Banned Posters

[Innis Cabal]

I am not quite certain why we're not allowed to discuss those who were banned. Is there some clarification on exactly why they're a no go in discussions?

[Zeb The Troll]

To quote the rules...


We have found in the past that such displays are disruptive to the community.

[Rockphed]

My understanding is that it is an attempt to nip in the bud any glorification of them. I think one of the mods said that if people start giving banned posters glory, then things start snowballing, which leads to unpleasantness.

Also, getting banned typically takes either incredible stupidity or persistence. Pretty much everybody who gets banned either directed some nasty insult directly at The Giant, or had a long history of getting into flamewars with other posters. The only person who I can actually remember getting banned during my tenure was of the latter variety, though I have seen, in the depths of the board, someone who engaged in the previous. Okay, I know lots of people got banned during the Great Bad Russian Porn Invasion of Aught Nine, but none of them ever contributed anything to the board. At any rate, because getting banned is rather hard, letting their stupidity and intelligence lie seems advisable.

[Koury]

At Rockphed:

Well, that post comes off as kinda insulting. There are a number of posters I respected who got banned from here, and calling them all "incredably stupid," well... That's just kinda rude.

[Tengu_temp]

As someone who's friends with a few banned posters, I'd appreciate if you didn't negatively comment on their intelligence and personality, thank you very much.

EDIT: Hey, ninja'ed on the same topic.

[Spiryt]

I think that two previous posts kind of answer OP question...

People start to argue, and since thing they're arguing about is other people being rude and trollish in the past, things can get flammy too.

[Koury]

I think that two previous posts kind of answer OP question...

I'm fairly certain the OP asked why we can't talk about banned posters. In what way does "Hey, quit being a jerk" answer that?

[Tengu_temp]

I think that two previous posts kind of answer OP question...

To be fair, saying that a non-banned poster is incredibly stupid isn't very polite either.

[Kensen]

I think that two previous posts kind of answer OP question...

People start to argue, and since thing they're arguing about is other people being rude and trollish in the past, things can get flammy too.

Indeed, the above exchange illustrates why it it is a bad idea to discuss them.

However, sometimes it's not obvious why someone gets banned and not being able to ask "what happened" might make one feel like the board rules are not transparent enough. You know how the rules work in theory if you read them, but since all rules and laws are open to interpretation, it may be impossible to understand how they work in practice if you're not allowed to know what actually got a person banned.

Anyway, I'll go back to my fun now. :smallbiggrin:

[Quincunx]

You can, to some degree, ask "what happened" by looking up the last posts. However, since the new moderators came online, that hasn't yielded any clues. Either there's a change in moderating policy, probably covering moving locked and excessively scrubbed threads to a dustbin forum so that the final offenses can't be seen, or there's been a noticeable upturn in people hitting the Report button for the sorts of posts which were formerly glossed over, since the new moderators were appointed.

[Koury]

Indeed, the above exchange illustrates why it it is a bad idea to discuss them.

Let me reitterate that my posts had little to do with the fact the comments were made about banned posters, and a lot to do with the content of the post I replied to.

So what, exactly, does that illustrate again?

[Serpentine]

I'm fairly certain the OP asked why we can't talk about banned posters. In what way does "Hey, quit being a jerk" answer that?Some people liked a banned poster. Others thought "good riddance!". As soon as one person expresses an opinion, the other will chime in with their disagreement. The situation escalates from there.
The above exchange illustrates this very well because, even without any individual poster being mentioned, it has already begun.

[Koury]

The above exchange illustrates this very well because, even without any individual poster being mentioned, it has already begun.

And the fact that I'd say the same thing to anyone who called anyone else (regardless of banned status or not) "stupid" somehow doesn't matter because?

Please quit attributing what I said to the fact that the posters I was defending were banned. It is irrelavent. I'd say the same thing if someone said something like that about a large number of posters (yourself included. You've helped me numerous times).

[Kensen]

Let me reitterate that my posts had little to do with the fact the comments were made about banned posters, and a lot to do with the content of the post I replied to.

So what, exactly, does that illustrate again?

It illustrates that it is difficult to discuss the subject - whether on a general level (such as this thread) or about specific individuals - without someone getting upset. By the fourth post in this thread there had already been a person characterizing certain people (or their actions) as incredibly stupid, which in turn you perceived as insulting and rude.

I have no idea whether the banned posters did something incredibly stupid or not, and I have no desire to comment on whether saying that was insulting or rude, but I do think it is a bad idea to discuss the subject if the discussion evolves into a budding argument by the fourth post in a thread.

[Spiryt]

Okay, maybe my english's bad, but I can't see anything about non banned posters in Rockphed's post.

He talks about "stupidity and intelligence" of people who got banned.

[Koury]

Okay, maybe my english's bad, but I can't see anything about non banned posters in Rockphed's post.

He talks about "stupidity and intelligence" of people who got banned. And why, exactly, does that excuse rudeness?


It illustrates that it is difficult to discuss the subject - whether on a general level (such as this thread) or about specific individuals - without someone getting upset. By the fourth post in this thread there had already been a person characterizing certain people (or their actions) as incredibly stupid, which in turn you perceived as insulting and rude.

I have no idea whether the banned posters did something incredibly stupid or not, and I have no desire to comment on whether saying that was insulting or rude, but I do think it is a bad idea to discuss the subject if the discussion evolves into a budding argument by the fourth post in a thread. I have no arguements with this at all. Well said.

[Fri]

Okay, maybe my english's bad, but I can't see anything about non banned posters in Rockphed's post.

He talks about "stupidity and intelligence" of people who got banned.

Some of the banned posters aren't stupid at all. There, I spell it for you. But, as koury said, it's not important whether it's about banned people or not.

[Spiryt]

And why, exactly, does that excuse rudeness?




Not all banned people are stupid. There, I spell it for you.

I don't even see where it was rude, or implied that "all banned posters are stupid"

It had been said that "it takes incredible stupidity or persistence" - and that's a fact, without wondering if banned person is stupid in general or not, as it's pointless. As indeed, I did some pretty petty stuff on those boards, and haven't even accumulated 1 infraction point, so getting 300 indeed requires quite a bit of bad will.

And again on the topic, OP again has the answer - with quite innocent thread, people already are starting to be not nice to each other.

[Fri]

I don't even see where it was rude, or implied that "all banned posters are stupid"

It had been said that "it takes incredible stupidity or persistence" - and that's a fact, without wondering if banned person is stupid in general or not, as it's pointless. As indeed, I did some pretty petty stuff on those boards, and haven't even accumulated 1 infraction point, so getting 300 indeed requires quite a bit of bad will.

And again on the topic, OP again has the answer - with quite innocent thread, people already are starting to be not nice to each other.

Actually, it's more whether people would report you or not. Some petty thing got infracted because someone reported it, and some non-petty thing goes uninfracted because no one reported it. Sadly, it's true.

Note that I'm not at all saying that I dislike our system. I like the 'report' system. But there are all kind of people. For example, an aquintance of mine dislike reporting people at all even if he find something that's really against the forum rule. People that's active in the more hot section like the gaming subforum would be reported more for example, compared to people that's active in the less hot system like the say, silly message board game.

[Tengu_temp]

It had been said that "it takes incredible stupidity or persistence" - and that's a fact, without wondering if banned person is stupid in general or not, as it's pointless. As indeed, I did some pretty petty stuff on those boards, and haven't even accumulated 1 infraction point, so getting 300 indeed requires quite a bit of bad will.


My personal experience is quite the opposite.

[Serpentine]

And the fact that I'd say the same thing to anyone who called anyone else (regardless of banned status or not) "stupid" somehow doesn't matter because?Because you said this:
There are a number of posters I respected who got banned from here, and calling them all "incredably stupid," well... That's just kinda rude.

[Koury]

Because you said this:

:sigh: So. What.

You're focusing very much on something that is completely beside the point. You want to bold and underline a part of one of my posts, please bold and underline the part that matters. In this case, it would be the "I respect" part.

I'll say it once more:


Please quit attributing what I said to the fact that the posters I was defending were banned. It is irrelavent. I'd say the same thing if someone said something like that about a large number of posters (yourself included. You've helped me numerous times).

[Serpentine]

The fact is, you did say it with regards to banned members. And the fact that this argument is still going on just further confirms the original point: that discussion of banned members is a Bad Idea, because it leads to arguments like this one.

[Spiryt]

Actually, it's more whether people would report you or not. Some petty thing got infracted because someone reported it, and some non-petty thing goes uninfracted because no one reported it. Sadly, it's true.

Note that I'm not at all saying that I dislike our system. I like the 'report' system. But there are all kind of people. For example, an aquintance of mine dislike reporting people at all even if he find something that's really against the forum rule. People that's active in the more hot section like the gaming subforum would be reported more for example, compared to people that's active in the less hot system like the say, silly message board game.

So I can influence the banning of the people?

To new accoun....

Uhm... I mean, nothing to see here.

Seriously though, I saw a lot of post of the mods here, and while I don't always agree they don't seem like the types to shot infractions just because.

So if comment is infraction worthy, and so bad that a lot of people are bothered by it (thus a lot of reports) then it's quite fair for such person to feel consequences.

If post is just as bad, but unnoticed, and thus not punished, it's pretty crappy indeed, but there are thousands of active posters here, and few mods, who seem to have some life, and therefore it will happen sometimes.

[Tengu_temp]

And the fact that this argument is still going on just further confirms the original point: that discussion of banned members is a Bad Idea, because it leads to arguments like this one.

What is wrong with arguments, as long as everyone stays civil and obeys the forum rules? Disagreeing is an important part of communication.

[Serpentine]

That is a completely new line of discussion. I would point out, though, that a significant part of the forum rules are explicitly to help avoid arguments, and it is very hard to have an argument - not a debate, an argument, which this is - without breaking the rules eventually.

[Spiryt]

What is wrong with arguments, as long as everyone stays civil and obeys the forum rules? Disagreeing is an important part of communication.

Because person that owns this site apparently doesn't like them, and banned them long ago.

Or, more accurately, allowed his representatives to ban those discussions.

This is of course, about talking bannt duds.

[Tengu_temp]

That is a completely new line of discussion. I would point out, though, that a significant part of the forum rules are explicitly to help avoid arguments, and it is very hard to have an argument - not a debate, an argument, which this is - without breaking the rules eventually.

I'd say their purpose is to keep the discussion civil. And that's not the same as having everyone agree on everything. What's the difference between an argument and a debate where the sides disagree with each other? It's the same thing from my perspective.



This is of course, about talking bannt duds.

I'm not talking about banned posters right now, but about arguments/debates/whatever in general. Though it might be too offtopic, I guess. On the other hand, the whole thread went offtopic long ago.

[Koury]

The fact is, you did say it with regards to banned members. And the fact that this argument is still going on just further confirms the original point: that discussion of banned members is a Bad Idea, because it leads to arguments like this one.

Explain to me where anybody being banned or not had anything to do with anything I've posted.

Seriously. Here, I'll help:

1st post: "Hey, thats kinda rude"
2nd post: "No, my post has nothing to do with banned posters."
3rd post: "No, my post has nothing to do with banned posters."
4th post: "No, I called out a guy for being rude. Quit drawing some conclusion about talking about banned posters from that
5th post: "No, I called out a guy for being rude. Quit drawing some conclusion about talking about banned posters from that. Also, good point Kensen"
6th post: "No, my post has nothing to do with banned posters."
7th post (this one): "No, seriously, I called out a guy for being rude. Quit drawing some conclusion about talking about banned posters from that."

[Serpentine]

No, your first post was "hey, I know some of those banned posters you're talking about, that's pretty rude."

Can we just get this thread locked already :smallsigh:

[Anonomuss]

This thread is probably a key example as to why such threads aren't allowed. As without mentioning anyone specific there are a number of arguments already. It's done, so let's not dwell on it.
Also...

^Seconded

[Tengu_temp]

The way I see it, the forum rules frown on bashing people in general, no matter if they're posters, former posters, banned posters, future posters, or people unaffiliated with GitP at all.

[Spiryt]

Can we just get this thread locked already :smallsigh:

Not before someone gets banned in it.

Mods need some dark humor as well.

[Cubey]

I do not see why anyone would get banned for this. Did anyone break a forum rule in this thread yet? I honestly don't think so.

And honestly, dark humor or not, that's not funny. Being banned from the forum is serious business and not pleasant at all.

[Spiryt]

I do not see why anyone would get banned for this. Did anyone break a forum rule in this thread yet? I honestly don't think so.

That's exactly why it's not to be locked yet.

They will wait.... Just wait.... :smallamused:



And honestly, dark humor or not, that's not funny. Being banned from the forum is serious business and not pleasant at all.

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/9994/original/633548450121624483-internetseriousbusiness.jpg?1250727037

:smallwink:

[Fawkes]

The way I see it, the forum rules frown on bashing people in general, no matter if they're posters, former posters, banned posters, future posters, or people unaffiliated with GitP at all.

Yes, but once a person has been banned, it's not uncommon for people to think that person is no longer protected by the rules.

[Cubey]

Yes, but once a person has been banned, it's not uncommon for people to think that person is no longer protected by the rules.

And that's a very bad POV. Demonizing people just because they got banned is a wrong thing.

And maybe this is why we cannot discuss them. Because it may quickly turn into bashing them, even though they are not bad people.

[Tengu_temp]

Yes, but once a person has been banned, it's not uncommon for people to think that person is no longer protected by the rules.

How right are they in this thinking, though? The rules don't say "once someone is banned, they're free game for bashing". Quite the opposite, actually.

[druid91]

No, your first post was "hey, I know some of those banned posters you're talking about, that's pretty rude."

Can we just get this thread locked already :smallsigh:

Which is no different, the addition of an adjective does not change the gist of his post.

[Cubey]

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/9994/original/633548450121624483-internetseriousbusiness.jpg?1250727037

Yes, SRS BSNS.
But on a less comical note, bans create disorganisation if a banned person was involved in a play-by-post, Let's Play or any other group activity. I experienced such situations in the past and they were not nice. Details are against forum rules so I won't provide them. But I obviously do not wish a ban on anyone.

[Koury]

No, your first post was "hey, I know some of those banned posters you're talking about, that's pretty rude."

Can we just get this thread locked already :smallsigh:

Really? I'm pretty sure my first post was "Hey, that thing you just said was rude to people I respect."

Also, way to miss the point of everything else I've said. Nothing, at all, that I've said in this thread is affected one way or the other by whether or not anyone is banned.

[SMEE]

The Rainbow Mod:
The forum rules specify why we don't allow the discussion of banned posters here.
The relevant part of the rules follow below:




Protesting Bannings/Glorifying or Discussing Banned Posters: We value our posters, and take care only to ban posters who commit egregious or repeated violations of our Rules. Once that action is taken, though, it is an Inappropriate topic to discuss, glorify, or memorialize banned posters or their rules violations. We have found in the past that such displays are disruptive to the community. If you have a concern regarding a banned poster, we ask that you send a PM to Roland St. Jude, the Forum Guru.


Thread locked.

[Rawhide]

Thank you SMEE.


There are a number of reasons why the discussion of banned posters is prohibited and most of these have already been addressed.

For one, as is mentioned in the forum rules, we have found such discussions to be disruptive. The poster has been excluded from the forums for a reason, we do not want to see the same reasons that caused that poster to be excluded becoming an issue again nor do we want to see arguments about why the person should have been banned or should not have been banned and we definitely do not want people insulting other posters, even those that have been banned.

Discussing the reasons for a ban is not going to get you anywhere, we do not discuss the infractions or reasons for infractions with anyone but the poster themself. Quincunx's method of searching is entirely futile, at best you might discover the very last post that has been scrubbed, but you will not find the reason for the ban. The infraction system is designed to give the poster plenty of time to learn how to behave within our community and provide opportunity to improve and change. We take great effort to explain exactly what a poster is doing wrong and how they can avoid infractions in the future. There is plenty of warning provided to the poster, including, in most instances, a personal caution from an administrator or moderator. Only in egregious cases will firm action be taken swiftly, the banning reason is almost always "accumulation of infractions".

We don't take banning lightly and we don't want to see any member banned. We would much rather if people learned to post within the rules and we try to train them to do so. Banning is the final option when this is not possible, by this time, we do not want the person or their issues to return.

---

To address another issue that has come up in this thread, I cannot see anywhere where Rockphed has said or implied that "all banned posters are stupid".

First, allow me to state that doing something stupid or having a moment of stupidity does not make you stupid. Highly intelligent people can still do something stupid. Do you consider yourself smart? Have you done anything stupid?

I believe there was a quote about this... *looks up Pyrian's sig*


'Intelligence' is really prolific in the world. So is stupidity. So often they occur in the same people.

Now to address some specific elements.


getting banned typically takes either incredible stupidity or persistence
(emphasis mine)

This states that he feels that the poster, regardless of their level of intelligence, either did something incredibly stupid or was very persistent in breaking the rules despite our warnings and explanations. I would assume here that the moment of "incredible stupidity" implies something that would warrant an instant ban rather than continued infractions, but even continued stupid actions does not make the person stupid overall.


letting their stupidity and intelligence lie seems advisable
(emphasis mine)

Rockphed states here that he feels it is best not to discuss any action that might be considered stupid. He also states that he feels it is best not to discuss the banned poster's level of intelligence, not in a good way or a negative way. I see no insult here levied at banned posters, but rather the opposite, a statement that there's no point in discussing how intelligent a banned poster was and that it would be rude to discuss how unintelligent they were.