Idiots

I dont want to mention any names, but we have seen a flurry of idiot new handle/new thread postings by banned idiots.

Then the posts disappear. I dont want to tell the mods how to do their jobs (any more than I already do anyway), but there is something to be said for leaving such idiotic posts in place as idiotic reminders of idiots that I for one am glad are gone. They serve to remind us why said idiots are gone, how happy we are that they are gone, and how idiotic their contributions were, are and will be again if they are ever unbanned.

It depends on the posts. If they violate nuclear guidelines, those posts are removed from public view.

While I am agreeing with both of the above, another possible solution is to leave the posting itself intact, probably in a staff area, but removing the contents from the post, and leaving the post in its open forum with the legend "contents removed due to standards violation" or some such.

That would let viewers know the poster is whatever he is, at the very least a nuisance, and that the standards are being enforced.

A bit of work for the mods, but not a difficult task.

And let the violators get banned after a first or second warning, since if they cannot learn the first couple of times, they need remedial reading with a time out.

Interesting propositions. Let us chew on that for a bit.

I'm of the opinion that we always pull those posts out of view along with any quote of that post that someone makes; or if they start a new thread, we pull the entire thing out of view. I don't believe in giving a banned member any voice here whatsoever while they are banned, under any handle. Banned should mean banned, as far as I'm concerned.

Editing the post, while effective, still leaves the "name up in lights" so to speak. And if a couple of our valued members posts get caught up in that removal....I think they can live with that. And perhaps they shouldn't have fed the troll and posted on it to begin with?

For the time being, any posts/threads of this sort will continue to be removed from view and the ban reset back to the original time frame. A banned member will not have any type of voice here, or be able to attempt to carry out any agenda.

But we're open to arguments on this topic and possible revision to it.

CC...it's a bitch being the janitor but you clean up messes pretty good.

Interesting propositions. Let us chew on that for a bit.

I'm of the opinion that we always pull those posts out of view along with any quote of that post that someone makes; or if they start a new thread, we pull the entire thing out of view. I don't believe in giving a banned member any voice here whatsoever while they are banned, under any handle. Banned should mean banned, as far as I'm concerned.

Editing the post, while effective, still leaves the "name up in lights" so to speak. And if a couple of our valued members posts get caught up in that removal....I think they can live with that. And perhaps they shouldn't have fed the troll and posted on it to begin with?

For the time being, any posts/threads of this sort will continue to be removed from view and the ban reset back to the original time frame. A banned member will not have any type of voice here, or be able to attempt to carry out any agenda.

But we're open to arguments on this topic and possible revision to it. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Chica, I'm with you on the Banned means Banned rule. For a certain person to come back and flaunt the rules of being banned though, I'm not sure that since they "gamed the system " how to have a more punitive (and "painful" ) way of "getting their absolute and undivided attention" ( think, a Parris Island Marine Corps Drill Instructor- "give yer heart and soul to God, 'cause the rest of yer ass is MINE !! " ) and preventing them from showing back up again with a different "nom-de-guerre". Y'all have a baby sitting job that I wouldn't take if you piad me. So I don't know what all you all have to go through , and don't want to know.
As far as resetting the ban to the original time frame though, if someone defies the ban and the mods authority and the rules that we ALL agreed to when we first screened to get on here and every time we log in , I say don't just put him on the beach for a while, but fire him like a torpedo into the beach and let them roast in the sand permanently. Sorry, But my !*90's Texas Ranger " Law and Order" side comes out on occasion. Much obliged, again, for your help in getting me on here.

CC, how about members who WK banned handles? That's having a voice, right? We see a lot of guys WKing for banned providers. Not so much here in SA, but you know.

Chica, I'm with you on the Banned means Banned rule. For a certain person to come back and flaunt the rules of being banned though, I'm not sure that since they "gamed the system " how to have a more punitive (and "painful" ) way of "getting their absolute and undivided attention" ( think, a Parris Island Marine Corps Drill Instructor- "give yer heart and soul to God, 'cause the rest of yer ass is MINE !! " ) and preventing them from showing back up again with a different "nom-de-guerre". Y'all have a baby sitting job that I wouldn't take if you piad me. So I don't know what all you all have to go through , and don't want to know.
As far as resetting the ban to the original time frame though, if someone defies the ban and the mods authority and the rules that we ALL agreed to when we first screened to get on here and every time we log in , I say don't just put him on the beach for a while, but fire him like a torpedo into the beach and let them roast in the sand permanently. Sorry, But my !*90's Texas Ranger " Law and Order" side comes out on occasion. Much obliged, again, for your help in getting me on here. Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

CC, how about members who WK banned handles? That's having a voice, right? We see a lot of guys WKing for banned providers. Not so much here in SA, but you know. Originally Posted by Camille Fox

It is no doubt. That's a little more of a gray area and the guideline page would start reading like War and Peace if we tried to cover every possible situation that might come up. I'm good with preventing the perp from being here with multiples, I'm against restricting WK'ing or mentioning of a banned member.

^^ makes sense because then you are infringing on someone's right to express themselves. Thank you!

^^ makes sense because then you are infringing on someone's right to express themselves. Thank you! Originally Posted by Camille Fox

The First Amendment -- per se -- if a great principle, never mind concept -- when you apply it to public space.

Thing is, this is a private place, people here sign up by agreeing to the TOS, which limits the "right of free expression" to whatever fits within the TOS. Them's the rules, and those who cannot abide within should be removed or at the very least denied access.

Not quibbling, am I, on the "total removal" policy in place, just pointing out that when something is totally removed it causes some questions. No policy on removal - remainder - reminder will ever be perfect, but glad I am that the policy will be re-examined.

As for permanent banning - totally clear to me that constant offenders who are repeat offenders are abusing the system and disrespecting the community. Death penalty should apply!

^^^ I agree that this is a private "location", hence 1st ammendment protection etc not applicable but, historically, the site has been very pro the right of one to express oneself and, what CC was saying is that, once you start trying to control others from commenting about banned members, it is against what this site has stood for.

That's why I did not use "right of free speech", because I did not want anyone thinking I was trying to express that the 1st amendment is in effect here. The banned member should not have a voice, but the ones who are still around should not be prevented from talking about banned members, at least that's what I got from CC.