Home Forums Discussions General Discussion Ban

Okay, we are "invited guests," and the moderator is our "host." Fine. However, if I was at an engagement or party and someone was permanently thrown out the front door without public reason, I'd be apt to ask why - which is exactly what I'm doing now. I went through Andrechuk's nearly entire (available) post history, and did not see any evidence of abusive rhetoric. I can see the nature of his posts as somewhat odd (like the java applet or whatever), but being "odd" is not a reason for a ban. In truth, I saw Bert act as an agitator, too, with the needless correction of grammar. Either way, I would just like someone to point out an example of these so-called "abusive" posts that you are all citing. Then I'll gladly shut up.

I understand that we may disagree on what "abusive" posting is, but the issue for me is that in Bert's original post, he didn't cite these specific examples. I think that as a community moderator who is trying to act in our best interest, this must be done.

(by the way, I asked my son to grammar-check my post.)

Is there a "yawn" emoticon?

I think that one interpretation of "abusive" posting could be a rapid series of posts that have no substance relating to the subject at hand, but simply comments for/against whatever is going on... maybe even polite, but "useless", nonetheless... more like "abusive" of the time/space taken up without providing anything of value. I don't think Bert needs to cite specific examples. The immediate comments seem to indicate that Bert gave this person more than enough time. I would also agree if Bert even banned this poster, and removed all of his posts, with only a passing "this poster has been banned" note. Being a mod is not an easy job.

Note: I've been a member of a sports team board, which if you can imagine, incites much emotion. The mods there do a very good job of moderating all of the "stuff" going on... and ban posters on occasion. But when banning is done, or posts are deleted, the opinion is one of agreement. In my brief experience, I think Bert reflects that and does a very good job...

For Pete's sake, fellas, give it a rest!

Double

Leslie,
Not to change the subject, but I have always wondered who Pete is.

jimmie,

That comment seems argumentative, may get you (and Pete) banned.....

Gene

Gene,

Bert has his eye on me so for Pete's sake I retract the question.

Pete thanks you.

Gene

jimmie,

I just noticed that we are almost tied in post count (223 vs 216). So this post has no value except to increase my count by 1!

Gene

No one is really "banned" from the board. Effectively they are just placed in "read only mode", right (since anonymous users can still read the board)? Thanks Bert, for whatever you did.

This has been nagging me all day so I went to Wiktionary and found a definition for Pete's Sake--euphemistic variation for Christ's sake, for God's sake, "Pete" perhaps invoking Saint Peter or perhaps influenced by for pity's sake. 217 Gene!

I am at a cross roads. I read Easy Riders comments and almost want to reply, but enough is enough. This horse is not just dead, it's been stinking for a long time, LET IT REST.

We can agree to disagree. If you don't get it, move on.

I will not reply on this topic anymore.

I'm with Wendell, Leslie and a few others.

I find it ironic that the one thing you cite about my discretions is my correction of his grammar; you end your post with. I did correct his grammar; he then went on to correct at least seven user's grammar. I think my grammar comment was hardly abusive.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I think we owe it to Les to allow him to post his thoughts and not sandwiched between multiple yawns. If the thread has become boring, one can simply ignore it.
2. EasyRider, you state that if you were at an engagement..., but you weren't. You weren't on the board when the 57 posts were made. It was quite different in real time, believe me. The posts that are missing were deleted by him. I found it strange myself.
3. No one, especially me, has to point out these "abusive" posts.
4. I definitely do not need to cite specific examples in my first post, in fact I do not need to even have a first post.
5. I emailed Jon with my intentions. He is definitely above me. The lack of response leaves me to believe he has no problem with the ban.
6. In the rules of the forum, it clearly states that an abusive poster will be banned. The definition of abusive is based on the collegiality and environment of the board being referenced.
7. While you can have two accounts with the same IP address, you must have unique email addresses and display names. He had two accounts with the same display name, which is not allowed here or in most UBB.threads.
8. What is considered abusive is solely defined by either the admin or super admin. I am the admin, and I found his comments to be abusive and, therefore, he was banned. His second account was banned 14 days, and it has been much longer than that. I do not know why he chose not to re-register.
9. Dr. Bertman has made me an administrator and entrusted in me all that entails. He does not have time to run the board. He has too much on his plate developing Amazing Charts. He has asked me to monitor the board. And, there are many other duties that go along with it.
10. I am very happy with all of the support I have received from my fellow users.

I have no doubt that I would not hesitate to ban any other user that acts in an abusive manner that does not reflect the values of this board. And, while it will be in the best interests of the board's users, Dr. Bertman is the only one I ultimately have to answer to. If he finds I am abusing my authority, I hope he takes the appropriate measures.

I am hoping this is the last post. If not, I will give you the last word, and I will then close this thread. Of course, another could be opened, but my guess is that one would be ignored.

Finally, given the seriousness of this topic, I ask everyone to refrain from jokes pertaining to being banned.

EasyRider,

This forum is not under any obligation to abide by any of the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution. If they want to ban someone, they can.

END OF STORY.

Applebees does not have to serve you.

Marriot does not have to let you stay there.

Kim Kardashian doesn't have to accept your friend request on Facebook.

And none of them has to give a reason why.

I fail to see why this thread has lasted as long as it has.

JamesNT

I was wondering what was taking so long...