The great ban the perma ban thread

[Dr. Maserati]

Taken from a discussion from the Mods thread.

I am not disagreeing with much that you say.

Indeed, it was you who spotted that it was likely Joachim - regardless, does any of that deserve a perma ban?

 

[sittingbison]

of some use is most folk like their handles, and don't like the thought of losing their "identity" that might have taken a year or two and thousands of posts to build up. Get nuked and it all gonski

other than that? not much use

And who gets nuked? Almost nobody that is a "normal" forum member, although I'm sure there will be the odd ones out that committed hari kri or pushed the wrong button

 

[End Corrupt Bannings]

Justice for Graham (and others)

Graham, if you're reading this I strongly urge you to take it up with Daniel Benson. This is such a clear case of abuse of the moderating system that it will be overturned in a heart beat.

Corrupt bannings have gone on for years and always will go on, of course. The big difference with this case is the mods aren't usually stupid enough to openly state this is what they are doing. The old game in the Armstrong threads used to be to let the pack turn on the user and bombard them with harassment and abuse, then wait till the user said something borderline rule breaking in response to the ten posts that clearly broke the rules they were responding to. Then the mods played the old "perma banned for undefined trolling" card. However, the victims quickly cottoned on to that trick and didn't take the bait anymore, so the mods moved to using a much better trick "banned for being a former member". It's the perfect corruption tool. The mods don't have to provide a shred of evidence to back up the claim they were a former user, and the user doesn't have to break any rules to get a permaban. Hell, by chance the mods were occasionally right about them being a former poster, but naturally they neglected to mention that the former user was banned on completely fake grounds in the first place. It's genius.

As I say, the completely unusual thing about your case, Graham, is the mod involved messed up big time. To explicitly state they have no evidence it was a former user and they weren't breaking the rules is a huge blow to forum omerta. For Bison to try to cover this up with some bluster about hijacking the debate - as if you interrupted a bunch of Greek philosophers having a profound discussion and not the usual tit for tat that makes up all forum discussion - is excruciating. Difficult to see how Bison doesn't get a permaban himself for this.

This post will go quickly but there are dozens of witnesses to what happened. No escape for the mod this time.

 

[End Corrupt Bannings]

And who gets nuked? Almost nobody that is a "normal" forum member

Exactly. The forum becomes a club for a small group of people that are protected and have different rules applied to them. I didn't want the hog banned, but people complain about him getting a mere month. This user has been permabanned for doing a lot less.....in fact doing nothing at all apart from disagreeing with a few of your mates. It's complete corruption of the system.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Graham, if you're reading this I strongly urge you to take it up with Daniel Benson. This is such a clear case of abuse of the moderating system that it will be overturned in a heart beat.

Corrupt bannings have gone on for years and always will go on, of course. The big difference with this case is the mods aren't usually stupid enough to openly state this is what they are doing. The old game in the Armstrong threads used to be to let the pack turn on the user and bombard them with harassment and abuse, then wait till the user said something borderline rule breaking in response to the ten posts that clearly broke the rules they were responding to. Then the mods played the old "perma banned for undefined trolling" card. However, the victims quickly cottoned on to that trick and didn't take the bait anymore, so the mods moved to using a much better trick "banned for being a former member". It's the perfect corruption tool. The mods don't have to provide a shred of evidence to back up the claim they were a former user, and the user doesn't have to break any rules to get a permaban. Hell, by chance the mods were occasionally right about them being a former poster, but naturally they neglected to mention that the former user was banned on completely fake grounds in the first place. It's genius.

As I say, the completely unusual thing about your case, Graham, is the mod involved messed up big time. To explicitly state they have no evidence it was a former user and they weren't breaking the rules is a huge blow to forum omerta. For Bison to try to cover this up with some bluster about hijacking the debate - as if you interrupted a bunch of Greek philosophers having a profound discussion and not the usual tit for tat that makes up all forum discussion - is excruciating. Difficult to see how Bison doesn't get a permaban himself for this.

This post will go quickly but there are dozens of witnesses to what happened. No escape for the mod this time.

I will quote it.
And I broadly agree.

So, BPC - the counter argument (and its a fair one) - you do not adhere to the rules, or worse, the general spirit of a forum.

Are you not just giving the mods the ammo they need to nuke you?
How can you change that?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

of some use is most folk like their handles, and don't like the thought of losing their "identity" that might have taken a year or two and thousands of posts to build up. Get nuked and it all gonski

other than that? not much use

And who gets nuked? Almost nobody that is a "normal" forum member, although I'm sure there will be the odd ones out that committed hari kri or pushed the wrong button

Some people are not normal, some are insiders, some are intelligent, some are bored, some have no clue about the sport.
So what?

What you wrote is dictating what the discussion of a topic should be - that is not the purpose of a mod or a forum.

 

[sittingbison]

Some people are not normal, some are insiders, some are intelligent, some are bored, some have no clue about the sport.
So what?..

All those different personalities can be "normal" forum members, engaging in various discourse, not trying their damndest to be destructive.

 

[sittingbison]

..What you wrote is dictating what the discussion of a topic should be ...

que?

10characters

 

[Dr. Maserati]

All those different personalities can be "normal" forum members, engaging in various discourse, not trying their damndest to be destructive.

Well thats a mod issue - which we have been over, mod the posts, not the poster.

If they are disruptive, then tackle that by warning or intervention. If they ignore the warning then a short ban.

Perma bans - as we can see here, do not work for certain people. It will not deter them, and because they know they are on limited time they can be more destructive.
And when you ban them again, they will reappear again.

 

[BroDeal]

 

[Netserk]

Sorry just saw this thread.

If I get you right Mas, you don't think sock puppets in itself should be bannable, but only if the sock puppet break any (other) rule?

If that was implemented, no ban would ever be effective, be it the 24h or 1 month. If I was banned for three days, I would just create a new account named Netserk2, and then use that for as long as the ban is.

So if we (or the mods) still want to be able to ban people (effectively) sock puppets needs to be banned. The question then is, should both/all accounts be perma banned for sock puppetry? Imho I think things are good as they are. They get perma banned immediately, but if they are able to convince the mods that they made a mistake and regret it, and for the future won't create any other sock puppets, they may be able to return again.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The problem is that some people can't help but respond to trolls. If no one replied they would disappear. Yes, it really is that simple imo.

Obviously, there are a few that are a bit more nuanced in their posting but I think that would deal with the majority of cases.

 

[sittingbison]

The problem is that some people can't help but respond to trolls. If no one replied they would disappear. Yes, it really is that simple imo.

Obviously, there are a few that are a bit more nuanced in their posting but I think that would deal with the majority of cases.

Good post Pedro.... Jeebus

Don't feed the troll. Trite but true

 

[kingjr]

The problem is that some people can't help but respond to trolls. If no one replied they would disappear. Yes, it really is that simple imo.

And new people on this forum don't always recognize old trolls with new names. I had to do quite a bit of reading to get who this BPC is everyone keeps referring to. That his posts have been deleted wasn't very helpful either.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

BPC posts on this thread that his posts were marginally against rules? Memory is short, and Bro advocating for his return is meant for mayhem only. Check his posting history on the subject if you can. He was clearly on the side of permaban before, but now that he carries Armstrong's water bottles, he has a change of heart.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry just saw this thread.

If I get you right Mas, you don't think sock puppets in itself should be bannable, but only if the sock puppet break any (other) rule?

If that was implemented, no ban would ever be effective, be it the 24h or 1 month. If I was banned for three days, I would just create a new account named Netserk2, and then use that for as long as the ban is.

So if we (or the mods) still want to be able to ban people (effectively) sock puppets needs to be banned. The question then is, should both/all accounts be perma banned for sock puppetry? Imho I think things are good as they are. They get perma banned immediately, but if they are able to convince the mods that they made a mistake and regret it, and for the future won't create any other sock puppets, they may be able to return again.

Apologies, I don't think I made it clear.

A poster should have 1 account only. Thats it.
Obviously if someone gets a ban on that account and sets up a new one, the new one would be nuked and an addition to the ban issued.

But again, this is as long as bans are handed out sparingly.

Handing out perm bans for general trolling (as opposed to racist, spam etc) is IMO just an easy option for Mods. It is not moderating, its getting rid of a problem.

 

[Netserk]

Handing out perm bans for general trolling (as opposed to racist, spam etc) is IMO just an easy option for Mods. It is not moderating, its getting rid of a problem.

How often does that happen? Isn't it usually the case that they only get perma banned after returning with a sock puppet?

 

[RownhamHill]

How often does that happen? Isn't it usually the case that they only get perma banned after returning with a sock puppet?

Didn't it just happen yesterday?

 

[Netserk]

Didn't it just happen yesterday?

And before that?

edit: note the 'usually'.

 

[Race Radio]

BPC posts on this thread that his posts were marginally against rules? Memory is short, and Bro advocating for his return is meant for mayhem only. Check his posting history on the subject if you can. He was clearly on the side of permaban before, but now that he carries Armstrong's water bottles, he has a change of heart.

Yup, it is clear chaos is his goal.

Those with short memories might want to read this
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=166183&postcount=1

or this

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=160268#post160268

If you want the forum, and your PM's, flooded with even more ramblings of a mad man then by all means let the forum herpes return

Somehow Bro will figure out a way to blame it all on Betsy and LeMond

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The problem is that some people can't help but respond to trolls. If no one replied they would disappear. Yes, it really is that simple imo.

Obviously, there are a few that are a bit more nuanced in their posting but I think that would deal with the majority of cases.

Serious question - what is a troll?
Was the guy banned yesterday in your view a troll?

Good post Pedro.... Jeebus

Don't feed the troll. Trite but true

This 'Don't feed the troll" is IMO lamer than perm bans when it comes from a Mod. (If we don't feed them, why do we need mods?)

Firstly, in its broadest definition - everyone with a reasonably sized posting history will have trolled someone. Usually without even noticing.

But there are committed trolls, who are just being disruptive. Whether to just get a reaction or post propaganda. If they are looking to hook someone, they will keep going until they find the right bait - if they are pushing an agenda, they will lie or exaggerate, both will eventually get a reaction.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How often does that happen? Isn't it usually the case that they only get perma banned after returning with a sock puppet?

I do not know, nor do I care to know.

I do know that a poster called Ianfra (sp) got nuked.
I questioned it at the time, and the mod went through their history and found the poster had previously (IIRC) 3 separate week bans - over 3 years!

That was a complete load of nonsense.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yup, it is clear chaos is his goal.

Those with short memories might want to read this
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=166183&postcount=1

or this

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=160268#post160268

If you want the forum, and your PM's, flooded with even more ramblings of a mad man then by all means let the forum herpes return

Somehow Bro will figure out a way to blame it all on Betsy and LeMond

He actually harassed me with personal emails because I linked my email address to my account here.

So yea, he's just another poster who only wants a forum to be heard like everyone else...

If he comes back, I will never post here again. And yes, I realize that to many, that's a great reason to let him return.

 

[Netserk]

I do not know, nor do I care to know.

I do know that a poster called Ianfra (sp) got nuked.
I questioned it at the time, and the mod went through their history and found the poster had previously (IIRC) 3 separate week bans - over 3 years!

That was a complete load of nonsense.

Was that the time when you claimed it was his first ban?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

BPC posts on this thread that his posts were marginally against rules? Memory is short, and Bro advocating for his return is meant for mayhem only. Check his posting history on the subject if you can. He was clearly on the side of permaban before, but now that he carries Armstrong's water bottles, he has a change of heart.

Ok, aside from the 200+ accounts they have set up what rules were they breaking?

Don't worry - I do remember they were persistent in spinning for the LA team.
Does that in itself mean they should get a perma ban?

Because when you perma ban someone and they return, you have now no control over them. They have found the weakness in the super secret security system - they are now off the chain.