The handle "Stang" has been unseen in the forums for quite some time. As annoying, repetitive and propaganda prone as Stang sometimes was, I personally have second thoughts about indefinitely banning someone from the forums who actually pays money and subscribes to the site.
I also think there is no practical way to keep those banned indefinitely from posting under various non-subscriber handles.
I have no problem with forum bans complete with thread and/or post removals for spamming and for violations that most agree obviously go beyond the bounds of reasonable taste. But I do think that those bans should be for specifically stated periods of time. And I do think that anyone continuing to pay the subscription fee deserves to be given an unlimited number of opportunities to rejoin the forum community.
I'm not second guessing any moderator's judgement in imposing bans. Nor am I questioning their right to do so, they clearly have that right.
Nor am I questioning the permanent removal of chess cheats from the RHP community. That's a different, more serious issue than forum bans.
I am simply questioning the idea of open-ended forum bans on those who continue to pay subscription fees.
Any opinions? And I don't mean opinions about Stang personally. I mean opinions about open-ended forum bans for subscribers.
(Do try to keep it civilized. Not much will be gained if a thread about forum banning gets so out of control that it leads to more people being banned.)
Originally posted by 7ate9Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, 7ate9.
spammers should be cut down to a limited amount of posts like probation. they should find the quality of what they write would improve and not have the need to take control of the system as much. they and those around them should see an improvement in their intellect which they could then rely on a little more.
Originally posted by sasquatch672LOL! Also a reasonable evaluation of the situation, SQ.
I think if you come here, just like anywhere, you agree to a set of rules. If you break those rules, you lose your privileges. Imagine some putz at a classy restaurant - forget that, a dirt-floor bar - walking around to every patron present and saying to them, over and over, "VIOLENCE LEADS TO VIOLENCE". Do you think that person's quote-unquote "free ...[text shortened]... not to have that extra drink and just maybe not to come back?
Stang should stay gone.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Excessive moderation is far more likely to drive people away from a Debates forum than letting people have their say, which is supposed to be the whole point.
I think if you come here, just like anywhere, you agree to a set of rules. If you break those rules, you lose your privileges. Imagine some putz at a classy restaurant - forget that, a dirt-floor bar - walking around to every patron present and saying to them, over and over, "VIOLENCE LEADS TO VIOLENCE". Do you think that person's quote-unquote "free ...[text shortened]... not to have that extra drink and just maybe not to come back?
Stang should stay gone.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't disagree with you N1M, especially in regards to people who actually pay to become members of the community, but it is annoying when someone continually tries to make the same point in the same way. It is probably also counter productive in regards to actually presenting an arguement in such a repetitive, boring manner.
Excessive moderation is far more likely to drive people away from a Debates forum than letting people have their say, which is supposed to be the whole point.
Incidently, I thought this thread would generate much more interest than it has. The subject of censorship usually seems to generate interest in the forums. The title of the thread seemed clear enough to me, but perhaps I didn't do a good job in presenting the material in my initial post.