The Fundamental Problem with Permanent Bans

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:56 pm

MeDeFe wrote:You weren't doing too badly for yourself there for a while lance, I'm willing to let that remark about "pushing the button" slide and continue a reasonable discussion, but maybe you should apologize for it even so in case others are not so lenient.

See, the way I took it was that he was trying to discuss the situation rationally, even though he didn't personally like Dancing Mustard (thus his ending comment). Not everyone allows their personal views to bias their official duties.

by **pimpdave** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:57 pm

I want this to be read, and since I started the thread, I feel justified in self-quoting in this case:

pimpdave wrote:
Master Fenrir wrote:
pimpdave wrote:Nobody likes you and you're an awful moderator. Stop posting now, for your own good.

See, we need Optimus Prime to come back and dialogue with us. You, on the other hand, need to shut up.

For your own good.

Now, he's suggesting that if you ARE confident in this stance, that you would want him to keep posting so that more people could grow to dislike him and so that his subsequent posts could further prove that he is a bad moderator, which would strengthen your point.

But I don't want people to dislike him, I want him to be a good mod, which is why he needs to shut up. He's probably an awesome multi-hunter, I have no doubt, but he's an awful moderator (scan up the page to see how polarizing and inflammatory he is. I mean, I know I am too, but I'm not a moderator -- at least not on this site. I play that role when I'm supposed to). So, even though lance has that title, he fills the description about as well as a bag of rocks makes a good life-preserver.

Master Fenrir wrote:He is then suggesting that the reason you want him to stop posting is because you ARE NOT confident in your stance, and know that he is right. If you know that he is right, but were still set on arguing, you would obviously prefer that he stopped posting.

That's what he meant by you not wanting to admit that he's right. If you have a problem with that logic, take it up with him, I was just trying to make it more clear.

But I'm not arguing about Dancing Mustard here. And besides, his arguments about Dancing Mustard are faulty, based on willful misinformation, misinterpretation, and overt obfuscation of both fact and precedent. But Dancing Mustard aside, he's turning this topic into something it's not.

I'm using Dancing Mustard as an example of what will inevitably happen to us all if the current system is not amended. For crying out loud, these Draconian rules serve no purpose but to divide and destroy, not create or edify.

jpcloet was on the right track with this thread, but then he left! I would love to see this thread go in a direction of dialogue between mods and users, ideally led by jpcloet but also informed by what the top bosses, like Optimus Prime, have to say as well.

Otherwise, we're just going to keep making snarky comments and tearing down your attempts to divert our attention from the real and valid question of this thread:

Can you recognize and work towards resolving the fundamental problem with permanent bans?

The morale of this site, obviously, has been severely damaged by recent actions. I'm trying to help the mods out (I know what their job is like, trust me), because if this isn't dealt with the problems will only grow worse. For two very basic, yet important reasons:

1) If we are not allowed (or made) to think that Dancing Mustard's assassination results in a positive change for the site, and thus resulted in a positive legacy, morale will only worsen to the point that you effectively provide the negative influences with prime material/justification for reasons to actually carry out actions with real malicious intent, and not just the obnoxious behavior that Dancing Mustard specialized in. (Trust me, it can get a whole hell of a lot worse than what DM did) So, those reasonable users who wouldn't otherwise go over the line can be kept from going over the line with such a response from the mods, and will lead to far less future headaches then they currently feel they've quashed.

2) It will allay the fears of those of us who worry about vindictive and partisan mods going on a Robespierre crusade. It will help tear down the Us vs. Them relationship that Twill ingrained in the operations of this site, or at least, make it into something more like a game than "serious business". That relationship is ultimately self-destructive and will push everyone away.

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:58 pm

pimpdave wrote:
lancehoch wrote:I am sorry that you don't want me here pimpdave. If you do not want to read my posts, then don't. I don't get it though, if you think I am wrong and am digging myself into a hole, why not let me? I can't see any reason that you wouldn't want me to post unless you realize that I am right, but don't want to admit it.

Where, exactly did you learn logic? Your powers of reason are equivalent to that of a raisin. That honestly makes no sense, whatsoever about me not wanting you to post.

What I want is someone who actually has authority, not some idiot puppy dog from the inner party coming out to making these arguments so incredibly retarded it comes across as a complete and intentional insult to our intelligence.

So, shut up and go get your boss, puppy. You didn't make the ban, you also can't string a thought together without sounding like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Not wanting to hang around long, pimpdave? Normally, your arguments are pretty sound...but you're devolving into flames that really don't become you.

by **pimpdave** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:03 pm

Woodruff wrote:Not wanting to hang around long, pimpdave? Normally, your arguments are pretty sound...but you're devolving into flames that really don't become you.

Well, first of all, that wasn't really a flame, but if they ban me for that, they'll absolutely have to ban lancehoch for just as long a period of time for his comment about "wishing he could have pushed the button" to assassinate Dancing Mustard himself...

So please, edit your post and amend it to include a similar chastisement of lancehoch. Many thanks.

by **b.k. barunt** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:08 pm

Night Strike wrote:Community Guidelines:
Minor Infractions follow the traditional vacation escalation scale of: Warning, 24 Hour Vacation, 72 Hour Vacation, One Week or One Month Vacation, Permanent Vacation.

DM's list of bans:
1 day
2 day (may have been a release oversight that caused it to be 2 days rather than 1)
3 days
3 days
1 week
1 month
1 day
permanent

Looks to me like the Community Guidelines were followed quite well. If DM hadn't been given a permanent vacation, then the guidelines would not have been followed and there would be legitimate grounds for complaints.

This is the stereotypical priggish answer that lets us know just why things are the way they are and how much our mods (some of them) are in touch with the community here. Brilliant work there nightstrike, carry on.

Honibaz

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:09 pm

pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Not wanting to hang around long, pimpdave? Normally, your arguments are pretty sound...but you're devolving into flames that really don't become you.

Well, first of all, that wasn't really a flame, but if they ban me for that, they'll absolutely have to ban lancehoch for just as long a period of time for his comment about "wishing he could have pushed the button" to assassinate Dancing Mustard himself...

So please, edit your post and amend it to include a similar chastisement of lancehoch. Many thanks.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that assessment. The statements you've made to lancehoch go far beyond his comment regarding wishing he had been the one to push the button to eliminate Dancing Mustard from the site. His statement really is not a flame...it is an expression that he didn't like someone and that he's pleased enough that the individual is no longer allowed here, but that's about it. Some of the statements you've made here are certainly flames, in my opinion.

by **pimpdave** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:11 pm

Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

Why must there be this escalating system of bannings? So that one could suffer a much worse sentence (say, permaban) for something far less serious than a 24 hour ban?

It's seriously disheartening, seriously impacts morale, and will not serve this site (or, more accurately, the mods) well in the long run.

by **pimpdave** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:14 pm

Woodruff wrote:Sorry, but I can't agree with that assessment. The statements you've made to lancehoch go far beyond his comment regarding wishing he had been the one to push the button to eliminate Dancing Mustard from the site. His statement really is not a flame...it is an expression that he didn't like someone and that he's pleased enough that the individual is no longer allowed here, but that's about it. Some of the statements you've made here are certainly flames, in my opinion.

Woody, no, they're not. They're the exact same idiocy that lancehoch was spouting! I just said that I don't like lancehoch and I wish he wasn't here. THE SAME THING, THEMATICALLY!

However, unlike lancehoch, I qualified my statement by saying that perhaps the role he's trying to play here is just not his strength. Where as lancehoch hates Dancing Mustard so much that he's rejoicing in removing him entirely from the board. I only want to remove lancehoch from the thread, and at that, only for his own good!

So in fact, dear friend, lancehoch was more harsh than I have been.

by **b.k. barunt** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:20 pm

Woodruff wrote:
pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Not wanting to hang around long, pimpdave? Normally, your arguments are pretty sound...but you're devolving into flames that really don't become you.

Well, first of all, that wasn't really a flame, but if they ban me for that, they'll absolutely have to ban lancehoch for just as long a period of time for his comment about "wishing he could have pushed the button" to assassinate Dancing Mustard himself...

So please, edit your post and amend it to include a similar chastisement of lancehoch. Many thanks.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that assessment. The statements you've made to lancehoch go far beyond his comment regarding wishing he had been the one to push the button to eliminate Dancing Mustard from the site. His statement really is not a flame...it is an expression that he didn't like someone and that he's pleased enough that the individual is no longer allowed here, but that's about it. Some of the statements you've made here are certainly flames, in my opinion.

News flash for you genius - a "flame" is any negative comment about someone. I think it's safe to say that no one here (aside from the mods who i'm sure appreciate your well browned nose) is interested in your opinion on it. A flame is a flame, and your much vaunted opinion doesn't change a damn thing.

If i say i'd like to be the one to bitch slap that simpering sychophant woodruff, that's as much of a flame as lancyboy saying he'd like to have "pushed the button" on DM.

Honibaz

by **Night Strike** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:25 pm

pimpdave wrote:Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

Why must there be this escalating system of bannings? So that one could suffer a much worse sentence (say, permaban) for something far less serious than a 24 hour ban?

It's seriously disheartening, seriously impacts morale, and will not serve this site (or, more importantly, the mods) well in the long run.

You already are getting punishments that fit the crime. You all were clamoring for tougher enforcements on those things that were deemed more serious and got that, but now you want there to be very little for minor things? Come on, how many times does one have to be warned and given vacations for minor infractions to actually learn from them? If there were no permanent bans, it just ultimately becomes a waste of a moderator's time. Why should repeated warnings and 24 hour vacations given out to the same person for spamming continue to happen if the person obviously isn't learning? If a player can't learn to follow the rules, they don't deserve to stay. It's quite simple.

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:39 pm

pimpdave wrote:Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
Why must there be this escalating system of bannings? So that one could suffer a much worse sentence (say, permaban) for something far less serious than a 24 hour ban?

I might see this as being a legitimate method, however I would also suggest that such a method would likely mean FAR more significant sanctions for the first time the more minor offenses happen. Otherwise, they wouldn't be taken seriously (as, it appears to me, some don't take the current escalating punishments seriously).

pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Sorry, but I can't agree with that assessment. The statements you've made to lancehoch go far beyond his comment regarding wishing he had been the one to push the button to eliminate Dancing Mustard from the site. His statement really is not a flame...it is an expression that he didn't like someone and that he's pleased enough that the individual is no longer allowed here, but that's about it. Some of the statements you've made here are certainly flames, in my opinion.

Woody, no, they're not. They're the exact same idiocy that lancehoch was spouting! I just said that I don't like lancehoch and I wish he wasn't here. THE SAME THING, THEMATICALLY!
However, unlike lancehoch, I qualified my statement by saying that perhaps the role he's trying to play here is just not his strength. Where as lancehoch hates Dancing Mustard so much that he's rejoicing in removing him entirely from the board. I only want to remove lancehoch from the thread, and at that, only for his own good!
So in fact, dear friend, lancehoch was more harsh than I have been.

Yours certainly seemed far more inflammatory to me. "Qualifying" it as you did really didn't soften anything about it at all. It wasn't your statement that you wanted him removed from the thread that I saw as particularly inflammatory...it was everything that went with it. <smile>

b.k. barunt wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Not wanting to hang around long, pimpdave? Normally, your arguments are pretty sound...but you're devolving into flames that really don't become you.

Well, first of all, that wasn't really a flame, but if they ban me for that, they'll absolutely have to ban lancehoch for just as long a period of time for his comment about "wishing he could have pushed the button" to assassinate Dancing Mustard himself...

So please, edit your post and amend it to include a similar chastisement of lancehoch. Many thanks.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that assessment. The statements you've made to lancehoch go far beyond his comment regarding wishing he had been the one to push the button to eliminate Dancing Mustard from the site. His statement really is not a flame...it is an expression that he didn't like someone and that he's pleased enough that the individual is no longer allowed here, but that's about it. Some of the statements you've made here are certainly flames, in my opinion.

News flash for you genius - a "flame" is any negative comment about someone. I think it's safe to say that no one here (aside from the mods who i'm sure appreciate your well browned nose) is interested in your opinion on it. A flame is a flame, and your much vaunted opinion doesn't change a damn thing.
If i say i'd like to be the one to bitch slap that simpering sychophant woodruff, that's as much of a flame as lancyboy saying he'd like to have "pushed the button" on DM.

You've really got it in for me now, don't you b.k.? Get a grip, man.

by **b.k. barunt** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:49 pm

Night Strike wrote:
pimpdave wrote:Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

Why must there be this escalating system of bannings? So that one could suffer a much worse sentence (say, permaban) for something far less serious than a 24 hour ban?

It's seriously disheartening, seriously impacts morale, and will not serve this site (or, more importantly, the mods) well in the long run.

You already are getting punishments that fit the crime. You all were clamoring for tougher enforcements on those things that were deemed more serious and got that, but now you want there to be very little for minor things? Come on, how many times does one have to be warned and given vacations for minor infractions to actually learn from them? If there were no permanent bans, it just ultimately becomes a waste of a moderator's time. Why should repeated warnings and 24 hour vacations given out to the same person for spamming continue to happen if the person obviously isn't learning? If a player can't learn to follow the rules, they don't deserve to stay. It's quite simple.

There's the problem in a nutshell. It's not "quite simple" at all, and is actually a problem of some complexity. Problem is, you're only able to address it in a simpleminded fashion. What a surprise.

Honibaz

by **pimpdave** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:24 pm

Woodruff wrote:Yours certainly seemed far more inflammatory to me. "Qualifying" it as you did really didn't soften anything about it at all. It wasn't your statement that you wanted him removed from the thread that I saw as particularly inflammatory...it was everything that went with it. <smile>

Okay, well look Woody, the way you keep harping on this is getting to be threadjacking and derailing, both offenses that can GET YOU A PERMANENT BAN, as happened to Dancing Mustard. So if you have a problem with the substance of my posts, can you just STFU about it in the thread and PM me your concerns about my tone upon your delicate, pointy ears? We can talk in private. You're being an ass.

Let's get back to the topic at hand please... the Fundamental Problem with the Permanent Ban.

anyone who wants to get this back on topic, here's links to posts that cover the matter:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=91670&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=91670&start=15#p2110213
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=91670&start=15#p2110390
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=91670&start=180#p2114115

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:43 pm

pimpdave wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Yours certainly seemed far more inflammatory to me. "Qualifying" it as you did really didn't soften anything about it at all. It wasn't your statement that you wanted him removed from the thread that I saw as particularly inflammatory...it was everything that went with it. <smile>

Okay, well look Woody, the way you keep harping on this is getting to be threadjacking and derailing

In responding directly to you (the thread originator, I point out) about the specific things you posted in this thread, you believe I would be threadjacking and derailing? That seems a very strange definition of those offenses unless, I suppose, you were including yourself as an offender as well. But that's fine, I will stop.

by **AgentSmith88** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:59 am

hey, did you guys know that you can play RISK on this site?

by **b.k. barunt** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:11 am

Yeah i did. I've got 97 games going right now. Hey, did you know that you can actually hold conversations on the forum here?

Honibaz

by **MeDeFe** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:51 am

Night Strike wrote:
pimpdave wrote:Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

Why must there be this escalating system of bannings? So that one could suffer a much worse sentence (say, permaban) for something far less serious than a 24 hour ban?

It's seriously disheartening, seriously impacts morale, and will not serve this site (or, more importantly, the mods) well in the long run.

You already are getting punishments that fit the crime. You all were clamoring for tougher enforcements on those things that were deemed more serious and got that, but now you want there to be very little for minor things? Come on, how many times does one have to be warned and given vacations for minor infractions to actually learn from them? If there were no permanent bans, it just ultimately becomes a waste of a moderator's time. Why should repeated warnings and 24 hour vacations given out to the same person for spamming continue to happen if the person obviously isn't learning? If a player can't learn to follow the rules, they don't deserve to stay. It's quite simple.

No, Nightstrike, you are wrong. We weren't clamoring for tougher, but for better. Way back in '07 (I think it was then but I'm not 100% sure) we were clamoring for fair and transparent enforcement of the rules. Different people were getting different punishments for committing the same offences, largely depending on whether the mod liked them or not and what sort of day the mod who spotted it was having. Guess what, that hasn't changed. At all.

Also: Strawman much? Noone has suggested that there be at most a 24 hour ban. There's a thread in Sugs&Bugs with the general thrust being that a 6 month ban be the highest punishment except for offenses like repeatedly making racist posts, actively harming the site like Wicked tried or for market bots that create threads in every forum advertising websites that sell drugs or whatever.
A 6 month ban would be followed by a probationary period (the length of which is being debated) within which another 6 month ban could be issued, after that it's back to shorter bans. We (or at least I) want to get away from the rigid escalating system to a more flexible one where old offenses that may lie as far back as 2 or 3 years are prescribed and where you don't get a month long ban for posting "QFT" to express agreement with a post someone else made. The demands for "fair and transparent" still stand, btw.

I also note that you are quite fixated on what the mods want, "it just ultimately becomes a waste of a moderators time", well, I don't think a moderator's job description is "throw out everyone you think causes trouble so you can sit back and get paid for doing nothing", that's more like what a bouncer does. A moderator is supposed to do just what it sounds like, moderate. Resolve extremes, ease tensions, bring conflicts to a solution or at least to a point where they are carried out peaceably.
Think about it.

by **b.k. barunt** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:13 am

Outstanding post. =D>

Honibaz

by **WidowMakers** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:40 am

This thread should be titled.
"The fundamental problem with people who always push the rules as far as they can and then get banned so they can complain about how the system is out to get them and not fair."

This web site is not a right. GET OVER IT. There are rules and if you don't like them then leave. You cannot compare this place to a store and offenses to shoplifting. Eventually if people , in the real world, do enough stuff they are put away, pay fines or penalties of some sort. Now I agree that if I shoplift 200 times, I will not be taken out of society, but I will have a real messed up life and most likely many court fees and issues. We can't do that here. Should we start charging offenders $$$? Should people be able to buy there way out of banning?

The problem with that is that avatars here are not real. The people are real, yes but if there is never any action that can separate them from the rest of us (banning) then there really is never any action that can keep a person from doing stuff. I have never been close to getting any sort of ban. You want to know why? I never try to push and see how far I can.

There are SOOOOO many levels of banning here that no one can claim it is not fair or that they were unaware or that they messed up once.
If you don't want to get banned, don't try to push the mods buttons by doing all the things that the guidelines say NOT to do. It is easy. Thousands of people do it every day.

WM

by **b.k. barunt** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:43 am

Thousands of people? No, no much more than that. Most of the people actually. Follow the leader right? Good boy.

Honibaz

by **WidowMakers** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:59 am

b.k. barunt wrote:Thousands of people? No, no much more than that. Most of the people actually. Follow the leader right? Good boy.

Honibaz

Not follow the leader, follow the rules. If there is a legitimate reason for breaking rules or rules are unfair then try to change then in a correct fashion. I don't believe any of the rules we have here are unfair or oppressive. Maybe some others do. Explain your case and bring it to the appropriate people.

If they still disagree and the rules are not how you like them there are two options:

Some people just want to cause trouble to cause trouble. If that is the case, don't complain when the axe falls and you get busted.

WM

by **jiminski** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:12 am

WidowMakers wrote:This thread should be titled.
"The fundamental problem with people who always push the rules as far as they can and then get banned so they can complain about how the system is out to get them and not fair."

This web site is not a right. GET OVER IT. There are rules and if you don't like them then leave. You cannot compare this place to a store and offenses to shoplifting. Eventually if people , in the real world, do enough stuff they are put away, pay fines or penalties of some sort. Now I agree that if I shoplift 200 times, I will not be taken out of society, but I will have a real messed up life and most likely many court fees and issues. We can't do that here. Should we start charging offenders $$$? Should people be able to buy there way out of banning?

The problem with that is that avatars here are not real. The people are real, yes but if there is never any action that can separate them from the rest of us (banning) then there really is never any action that can keep a person from doing stuff. I have never been close to getting any sort of ban. You want to know why? I never try to push and see how far I can.

There are SOOOOO many levels of banning here that no one can claim it is not fair or that they were unaware or that they messed up once.
If you don't want to get banned, don't try to push the mods buttons by doing all the things that the guidelines say NOT to do. It is easy. Thousands of people do it every day.

WM

correct Window; we have no rights to anything in this regard and the site has no right to our custom nor our blind sycophantic obedience. *

somewhere in the middle lies what we can all stomach the other 'side' getting. But it should be the sites job to minimise this partisan drawing up of lines. At present it is only fueling the perception of sides. 'We' can meet 'us' in the middle but users have no power other than the hollow words they spout here. What we are angered by is that the deed is already done, so what middle ground is there to find? Being conciliatory here only benefits those with th epower who are being criticised by the side who has no power to change it!

Somehow a new fixed, accumulated system of bannings came in on the back of the Bigotry thread.
Flamewars was deleted as a joke and here, now! you are attacking us for voicing dissent over a one-off incident and the means by which it was executed. I found that when we met you in the middle in the Bigotry thread, (beautifully dealt with by Andy by the way) you shafted us, claiming dominion over all rulings in general and not just on Bigotry. You turn customer service into applying your own agenda .. clever but bloody infuriating!

when we do meet you to find constructive resolution you get sneaky and strip away some of our 'rights' and then play the "oooh you have no rights, its a Privately owned site get over it!" card .. Under these circumstances and with you playing us as you are, what the hell do you people think will happen? I'll tell you, as with now, people piss and moan due to their feeling of impotence. And some will exercise their only single right as you alluded to above .. they will leave.

* i will also say that you can not demand the style of our words either; if we wish to make analogies to express our feelings and draw you to our understanding, that genuinely is our right and one which you nor this private site can infringe upon .. Unless you wish to ban us all for using a shoplifting metaphor, which sadly, with the new 3 strikes your out method of rulings, is quite possible now!!!! Do you get it now!? this is not just stupid selfish winging it is important for all of us and the way the site works!

by **pimpdave** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:15 am

WidowMakers wrote:
b.k. barunt wrote:Thousands of people? No, no much more than that. Most of the people actually. Follow the leader right? Good boy.

Honibaz
Not follow the leader, follow the rules. If there is a legitimate reason for breaking rules or rules are unfair then try to change then in a correct fashion. I don't believe any of the rules we have here are unfair or oppressive. Maybe some others do. Explain your case and bring it to the appropriate people.

Please go back to page one and begin again, because you completely missed the point of this thread, McFly.

AgentSmith88 wrote:hey, did you guys know that you can play RISK on this site?

Hey, did you know that your post right there could get you a PERMANENT BAN from the site?

Seriously, look it up.

by **Snorri1234** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:52 am

lancehoch wrote:Snorri, here are the threads that he was cited for:
racism/bigotry: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=48096
spam: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=69431
C&A spam: viewtopic.php?f=239&t=66477

A joke thread to liven up the forums should not be called spam. (Or racism for that matter.) Since you let nearly everyone else get away with the same things, (if you didn't off-topics would be dead right now), I really think those threads weren't locked for being spam but for being from Dancing Mustard.

As to logging into another account, yes, it was an unwritten rule before you guys got in trouble for it. However, it is a form of having a second account and account hijacking.

I know what was used as a justification but the fact is that we were busted for something not against the rules and harmless to the site. Add to that that we never even thought it would result in mod-action.

There have also been players busted for only using an account to be funny in the forums.

Not playing the game is now also against the rules?

That being said, he was pushing boundaries and limits for two years, if not longer, and the administrators have finally had enough.

Pushing the boundaries is now cause for banning?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

It's fine how it is. This website is just part of a larger game we play on a daily basis with others. Let the mods be as authoritarian as they like; and it's great to have someone calling them out on this. But, I wonder if the people who do get permanently banned, just didn't understand when to cool it. They get out of line, or take something to far, and a permanent ban is the result? Ok, fine. They're not good enough at pushing people's limits, then off they go.

I'm not sure if there is, but perhaps there could be an appeal process for unjust perma-bans? (Assuming there isn't already one).