[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[MikeH]

I think celebrating someone getting banned is inappropriate.

Ok some feedback:

1. Since I've been moderator I have had huge numbers of complaints about Ben. I don't respond to all of them but I probably get at least 3 a week about him. I'm not sure how many Jon has had. This ban is for persistent rule breaking.

2. I feel like I've made it clear on numerous occasions that his behaviour in many, many threads is not acceptable. So has Jon. This is not a ban based on one incident, but on persistent bad behaviour (see Jon's post) Although that said, this incident would have been enough on its own, we're just really lenient normally.

3. I'm not going to get into a PM conversation about bannings. And I'm not going to PM someone before they get banned.

4. nye is right. I really don't want to ban people. I did say I'd only consider permabans, but 6 months or a year are probably other usable options. This was the shortest punishment of the options we considered. My only other ban was when I banned loinburger for 6 months for posting dickgirls.

Also, FYI Docfeelgood is also treading a very fine line with his behaviour, if I have do delete another racist video thread from him I'll ban him at the same time.

[Dinner]

I'm going to attack JM until I drive him from the site.

Maybe just attack him until he resigns his mod powers in disgust. That doesn't seem to be against the rules.

[DaShi]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[SlowwHand]

Which is another point. The intent was conveyed many times in blatant terms. If it was me, I'd turn around and piss on you, too. I'd argue just for the sake of arguing.
Sounds a little familiar, doesn't it?
A banning may or may not be warranted. A 6 month banning is stupid. It's a stupid decision, because now people can bait all that they want.

[Elok]

How does one prove intent to drive a specific poster from the site (in the absence of confessions like HC's) ? If it were just unrelenting hostility, some of us would have been banned ten times over by now.

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm going to attack JM until I drive him from the site.

[Jon Miller]

And you deserve to be banned for that.

JM

The only time I've attacked someone with the aim of driving them away was with Ben. Or spammers ;P

(just to spell it out, you are warned)

[Hauldren Collider]

Also it's hilarious that Ben is sending you PMs.

[Hauldren Collider]

attacks that are deemed to be aimed at driving other users from the site... will not be tolerated

The only time I've attacked someone with the aim of driving them away was with Ben. Or spammers ;P

[Jon Miller]

We tolerate lots of things we shouldn't according to the rules.

I am not interested in playing rules lawyer.

If a poster repeatedly goes over the line and causes trouble then they will at some point be banned.

If you don't want to be banned, don't act against the rules.

JM

[notyoueither]

attacks that are deemed to be aimed at driving other users from the site... will not be tolerated

[Jon Miller]

Since I am getting PMs from Ben.

Remember the rules:
"The Off Topic Forum will be moderated more lightly than other forums.
Topics that might be considered 'spam' or 'trolling' in on topic forums will more often be tolerated in the Off Topic.
Posters who want to have serious debates can insert the label "[serious]" into their thread titles. We'd ask users to respect their wishes and remain on topic in those threads. If you wish to have a lighthearted thread on the same subject, start a new thread.
Jokes / mild name-calling / banter etc. are allowed as along as their attitude is jovial or humorous. Malicious personal attacks, attacks that are deemed to be aimed at driving other users from the site and personal threats will not be tolerated.
There may be some quirky traditions in the Off Topic that appear to break some of the main site rules, such as the Finnish thread. These are allowed."

Many of you have at some point broken one (probably I have too), and some are prone to breaking them. Neither I nor Mike nor anyone who moderates the OT are inclined to strictly enforce the rules and even HC is old enough to be reasonable and responsible and behave (generally).

If someone, in this case Ben, repeatedly breaks the rules and behaves inappropriately, then that person will be banned. This means 6 months or more.

If you don't want to be banned, behave appropriately.

Jon

[Thoth]

He still registers as "logged in," he just can't post.

Good ****ing riddance.

Loin, I'm sorry it took actual threats of violence against you to rid this forum of it's worst asinine moron, but I'm glad that it has finally happened.

[Al B. Sure!]

as long as they don't fire Pete Carroll i am just riding this season out.

and we beat the Giants.

[loinburger]

Stick to your standards, that's all. There is a lot of questionable **** going on here every day, but when it's Ben, everything is suddenly much worse and must be stopped with a half year ban. I haven't read the thread in question, but to me this seems like just another case of treating him worse than others because he isn't a part of the gang.

Who else has physically threatened another poster? Rather, who has physically threatened another poster, been reported to the mods, and not been punished?

Since you can't be arsed to read the thread in question before blindly defending BK: He physically threatened another poster (me, and other posters as well), continued to do so over the course of a month, and was banned as a result. Are you still going to say that he shouldn't have been banned? If so, then if threatening another poster isn't worthy of a ban, then what is worthy of a ban?

And for ****'s sake, read the thread before you opine on it. If BK were going to be banned for "not being part of the gang" then he would have been banned years ago. Maybe he was banned for a good reason! Not that you would know this if you can't even read the thread before jumping to his defense.