Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[LaFlorecita]

Oh no... why can't people just wait 3 days

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

Oh no... why can't people just wait 3 days

1 by 1, your army decreases..... pretty funny considering we are in Normandy

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Oh no... why can't people just wait 3 days

1 by 1, your army decreases..... pretty funny considering we are in Normandy

Not sure why you think I have an army

 

[snccdcno]

The soldiers are spawning

 

[lenric]

Re:

The soldiers are spawning

It's the attack of the clones!! But they could be smarter (using a new nick). Or funnier, with their "wife"/"girlfriend" creating a topic.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

The soldiers are spawning

It's the attack of the clones!! But they could be smarter (using a new nick). Or funnier, with their "wife"/"girlfriend" creating a topic.

I like the "Wife" clone, that's the best!

 

[DFA123]

Re:

The soldiers are spawning

I guess we'll find out in the next few weeks how well he studied Roman numerals at school

 

[roundabout]

One would think that anyone going on and on and on and on about Contador winning 3 Tours and 9 GTs should also be considered baiting, but alas...

 

[peloton]

@roundabout Report the posts you think are baiting and we'll look into them.

 

[cellardoor]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

It seems like you regret having to ban him which implies that he hasn't genuinely derailed the forum or harassed another member in a serious way. So why can't the power of discretion being applied?

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

It seems like you regret having to ban him which implies that he hasn't genuinely derailed the forum or harassed another member in a serious way. So why can't the power of discretion being applied?

I don't see regret in that post, rather disappointment.

To answer your question: pretty sure they lost that 'right' the moment they created a sockpuppet.

 

[cellardoor]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

It seems like you regret having to ban him which implies that he hasn't genuinely derailed the forum or harassed another member in a serious way. So why can't the power of discretion being applied?

I don't see regret in that post, rather disappointment.

To answer your question: pretty sure they lost that 'right' the moment they created a sockpuppet.

I didn't say he had a right. My point is that creating a sockpuppet doesn't seem like a heinous crime in and of itself, for example, if the original infraction is minor and if the sockpuppet is used to post in a way that would otherwise abide by the rules. I sensed an attitude of "it's a shame, but rules are rules" whereas I would prefer to see discretion applied rather than indiscriminate application of the rules. On the other hand, if the sockpuppet was used to create mayhem then fair enough.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What is up with people and creating sockpuppets? I mean really, they all know it ends in a perma ban. I don't get it.

I don't either.

I was pretty disappointed when I saw that BlurryVII couldn't wait another day.

The AC thread will suffer because of his impatience.

It seems like you regret having to ban him which implies that he hasn't genuinely derailed the forum or harassed another member in a serious way. So why can't the power of discretion being applied?

I don't see regret in that post, rather disappointment.

To answer your question: pretty sure they lost that 'right' the moment they created a sockpuppet.

I didn't say he had a right. My point is that creating a sockpuppet doesn't seem like a heinous crime in and of itself, for example, if the original infraction is minor and if the sockpuppet is used to post in a way that would otherwise abide by the rules. I sensed an attitude of "it's a shame, but rules are rules" whereas I would prefer to see discretion applied rather than indiscriminate application of the rules. On the other hand, if the sockpuppet was used to create mayhem then fair enough.

good post.
Also note that not everybody who joins a forum automatically knows what a 'sockpuppet' is. Most normal human beings who join a forum for the first time have no idea that it is against the rules to create more than one account.
I honestly had no idea when i joined this forum (which is also the first and only forum i ever joined).
i did know that certain posters had changed their names (e.g. thoughtforfood -> chewbaccad; innerring --> dearwiggo), and i was under the impression that that was a normal thing.

 

[RedheadDane]

Well, you could argue that creating a new account solely for the purpose of circumventing a ban hints at an attitude of the rules are beneath me, especially when said ban was a three-day ban. Blurry could've been back now if not for the whole sockpuppet business...

Also, I'd consider it quite logical that of course you're not allowed to have more than one account, why would you even need multiple acconts? Hopefully you're opinions and posts would be the same no matter what account you'd be posting from. There's a difference between creating a new account, and changing the username of an already existing account.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

I didn't say he had a right. My point is that creating a sockpuppet doesn't seem like a heinous crime in and of itself, for example, if the original infraction is minor and if the sockpuppet is used to post in a way that would otherwise abide by the rules. I sensed an attitude of "it's a shame, but rules are rules" whereas I would prefer to see discretion applied rather than indiscriminate application of the rules. On the other hand, if the sockpuppet was used to create mayhem then fair enough.

I disagree. If banned users need only switch to a sockpuppet in order to continue posting, then the prospect of a ban is no longer a deterrent for rule-breakers.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Well, you could argue that creating a new account solely for the purpose of circumventing a ban hints at an attitude of the rules are beneath me, especially when said ban was a three-day ban. Blurry could've been back now if not for the whole sockpuppet business...

Also, I'd consider it quite logical that of course you're not allowed to have more than one account, why would you even need multiple acconts? Hopefully you're opinions and posts would be the same no matter what account you'd be posting from. There's a difference between creating a new account, and changing the username of an already existing account.

Fair points of course.
Still, maybe here you are tacitly assuming that every poster is as acquainted with 'forum culture' and rules as you and I are. Believe me, not everybody is.
I dont know about Blurry, but when I joined, forum rules and forum jargon like 'sockpuppet', or 'OP', or even the word 'thread' (in a forum context) were completely new to me. It took me several weeks/months, a few bans, and some very kind co-posters pm-ing me about stuff, to figure out how (presumably basic) things work around here.

 

[King Boonen]

It really doesn't matter what the term is that's used, it's extremely obvious that if you create a new account specifically to circumvent a suspension you are going to receive a much harsher one. If you are suspended surely the first thing you would be is look up why, go and find any rules and then, if you felt unfairly treated, contact the relevant people?

 

[ebandit]

..or let your dog/wife appeal on your behalf....

Mark L

 

[sniper]

Re:

It really doesn't matter what the term is that's used, it's extremely obvious that if you create a new account specifically to circumvent a suspension you are going to receive a much harsher one. If you are suspended surely the first thing you would be is look up why, go and find any rules and then, if you felt unfairly treated, contact the relevant people?

it's just a forum. If you're new, and just want to chat with some people, why would you do that? It's perhaps what you would do, but not necessarily what normal people who arent immersed in online/forum culture do.
and what if you see other posters return under different names without punishment?
you're wrongly assuming everybody has some innate awareness of online discussion forum etiquette.

Maybe new posters need to be given a chance to grow into it. (unless their rule-abuse is blatant, of course)

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

It really doesn't matter what the term is that's used, it's extremely obvious that if you create a new account specifically to circumvent a suspension you are going to receive a much harsher one. If you are suspended surely the first thing you would be is look up why, go and find any rules and then, if you felt unfairly treated, contact the relevant people?

it's just a forum. If you're new, and just want to chat with some people, why would you do that? It's perhaps what you would do, but not necessarily what normal people who arent immersed in online/forum culture do.
and what if you see other posters return under different names without punishment?
you're wrongly assuming everybody has some innate awareness of online discussion forum etiquette.

I'm assuming everyone has some innate awareness of common etiquette, it doesn't differ online.

If you get banned from a pub for a week, dress up in a disguise to go in early and get caught you're not going to be surprised if the next ban is much worse.

It's clear that if your username gets banned then there obviously are rules that you have been deemed to have broken. The logical thing to do is to find out what they are, not try and circumvent the punishment. This is not specific to online.

If other posters return without punishment then, in reality, tough. Again, this isn't specific to online, it happens everywhere with an extremely good example that has a whole sub-forum dedicated to it. If you suspect sockpuppets and have a problem with them, report them.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

good post.
Also note that not everybody who joins a forum automatically knows what a 'sockpuppet' is. Most normal human beings who join a forum for the first time have no idea that it is against the rules to create more than one account.
I honestly had no idea when i joined this forum (which is also the first and only forum i ever joined).
i did know that certain posters had changed their names (e.g. thoughtforfood -> chewbaccad; innerring --> dearwiggo), and i was under the impression that that was a normal thing.

Inner Ring is Dearwiggo? or just a coincidence?

 

[sniper]

yeah, i get your point, but it's not how it works for many people. Some just want to have a chat about one specific topic, without having to look into forum rules or read other subfora. People do have a normal offline life, you know.
You could say "well then this place isn't the right place for them", and that's fair, too. But as I said, some young members might need some time to adjust and get a chance to 'grow into it', so to say.

So i think applying the rules so strictly to fresh posters like Blurry will deprive the forum of some potentially interesting longterm contributors.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

good post.
Also note that not everybody who joins a forum automatically knows what a 'sockpuppet' is. Most normal human beings who join a forum for the first time have no idea that it is against the rules to create more than one account.
I honestly had no idea when i joined this forum (which is also the first and only forum i ever joined).
i did know that certain posters had changed their names (e.g. thoughtforfood -> chewbaccad; innerring --> dearwiggo), and i was under the impression that that was a normal thing.

Inner Ring is Dearwiggo? or just a coincidence?

No he isn't. (nb: Dearwiggo's previous name wasnt exactly innerring, but something with 'ring' in it, I believe)
Btw, I later learned that both Dearwiggo and Chewbaccad had simply asked the moderators if they could change their username. So nothing against the rules there.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

yeah, i get your point, but it's not how it works for many people. Some just want to have a chat about one specific topic, without having to look into forum rules or read other subfora. People do have a normal offline life, you know.
You could say "well then this place isn't the right place for them", and that's fair, too. But as I said, some young members might need some time to adjust and get a chance to 'grow into it', so to say.

So i think applying the rules so strictly to fresh posters like Blurry will deprive the forum of some potentially interesting longterm contributors.

Yes, unsurprisingly I'm aware that people have live's outside of this forum, mine is extremely busy. If you don't want to look into the rules then you can't really complain when you fall foul of them. If you have time to post on a forum you have time to read the rules and as I've pointed out, it's hardly a surprising rule.

I'm assuming by young you actually mean new? Because I would expect young, new members to be much more likely to know the ins and outs of how internet forums work than older new members.

 

[sniper]

yes, i meant new, and agreed, the notion of 'sockpuppetry' is more likely to be known to young people than to oldtimers