If people want to go ape after a game.......

[markp]

Once you get a 'permanent ban' all you just need do is re-register with a new nic, anyway.

To be clear, the individual is only banned from the forum using that user name.

However if the individual returns to the forum under another user name, the expectation is that they do so without the unacceptable behaviour and hopefully can make a more positive contribution to the forum.

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=88562

It's bizarre.

Not necessarily.
The decision you're referring to above was the banning of The Redeemer. He'd been skirting a permanent ban for a while, but nearly always for racist posting. His warnings were pretty much all for racism. The mods discussed the options re banning him and considered only banning him from the General Forum, as his posting in the footy forum was nearly always within the rules and he was a relatively regular contributor. However, it's not possible just to ban someone form the General Forum.
So rather than banning him and all of his known IP addresses, the mods chose to ban his nic, giving him a chance to come back to the forum under a new name if he wants to. Any return at all to the racist posting style that saw him banned would result in a permanent ban for all IP addresses.
Matrix will tell us that IP bans are useless as well, because they can be circumvented, but what else can be done?

Basically, there's a 'give people the benefit of the doubt' approach going on. If Redeemer wants to come back with a new nic and without the offensive racism, then good. Con can come back with two weeks reflection under his belt and hopefully he'll think twice before posting abuse again. If he doesn't think twice, then there will be zero further tolerance for it and a permanent ban will surely ensue.

He's been permanently banned at least 3 times before... not sure when 'give the benefit of the doubt' approach should be abandoned, but it in this case it doesn't seem to working.

And to bizarre I'd like to add utterly farcical.

[saintspremiers]

I just re read the thread that Con was banned for and have come to just conclusion. Firstly how SP could claim that people should be able to vent like Con does makes me wonder about SP. Secondly the rules on here are amazing. Con gets a 2 week ban for calling about 5 people the C word and even worse saying someone, me in this case, should be on the sex offenders list and then others get 2 weeks for basically friendly baiting. Time for the mods or the rules to have leeway on ban times. Thirdly mods change posts all the time but I notice none of that thread has be altered. Yep I know its locked but it gives a pathetic reputation to SS to have some of those posts still be able to viewed by other people. What would those people think of this place? Surely the thread should be deleted if it is to much work to alter. I certainly don't want people to see that I should be on the sex offenders list. I doubt anyone would want that.

Just to clarify plugs his comments about the sex offenders register and you were bizarre and total uncalled for. Maybe he's a ice addict or something?? My references were the other stuff he was saying.

[asiu]

banned 3 times !!!


does this make 4 ?

lol.

He's always just been a try hard baby blue rinser sprouting daddies rhetoric to me.

[HitTheBoundary]

I just re read the thread that Con was banned for and have come to just conclusion. Firstly how SP could claim that people should be able to vent like Con does makes me wonder about SP. Secondly the rules on here are amazing. Con gets a 2 week ban for calling about 5 people the C word and even worse saying someone, me in this case, should be on the sex offenders list and then others get 2 weeks for basically friendly baiting. Time for the mods or the rules to have leeway on ban times. Thirdly mods change posts all the time but I notice none of that thread has be altered. Yep I know its locked but it gives a pathetic reputation to SS to have some of those posts still be able to viewed by other people. What would those people think of this place? Surely the thread should be deleted if it is to much work to alter. I certainly don't want people to see that I should be on the sex offenders list. I doubt anyone would want that.

Just to clarify plugs his comments about the sex offenders register and you were bizarre and total uncalled for. Maybe he's a ice addict or something?? My references were the other stuff he was saying.

#standbyp66

[Dr Spaceman]

#standbyp66

Get around him

[plugger66]

#standbyp66

Get around him

Get around me. You will have to visit me though. I have a leg bracelet on.

[st.byron]

He's been permanently banned at least 3 times before... not sure when 'give the benefit of the doubt' approach should be abandoned, but it in this case it doesn't seem to working.

And to bizarre I'd like to add utterly farcical.

You're welcome to your opinion about moderating but what you've posted there is inaccurate.

Con has been banned once for two weeks, in July last year. Unless he had a previous incarnation before October 2013, when he copped his first warning for the nic Con G, that's the extent of his banning. If he cops another ban for three warnings in a week before July 11 this year he'll be permanently banned for copping three two week bans in 12 months.

When it comes to permanent banning of a long term member of the forum, I think it's very reasonable to consider more than just one outburst. Con's behaviour the other night struck me as a drunken angry abuse binge or maybe he's got some kind of crap going on in his life and he took it out in the forum.
He's been a forum member since 2008 and has contributed 16400 posts. Of those 16400 posts, 13 have resulted in a warning.
My approach as a mod is to take into account the context and history of the poster as well as the current situation that's being assessed. We haven't spoken about it with each other specifically, but I reckon the other mods have a similar view.
It would be a shame to permanently ban one long term contributor on the basis of one over the top outburst.
He'll be in no doubt as to the position of the mods re his outburst and the way it's been received in the forum. Better, IMO, that he has a chance to come back and contribute than not at all.

[markp]

He's been permanently banned at least 3 times before... not sure when 'give the benefit of the doubt' approach should be abandoned, but it in this case it doesn't seem to working.

And to bizarre I'd like to add utterly farcical.

You're welcome to your opinion about moderating but what you've posted there is inaccurate.

Con has been banned once for two weeks, in July last year. Unless he had a previous incarnation before October 2013, when he copped his first warning for the nic Con G, that's the extent of his banning. If he cops another ban for three warnings in a week before July 11 this year he'll be permanently banned for copping three two week bans in 12 months.

When it comes to permanent banning of a long term member of the forum, I think it's very reasonable to consider more than just one outburst. Con's behaviour the other night struck me as a drunken angry abuse binge or maybe he's got some kind of crap going on in his life and he took it out in the forum.
He's been a forum member since 2008 and has contributed 16400 posts. Of those 16400 posts, 13 have resulted in a warning.
My approach as a mod is to take into account the context and history of the poster as well as the current situation that's being assessed. We haven't spoken about it with each other specifically, but I reckon the other mods have a similar view.
It would be a shame to permanently ban one long term contributor on the basis of one over the top outburst.
He'll be in no doubt as to the position of the mods re his outburst and the way it's been received in the forum. Better, IMO, that he has a chance to come back and contribute than not at all.

Byron, I was talking about Redeemer.

SP2008, reincarnated, and there was at least one more.

I agree re Con.

[st.byron]

He's been permanently banned at least 3 times before... not sure when 'give the benefit of the doubt' approach should be abandoned, but it in this case it doesn't seem to working.

And to bizarre I'd like to add utterly farcical.

You're welcome to your opinion about moderating but what you've posted there is inaccurate.

Con has been banned once for two weeks, in July last year. Unless he had a previous incarnation before October 2013, when he copped his first warning for the nic Con G, that's the extent of his banning. If he cops another ban for three warnings in a week before July 11 this year he'll be permanently banned for copping three two week bans in 12 months.

When it comes to permanent banning of a long term member of the forum, I think it's very reasonable to consider more than just one outburst. Con's behaviour the other night struck me as a drunken angry abuse binge or maybe he's got some kind of crap going on in his life and he took it out in the forum.
He's been a forum member since 2008 and has contributed 16400 posts. Of those 16400 posts, 13 have resulted in a warning.
My approach as a mod is to take into account the context and history of the poster as well as the current situation that's being assessed. We haven't spoken about it with each other specifically, but I reckon the other mods have a similar view.
It would be a shame to permanently ban one long term contributor on the basis of one over the top outburst.
He'll be in no doubt as to the position of the mods re his outburst and the way it's been received in the forum. Better, IMO, that he has a chance to come back and contribute than not at all.

Byron, I was talking about Redeemer.

SP2008, reincarnated, and there was at least one more.

I agree re Con.

Oh ok. Do you mean that someone who's been permanently banned multiple times shouldn't be allowed to come back? I did realise that Redeemer was Re-incarnated, SP2008 and I also reckon there was one before that. Didn't realise that he'd been permanently banned under those nics. The moderator logs don't go back that far. I agree with you. If a poster has been banned multiple times under various nics, that should be it. No further tolerance.
Matrix does though raise an interesting point about people being able to get around IP bans. No idea how that works, but I'll take his word for it and I wonder what can be done about it, if anything.

[asiu]

Forcing people's to mask there IP address / create new email addresses in itself is a pain.

... then when laziness strikes, depending on the awareness of the MIdH
(Multiple Id Hunters) u can em again .


... gotta make this stuff FUN ...


ps ,
I was talking about rereemer as well.

[markp]

Fair enough, but he wouldn't be hard to spot again regardless.

[asiu]

agreed.
.... the gerbil king has a certain style about him.


Back Pocket was one I remember from the early daze.
... got banned for Life (unfairly, imo) ... and i've always wondered if he made it back.