Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[King Boonen]

I think that is the case. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that in a general sense. It happens in pretty much all facets of society, rightly or wrongly, so it's not surprising that it also happens here. I would say that if I saw any member posting something in the same vein as what the post which got Andro perma-banned then I would be instigating a discussion with the other mods to the same effect, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

 

[lenric]

Re:

I think that is the case. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that in a general sense. It happens in pretty much all facets of society, rightly or wrongly, so it's not surprising that it also happens here. I would say that if I saw any member posting something in the same vein as what the post which got Andro perma-banned then I would be instigating a discussion with the other mods to the same effect, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe it does. There are people here, including me, who have already addressed it and got backlashed by mods and admins.

Even if there are people here who post more than others, average daily post count (and post count itself) must not be a tacit criteria to give more leeway to x poster. Otherwise, it just means moderators and administrators who fall into that trap are useless and incompetent at their task.

Now that we are talking about the said conversation about what should be posted and what not in the Contador thread (particularly about the retirement topic), I was utterly disgusted at it and how the ones who had done it got away with it, like always. It felt like a freaking dictatorship where some posters could not say X, because Y posters would become angry at it.

In my view of the world, which is a liberal/libertarian one, we are free to state our opinion as long as we accept other people's opinion. Unfortunately, too many posters around here don't understand it that way and act as they are the rulers of Z thread.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I think that is the case. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that in a general sense. It happens in pretty much all facets of society, rightly or wrongly, so it's not surprising that it also happens here. I would say that if I saw any member posting something in the same vein as what the post which got Andro perma-banned then I would be instigating a discussion with the other mods to the same effect, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe it does. There are people here, including me, who have already addressed it and got backlashed by mods and admins.

Even if there are people here who post more than others, average daily post count (and post count itself) must not be a tacit criteria to give more leeway to x poster. Otherwise, it just means moderators and administrators who fall into that trap are useless and incompetent at their task.

Now that we are talking about the said conversation about what should be posted and what not in the Contador thread (particularly about the retirement topic), I was utterly disgusted at it and how the ones who had done it got away with it, like always. It felt like a freaking dictatorship where some posters could not say X, because Y posters would become angry at it.

In my view of the world, which is a liberal/libertarian one, we are free to state our opinion as long as we accept other people's opinion. Unfortunately, too many posters around here don't understand it that way and act as they are the rulers of Z thread.

Where are you whenever we ask for volunteers to moderate Lenric? I've never seen you around (this thread) except to harshly criticize unpaid volunteers with zero to little training for the job that they unselfishly volunteer their free time for.

How about next time we need a mod you don't hide out until the coast is clear and make yourself available to the same kind of harsh critique? Thanks, that would be great...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I think that is the case. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that in a general sense. It happens in pretty much all facets of society, rightly or wrongly, so it's not surprising that it also happens here. I would say that if I saw any member posting something in the same vein as what the post which got Andro perma-banned then I would be instigating a discussion with the other mods to the same effect, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe it does. There are people here, including me, who have already addressed it and got backlashed by mods and admins.

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean that you think there is something wrong with it?

Even if there are people here who post more than others, average daily post count (and post count itself) must not be a tacit criteria to give more leeway to x poster. Otherwise, it just means moderators and administrators who fall into that trap are useless and incompetent at their task.

No one said it was based on post-count. previous record, conduct and circumstances are always taken into account in any judgement passed in society. I'm not sure why anyone would think it would be different here?

For example, if a long-term member who is known to post well thought-out and insightful content with no previous history of causing trouble gets into an argument with some other posters and, in the heat of the moment, personally insults them then they will likely receive a ban of a few days to cool off.

If a new poster uses their first three posts to personally insult members then they will likely get permanently banned. We moderate in our free time, for free and if someone sets out by causing trouble we'll remove them rather than have to deal with the issues.

If you think this kind of reasoning makes moderators incompetent I would guess you don't have a very high regard for your local legal system?

Now that we are talking about the said conversation about what should be posted and what not in the Contador thread (particularly about the retirement topic), I was utterly disgusted at it and how the ones who had done it got away with it, like always. It felt like a freaking dictatorship where some posters could not say X, because Y posters would become angry at it.

Again, here I'm not sure what you are referring to?

In my view of the world, which is a liberal/libertarian one, we are free to state our opinion as long as we accept other people's opinion. Unfortunately, too many posters around here don't understand it that way and act as they are the rulers of Z thread.

I'm also not sure what this refers to? With reference to Andro it has never been acceptable to personally insult other posters, whether it is your opinion or not.


As I used to point out before I was a moderator, the vast majority of posters on this forum manage to operate within both the rules that are set out and within what the moderators find acceptable. It's really not that difficult.

 

[lenric]

Re: Re:

I think that is the case. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that in a general sense. It happens in pretty much all facets of society, rightly or wrongly, so it's not surprising that it also happens here. I would say that if I saw any member posting something in the same vein as what the post which got Andro perma-banned then I would be instigating a discussion with the other mods to the same effect, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe it does. There are people here, including me, who have already addressed it and got backlashed by mods and admins.

Even if there are people here who post more than others, average daily post count (and post count itself) must not be a tacit criteria to give more leeway to x poster. Otherwise, it just means moderators and administrators who fall into that trap are useless and incompetent at their task.

Now that we are talking about the said conversation about what should be posted and what not in the Contador thread (particularly about the retirement topic), I was utterly disgusted at it and how the ones who had done it got away with it, like always. It felt like a freaking dictatorship where some posters could not say X, because Y posters would become angry at it.

In my view of the world, which is a liberal/libertarian one, we are free to state our opinion as long as we accept other people's opinion. Unfortunately, too many posters around here don't understand it that way and act as they are the rulers of Z thread.

Where are you whenever we ask for volunteers to moderate Lenric? I've never seen you around (this thread) except to harshly criticize unpaid volunteers with zero to little training for the job that they unselfishly volunteer their free time for.

How about next time we need a mod you don't hide out until the coast is clear and make yourself available to the same kind of harsh critique? Thanks, that would be great...

Right here. If I wanted to be a moderator, I'd suggest myself and if all of you thought I'd be suited to the task, I'd gladly join you. But I don't to apply and you know why, as some former mods/admin do.

Anyway, yes, you do it pro-bono. That doesn't mean anyone can't give their 2 cents about it.

 

[lenric]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean that you think there is something wrong with it?

You know the answer.

No one said it was based on post-count. previous record, conduct and circumstances are always taken into account in any judgement passed in society. I'm not sure why anyone would think it would be different here?

For example, if a long-term member who is known to post well thought-out and insightful content with no previous history of causing trouble gets into an argument with some other posters and, in the heat of the moment, personally insults them then they will likely receive a ban of a few days to cool off.

If a new poster uses their first three posts to personally insult members then they will likely get permanently banned. We moderate in our free time, for free and if someone sets out by causing trouble we'll remove them rather than have to deal with the issues.

If you think this kind of reasoning makes moderators incompetent I would guess you don't have a very high regard for your local legal system?

Perhaps because it is. LaFlorecita, for example, is a user who has always had some leeway, despite almost implicitly considering herself to be the queen of the Contador thread, who dictates what should, or shouldn't, be written.

Contador's thread seems like the wild west. If some foreigner goes there, the usual posters backlash him and try to dictate what should be written, or not. Said poster being the most obvious case (which I respectfully answered). portugal11 is another one of those cases, who also has a tendency to backlash other members at any time for any reason. Don't really know why he hasn't already been permabanned, since he keeps having the same behavior. And yes, I reported some of his posts when I felt like they weren't respectful towards other members.

Miburo was also a prime example of an obnoxious guy who constantly acted disrespectfully towards other members and it took a long time for him to be permabanned (not sure though if the reason was the use of a sockpuppet, or obnoxious behavior).

Again, here I'm not sure what you are referring to?

Read above.

I'm also not sure what this refers to? With reference to Andro it has never been acceptable to personally insult other posters, whether it is your opinion or not.

Read above.
Andro's post was horrible. Agreed on that one.

As I used to point out before I was a moderator, the vast majority of posters on this forum manage to operate within both the rules that are set out and within what the moderators find acceptable. It's really not that difficult.

Also agreed on that one. And if one doesn't agree with this forum's rules, then he's free to go.
I (along with the other poster) was just alluding to the fact that there are people here, belonging to certain groups (such as the Contador's one, but not only), who have more leeway than others and know it. So, they keep their crappy behavior unaltered.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean that you think there is something wrong with it?

You know the answer.

I really don't. You said "because you believe it does" but it doesn't relate to the part of my post you bolded, which was discussing whether it is wrong to take into account previous posting history. I can infer you think it is, correct? Although I think we are talking at slightly crossed purposes here.

No one said it was based on post-count. previous record, conduct and circumstances are always taken into account in any judgement passed in society. I'm not sure why anyone would think it would be different here?

For example, if a long-term member who is known to post well thought-out and insightful content with no previous history of causing trouble gets into an argument with some other posters and, in the heat of the moment, personally insults them then they will likely receive a ban of a few days to cool off.

If a new poster uses their first three posts to personally insult members then they will likely get permanently banned. We moderate in our free time, for free and if someone sets out by causing trouble we'll remove them rather than have to deal with the issues.

If you think this kind of reasoning makes moderators incompetent I would guess you don't have a very high regard for your local legal system?

Perhaps because it is. LaFlorecita, for example, is a user who has always had some leeway, despite almost implicitly considering herself to be the queen of the Contador thread, who dictates what should, or shouldn't, be written.

Contador's thread seems like the wild west. If some foreigner goes there, the usual posters backlash him and try to dictate what should be written, or not. Said poster being the most obvious case (which I respectfully answered). portugal11 is another one of those cases, who also has a tendency to backlash other members at any time for any reason. Don't really know why he hasn't already been permabanned, since he keeps having the same behavior. And yes, I reported some of his posts when I felt like they weren't respectful towards other members.

I don't go in the Contador thread much. I think in all my time as a mod I have never seen a single post in that thread reported. Do you report the posts you have a problem with? I'm pretty certain I've posted some harsh criticism of Contador in there in the past and never received either a ban or a warning for it.

Miburo was also a prime example of an obnoxious guy who constantly acted disrespectfully towards other members and it took a long time for him to be permabanned (not sure though if the reason was the use of a sockpuppet, or obnoxious behavior).

This is before my time as a mod I'm afraid and that's another user I didn't interact with much.

Again, here I'm not sure what you are referring to?

Read above.

In this case again, I can't help. It's not a thread I go in much and I haven't seen any reports.

I'm also not sure what this refers to? With reference to Andro it has never been acceptable to personally insult other posters, whether it is your opinion or not.

Read above.
Andro's post was horrible. Agreed on that one.

If there are personal insults happening then report them and they will certainly be dealt with, no matter who the poster is.

As I used to point out before I was a moderator, the vast majority of posters on this forum manage to operate within both the rules that are set out and within what the moderators find acceptable. It's really not that difficult.

Also agreed on that one. And if one doesn't agree with this forum's rules, then he's free to go.
I (along with the other poster) was just alluding to the fact that there are people here, belonging to certain groups (such as the Contador's one, but not only), who have more leeway than others and know it. So, they keep their crappy behavior unaltered.

Ok, thanks for point thing out. We do take into account previous behaviour, both good and bad, so feel free to point out in reports if you feel something is a recurring theme.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

I wasn't a mod for Ryo's period on the forum so I can't comment on that.

For Andro I would just say that what was posted was completely unacceptable, beyond the usual trolling/arguing etc. and was a very specific attack. There are no circumstances under which posting something like that is acceptable or even understandable.

You were a user though. Did you agree with the mods' policy in Ryo's case at the time?

I didn't have much interaction with Ryo and I didn't read many of their posts, so I don't really want to comment on something I don't know much about. If comments similar to the one that Andro made were made (very specific and frankly disgusting attacks on a user) then I would say yes, they should have been banned long ago. I've very against bans and particularly perma-bans except in certain cases, the Andro one being a good example.

Remember that mods change, attitudes/opinions change, methods change and people change. What may have been let slip in the past might be stamped down hard on now and vice versa.

I understand your point, but I think some people, if they are considered part of the forum's furniture, are given significantly more leeway than others. Not on purpose, but it seems that sometimes mods are subconsciously afraid of a backlash of said users' "fans" for lack of a better word, who will inevitably insist that the banned user was a vital part of the forum and without them the forum will die (this is the extreme scenario) or at least that it will be flooded by the (imagined) legions of mindless fanboys of certain riders.

This does seem to happen from time to time. Looking through this thread there seems to be a lot of:
"The mods didn't instantly ban [person I've had an argument with]. The mods suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!"
And:
The mods banned [person I agree with/me]. The mods suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!"

 

[Forever The Best]

Re: Re:

Did Andro really get permabanned for his trolling in the Contador thread? Seems kinda harsh to me.

viewtopic.php?p=2130287#p2130287
Not your average trolling offense as RR says.

Ryo got 38 bans before finally being permabanned and posted worse things, I don't understand why Andro got banned after (I assume) 1 offence.
Anyway, the mods decide.

I only started lurking around late '15 before joining in April '16 so I don't know how were his posts. If he had posts like that he should have been a long time ago. Also I don't think it is the first offence of Andro. A quick search of his username on the member suspensions thread say that he was banned for 2 weeks for sexist post in March '17.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I wasn't a mod for Ryo's period on the forum so I can't comment on that.

For Andro I would just say that what was posted was completely unacceptable, beyond the usual trolling/arguing etc. and was a very specific attack. There are no circumstances under which posting something like that is acceptable or even understandable.

You were a user though. Did you agree with the mods' policy in Ryo's case at the time?

I didn't have much interaction with Ryo and I didn't read many of their posts, so I don't really want to comment on something I don't know much about. If comments similar to the one that Andro made were made (very specific and frankly disgusting attacks on a user) then I would say yes, they should have been banned long ago. I've very against bans and particularly perma-bans except in certain cases, the Andro one being a good example.

Remember that mods change, attitudes/opinions change, methods change and people change. What may have been let slip in the past might be stamped down hard on now and vice versa.

I understand your point, but I think some people, if they are considered part of the forum's furniture, are given significantly more leeway than others. Not on purpose, but it seems that sometimes mods are subconsciously afraid of a backlash of said users' "fans" for lack of a better word, who will inevitably insist that the banned user was a vital part of the forum and without them the forum will die (this is the extreme scenario) or at least that it will be flooded by the (imagined) legions of mindless fanboys of certain riders.

This does seem to happen from time to time. Looking through this thread there seems to be a lot of:
"The mods didn't instantly ban [person I've had an argument with]. The mods suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!"
And:
The mods banned [person I agree with/me]. The mods suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!"

That's right, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't...

 

[BullsFan22]

The Mods on any website/forum/discussion thread/etc are there like a football or basketball or any other official. They are there to 'officiate' or moderate on what goes on. The less an official (mod) is seen throughout the match, the better. Sometimes the issue facing mods is virtually the same facing game officials. If you have to be harsh on a player (user), you have to be consistent and be harsh on another user for the same foul (offense) and if both users have been warned an equal or just about equal amount of times, then they should get the same treatment/ban. If both have gotten a certain amount of bans (red cards/suspension), then something has to be undertaken. This spring a longtime user was permabanned. One of his last posts was a response to a post of mine, where he 'edited' some stuff out and I took exception to it. I had no previous issue with that particular user, but I just didn't like the fact that he edited my post and made it seem like it was something that it wasn't. This and other factors around that time eventually led to his permaban (I was later told by a mod). I felt bad as I felt that my response to his editing of my post was seen by the mods and they took action solely on that episode, but as I later learned, it was a considerable amount of offenses accumulated and this user also not heeding the advice to stop. I was also told that they were given more than enough warnings and enough leniencies were given and that he/she was due for a ban.

Anyway, my point is that the mods may seem harsh, but they actually are quite lenient and want fair treatment for all users and are open to giving second chances or third chances or however many they feel is necessary. Some users take that as respect and learn from their bans and when they come back they are more aware of what they post, but sometimes some users simply feed off of this and feel that they won't be punished no matter what, and that's where consistency and immediately setting about the 'match' that you want to see played, tough but fair. Otherwise it becomes a free for all and anything goes and anything can be said.


Just how I see it. I've never been a mod at any website or forum.

 

[Irondan]

The Mods on any website/forum/discussion thread/etc are there like a football or basketball or any other official. They are there to 'officiate' or moderate on what goes on. The less an official (mod) is seen throughout the match, the better. Sometimes the issue facing mods is virtually the same facing game officials. If you have to be harsh on a player (user), you have to be consistent and be harsh on another user for the same foul (offense) and if both users have been warned an equal or just about equal amount of times, then they should get the same treatment/ban. If both have gotten a certain amount of bans (red cards/suspension), then something has to be undertaken. This spring a longtime user was permabanned. One of his last posts was a response to a post of mine, where he 'edited' some stuff out and I took exception to it. I had no previous issue with that particular user, but I just didn't like the fact that he edited my post and made it seem like it was something that it wasn't. This and other factors around that time eventually led to his permaban (I was later told by a mod). I felt bad as I felt that my response to his editing of my post was seen by the mods and they took action solely on that episode, but as I later learned, it was a considerable amount of offenses accumulated and this user also not heeding the advice to stop. I was also told that they were given more than enough warnings and enough leniencies were given and that he/she was due for a ban.

Anyway, my point is that the mods may seem harsh, but they actually are quite lenient and want fair treatment for all users and are open to giving second chances or third chances or however many they feel is necessary. Some users take that as respect and learn from their bans and when they come back they are more aware of what they post, but sometimes some users simply feed off of this and feel that they won't be punished no matter what, and that's where consistency and immediately setting about the 'match' that you want to see played, tough but fair. Otherwise it becomes a free for all and anything goes and anything can be said.


Just how I see it. I've never been a mod at any website or forum.

And you've never been banned while posting 2626 comments over the course of seven odd years, which proves that if you follow the rules you won't have any problems.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

That's right, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't...

I always thought this thread (1) probably shouldn't exist, and (2) must suck for the mods.

People shouldn't really be cheering bans for the most part, that seems like kicking a man when he's down and talking about folks that aren't able to come on and defend themselves. That pretty much just leaves complaining about bans or trying to say a word of support for a friend who gets one.

 

[BullsFan22]

The Mods on any website/forum/discussion thread/etc are there like a football or basketball or any other official. They are there to 'officiate' or moderate on what goes on. The less an official (mod) is seen throughout the match, the better. Sometimes the issue facing mods is virtually the same facing game officials. If you have to be harsh on a player (user), you have to be consistent and be harsh on another user for the same foul (offense) and if both users have been warned an equal or just about equal amount of times, then they should get the same treatment/ban. If both have gotten a certain amount of bans (red cards/suspension), then something has to be undertaken. This spring a longtime user was permabanned. One of his last posts was a response to a post of mine, where he 'edited' some stuff out and I took exception to it. I had no previous issue with that particular user, but I just didn't like the fact that he edited my post and made it seem like it was something that it wasn't. This and other factors around that time eventually led to his permaban (I was later told by a mod). I felt bad as I felt that my response to his editing of my post was seen by the mods and they took action solely on that episode, but as I later learned, it was a considerable amount of offenses accumulated and this user also not heeding the advice to stop. I was also told that they were given more than enough warnings and enough leniencies were given and that he/she was due for a ban.

Anyway, my point is that the mods may seem harsh, but they actually are quite lenient and want fair treatment for all users and are open to giving second chances or third chances or however many they feel is necessary. Some users take that as respect and learn from their bans and when they come back they are more aware of what they post, but sometimes some users simply feed off of this and feel that they won't be punished no matter what, and that's where consistency and immediately setting about the 'match' that you want to see played, tough but fair. Otherwise it becomes a free for all and anything goes and anything can be said.


Just how I see it. I've never been a mod at any website or forum.

And you've never been banned while posting 2626 comments over the course of seven odd years, which proves that if you follow the rules you won't have any problems.

Knock on wood! I hope to continue this Cal Ripken Jr-like streak!

 

[BullsFan22]

The Mods on any website/forum/discussion thread/etc are there like a football or basketball or any other official. They are there to 'officiate' or moderate on what goes on. The less an official (mod) is seen throughout the match, the better. Sometimes the issue facing mods is virtually the same facing game officials. If you have to be harsh on a player (user), you have to be consistent and be harsh on another user for the same foul (offense) and if both users have been warned an equal or just about equal amount of times, then they should get the same treatment/ban. If both have gotten a certain amount of bans (red cards/suspension), then something has to be undertaken. This spring a longtime user was permabanned. One of his last posts was a response to a post of mine, where he 'edited' some stuff out and I took exception to it. I had no previous issue with that particular user, but I just didn't like the fact that he edited my post and made it seem like it was something that it wasn't. This and other factors around that time eventually led to his permaban (I was later told by a mod). I felt bad as I felt that my response to his editing of my post was seen by the mods and they took action solely on that episode, but as I later learned, it was a considerable amount of offenses accumulated and this user also not heeding the advice to stop. I was also told that they were given more than enough warnings and enough leniencies were given and that he/she was due for a ban.

Anyway, my point is that the mods may seem harsh, but they actually are quite lenient and want fair treatment for all users and are open to giving second chances or third chances or however many they feel is necessary. Some users take that as respect and learn from their bans and when they come back they are more aware of what they post, but sometimes some users simply feed off of this and feel that they won't be punished no matter what, and that's where consistency and immediately setting about the 'match' that you want to see played, tough but fair. Otherwise it becomes a free for all and anything goes and anything can be said.


Just how I see it. I've never been a mod at any website or forum.

And you've never been banned while posting 2626 comments over the course of seven odd years, which proves that if you follow the rules you won't have any problems.

Knock on wood! I hope to continue this Cal Ripken Jr-like streak! Though not sure if the seven years (tomorrow to the day!) have proved how interested I am in some topics or how much time I've spent interacting with strangers on an internet forum....

 

[RedheadDane]

Just how I see it. I've never been a mod at any website or forum.

And you've never been banned while posting 2626 comments over the course of seven odd years, which proves that if you follow the rules you won't have any problems.

Honestly, I was starting to think I was the only one. Especially with all the "It's impossible to not be banned!" comments I've seen around here.
Not getting banned is easy; just follow the rules.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Going to depreciate the aphronesis bannination.

Not sure what got it off the rails but I hope it is not what or who I think caused it.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Going to depreciate the aphronesis bannination.

Not sure what got it off the rails but I hope it is not what or who I think caused it.

No, it wasn't who you think.

He went off on someone else entirely and earned his week off.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Going to depreciate the aphronesis bannination.

Not sure what got it off the rails but I hope it is not what or who I think caused it.

No, it wasn't who you think.

He went off on someone else entirely and earned his week off.

I was not insinuating or suggesting he did not earn his bannination - more like---- was think along the lines of something else. I thought he might have been baited into something. Was not really expecting an explanation but thanks for the post.

 

[Hayabusa]

Thanks to the mods for banning Billie for their disgusting comments after the Porte crash.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Thanks to the mods for banning Billie for their disgusting comments after the Porte crash.

There a few more in that thread that, imo, need a rest

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Re:

Thanks to the mods for banning Billie for their disgusting comments after the Porte crash.

Agree!

Although, the length of the ban is a weak response from the Mod team.
Should be at least for the rest of the tour....maybe even a month?

My response in that thread was an emotional, spur of the moment reaction, for that I apologise.

 

[Brullnux]

13 days is an interesting number

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

13 days is an interesting number

Unlucky for some.

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Genuine question:-
Are you (the mod / admin team) able to let us who know who has received the most bans, yet is still able to participate in the forum??

I notice thehog is once again banned for a period of time......how many times do you keep banning the same members for the same dumb chit before you kick them to the curb for good??

#getridofthedeadwoodforgood