Returning banned posters sometimes tolerated

Sam The Sham is an unapologetic racist and a sender of abusive private messages and has been banned for it many times. Now he is back as Zapp Brannigan, playing the unapologetic racist and sending abusive private messages. This is surely well known by the site. Why does the community have to tolerate it? Why do subscribers who alert the site get ignored? Have the moderators decided to turn a blind eye? Does the site really think that Sam The Sham/Zapp Brannigan adds value to this community and to this web site?

Well said.

Originally posted by FMF
Sam The Sham is an unapologetic racist and a sender of abusive private messages and has been banned for it many times. Now he is back as Zapp Brannigan, playing the unapologetic racist and sending abusive private messages. This is surely well known by the site. Why does the community have to tolerate it? Why do subscribers who alert the site get ignored? Have th ...[text shortened]... really think that Sam The Sham/Zapp Brannigan adds value to this community and to this web site?

Moderators have got too much 'space' to cover...one persons major gripe is another persons apparent joke, folk 'see' all manner of insults if they believe truly they are there but we can all set the ignore feature... what do you do, employ dozens of mods or utilise those that offer their time freely ?? There aren't enough and their time is limited...

Originally posted by RevRSleeker
Moderators have got too much 'space' to cover...one persons major gripe is another persons apparent joke, folk 'see' all manner of insults if they believe truly they are there but we can all set the ignore feature... what do you do, employ dozens of mods or utilise those that offer their time freely ?? There aren't enough and their time is limited...

Well the web site took the time to ban a poster so it doesn't seem excessive to ask why a banned poster is allowed to return, blatantly and with impunity, and continue as before. The issue isn't a given "joke" or an "insult" felt. The issue isn't even 'freedom of speech'. The issue is whether a ban that has been imposed is being upheld or not, and if not, why not?

Originally posted by FMF
Well the web site took the time to ban a poster so it doesn't seem excessive to ask why a banned poster is allowed to return, blatantly and with impunity, and continue as before. The issue isn't a given "joke" or an "insult" felt. The issue isn't even 'freedom of speech'. The issue is whether a ban that has been imposed is being upheld or not, and if not, why not?

I'm not disagreeing, merely pointing out just how many times some folk send in one of those 'TOS' violations and for really petty stuff..apparently they're all looked at so the list grows and true violations can sit for many months before being investigated. It's true that there is a degree of fast track but I'm told that's pure chance, literally one of the site owners, or a mod, catching the poster in the act...maybe Mr Brannigan would like to grace us with his presence here and make an pertinent remark, it must be highly tempting for him 😉

Originally posted by FMF
Well the web site took the time to ban a poster so it doesn't seem excessive to ask why a banned poster is allowed to return, blatantly and with impunity, and continue as before. The issue isn't a given "joke" or an "insult" felt. The issue isn't even 'freedom of speech'. The issue is whether a ban that has been imposed is being upheld or not, and if not, why not?

The thing is no one knows how long the poster was forum banned for. The account is still a live account so they have not been banned from the site.

They may have received a 3 day ban, decided to stop using the account and the opened a new account.

Apparently this is now acceptable so long as the old account is not used.

The sooner the site brings in an "ignore poster" button for the forums the better. If everyone then puts the poster on ignore then they will soon get bored.

Originally posted by adramforall
The sooner the site brings in an "ignore poster" button for the forums the better. If everyone then puts the poster on ignore then they will soon get bored.

No. I disagree. An "ignore poster" button is not a good idea. It would be profoundly anti-social and detrimental to the debating community as the coherence of threads would be destroyed [even more than it often already is] by some people reading what other people are reacting to, others not reading it, getting confused, and other people not fully understanding why people are reacting the way they do, due to missing posts. Bad idea, I reckon.

Originally posted by FMF
No. I disagree. An "ignore poster" button is not a good idea. It would be profoundly anti-social and detrimental to the debating community as the coherence of threads would be destroyed [even more than it often already is] by some people reading what other people are reacting to, others not reading it, getting confused, and other people not fully understanding why people are reacting the way they do, due to missing posts. Bad idea, I reckon.

Hilarious! Are you not the same person who created more than one account recently ? One as John W. Booth and the other as FMF ?
Who many posters here feel you, as both personae's, have hijacked many many threads,been vile and insulting to other posters and totally incoherent at times ?
What you have done is a clear violation of the TOS.
Many called for your ban but you were given a second chance.
Now you are going to accuse another and ask for their removal ?! Thats rich!
Your best bet is to keep quiet and count your blessings FMF.

Why on earth does someone create another account, whilst on a forum ban, and continue positing in the 'same tradition'...it's not rocket science, nuances of written text are a dead give away but sod the TOS violation stuff, my only advice is such: Give it a break, it makes you look mentally unstable as there are far more important things in life than feeling compelled to post here...get a grip !

Originally posted by utherpendragon
What you have done is a clear violation of the TOS.

You are mistaken. 'FMF' was discontinued. The subscription lapsed. And I had told the web site that I wasn't using FMF any more. Then I started 'John W. Booth' as a free account [FMF has always been a subscriber account].

The suggestion that I used both accounts at the same time was incorrect and the site never pressed this accusation, which may have originated with a disgruntled poster.

I was not banned and I was not deemed to have broken the TOS. When I realised that all 'FMF's posts from the last half a decade - maybe 10,000 or more - might be lost if the retired screen name were to be deleted, I decided to discontinue 'John W. Booth' - which was then deleted at my request - and reactivate 'FMF' and, because I have always been a full-on contributor to the site [both money wise and as a community member], I decided to resubscribe.

There was never any threat of a ban on the table, regardless of what you claim. And I was never banned. Being banned was never discussed. In fact I have never been banned, not even once in 6 years. I was simply asked to choose. And I did.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
... FMF [..] Who many posters here feel you, as both personae's, have hijacked many many threads,been vile and insulting to other posters and totally incoherent at times ?

If you feel I have been "vile and insulting to other posters" you should alert the moderators, utherpendragon. If what you say had any truth to it at all, surely I would have received many bans over the last 5 or so years. But in fact I've never been banned. Not even once. Never.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand: do you think that posters who are banned should be allowed to return under different screen names?

Originally posted by FMF
You are mistaken. 'FMF' was discontinued. The subscription lapsed. And I had told the web site that I wasn't using FMF any more. Then I started 'John W. Booth' as a free account [FMF has always been a subscriber account].

The suggestion that I used both accounts at the same time was incorrect and the site never pressed this accusation, which may have origina never been banned, not even once in 6 years. I was simply asked to choose. And I did.

Well, you should have been site banned. If I had responded the way you did to a fora suspension I unquestionably would have been booted.

Harden up poof.

skeeter

Originally posted by skeeter
Well, you should have been site banned. If I had responded the way you did to a fora suspension I unquestionably would have been booted.

Harden up poof.

skeeter

What suspension? What way is it you think I "responded"? And to what exactly?Perhaps you are talking about someone else? You think I should have been site banned for what?

Originally posted by FMF
What suspension? What way is it you think I "responded"? And to what exactly?Perhaps you are talking about someone else? You think I should have been site banned for what?

I know, and you know that I know. Besides, the RevR and utherpend have pretty much covered all of that.

So that's all I have to say about you and you.

skeeter

Originally posted by skeeter
I know, and you know that I know. Besides, the RevR and utherpend have pretty much covered all of that. So that's all I have to say about you and you.

What are you talking about?