod” thing, the first time, was new, but doing after he was told to stop falls under the “Don’t be a jerk” rule, which has been around since the beginning. I don’t know why he chose to commit suicide by mod, I’m sorry he chose to commit suicide by mod since I like the guy and I hope that if he wants one he can have a second chance, but don’t try to pin the results of Zen’s blatent misbehavior on the mods.
Fenris
Lord, I hope not.
The second you start drawing razor-thin lines that say “This is OK, that is not.” you’ll get assholes who decide to stand riiiiiiiiiight up to the edge of the line without actually stepping over it. Collunsbury was a master of this. Look how long it took to get rid him, because Coll could stand behind GD’s rules and say “I’m not actually breaking the letter of the rules”.
Long live fuzzy grey areas.
Dan, I like this idea, but I don’t think it’d work. For something unambiguous like “copyright violations”, sure. But when you get to the fuzzier stuff, it’ll just set off threads saying “The mods said they banned so-and-so for being a jerk! That wasn’t jerkish behavior! All mods are Nazis on a banning rampage! I fear I shall be next.”
I mean, look at this thread: Zen got how many very public, very stern warnings and you still have people whining that it was “unfair”. Posting “Zenster was banned for multiple violations of the rules and then threatening another poster after being told he was on thin ice” would not discourage them from posting.
On the other hand, if your suggestion was accompanied by a rule that starting a thread about a banning would result in an insta-ban…
To this I’d like to add:
- If someone’s misconstrued your meaning, or gasp you’ve misconstrued theirs, just say so and apologize for any harsh words you said as a result of the misunderstanding. Nobody worth listening to is going to think your cyberdick is any smaller.
I agree with whoever said that when Zenster was good, he was great, but when he was an asshole, he was an incredible asshole (particularly when it involved suggestion 6). And lately, I’ve been seeing a lot more of his asshole posts than his good ones.
Just to clarify:
This is so far wrong that it’s laughable. Long-time members are given warning, after warning, after warning, after warning. The difficulties with Zenster have gone on for months, with somewhere around seven or eight direct warnings, public and private. Just because you don’t see the warnings (some are private) and just because you don’t tally them, don’t think that it’s “incredibly short.” That last drop that breaks the camel’s back may not seem so drastic in and of itself, but the Moderators see it as the final straw that overflows the cup.
And, GMRyujin, I’m sorry if I caused you any distress. (If those were pangs of guilt, of course, then they were probably well deserved.) I do try to reply to “Report this post” and similar, and I’m not only a Nazi-commando, I have other jobs too.
PS - In response to someone who asked why we don’t close this thread, we think it’s good to let people vent.
Well, that’s just it. We’re not supposed to begin these threads, even if they’re done so with the best of intentions (sorry, AskNott). So all it would take is an enforcement of that rule; or, more accurately, making that an actual, specific rule, rather than an implied one that never seems to be dealt with harshly. If they really didn’t want us beginning these threads, then a moderator would swoop in and close it before it got too big. I know that’s more work for them, but this situation doesn’t occur very often, anyway.
Hey, that might actually be quite a nifty rule. 
[sub]Upon preview: I’m always amazed by people calling us Nazis, especially when they’re referring to David B or Dex. I can only wonder what their reactions to such ridiculous characterisations might be.[/sub]
I have refrained from comment thus far because my interaction with Zenster has been very limited. In the few threads where we exchanged ideas or opinions or where Zenster provided well beyond the bare minimum in responding to a question or idea I had posted, his posts were ideal. His willingness to share what he knew (or suspected) was well beyond the typical terse reply.
I missed all those threads/posts where his behavior got into the “jerk” category. I never saw a warning issued to him, nor mention that such warning had been issued. I do recall more than a few occasions where entire posts (even threads) of his were “eaten by the hamsters” and thought it odd that he seemed unique in that category.
I was surprised by his being banned, but based on the discussion here I can understand it. It just seems peculiar that there are at least a dozen current posters whose “jerkness” outdoes Zenster’s by a wide margin. Perhaps they are being warned. Perhaps they are on the verge of being banned as well. One can only hope that justice is being done.
If/when Zenster is allowed to return, I can only hope his reaction to the ideas in this thread (and elsewhere) will be valuable to him.
:: blink ::
Ok. Now you’ve confused me. I thought these “Why was so-and-so banned” threads were a no-no (I’m glad that Dan posted that he did too, or I’d worry about my memory! 
) but you just said they’re a good idea 'cause they let people vent??!
Um…
Is this a policy change? I assume it’s not just ok for “Why was popular/long time poster banned.” threads.
Absolute. Fucking. Bollocks. On. A. Cunting. Stick.
Fenris! Where the hell have you been?
My chin thanks you.
I think the policy is not discussing the banning of trolls and socks because they like the attention and it just encourages then. OTOH, the discussion of the banning of long term posters has always been permitted. Remember collounsbury and december?
Thank you Mr Mudd for your comment…
I said “Bellows full of bumblebees up your butt” Apology for not giving credit to author. I shall try to, in the future…
To Blonde…You rock!
This was a very good!..
Hm.
I thought that while sometimes the mods/admins allow these discussions to continue, the official rule was “If you want to know why someone was banned, e-mail a mod/admin.”
In Europe.
My SDMB time has been largely curtailed since I can’t access it during lunch breaks, etc at work. How ya been?
Well, thank you! I’ve thought of you often, including just this morning. Hearing from you was wonderful!