the admiral

Please ban hammer don't hurt 'em

Recommended Posts

kewp80    64

So much Cardinal hate going on here...

Oh well, I'll keep my smack talk in the MLB thread :P

I always seem to miss all the good stuff too. I'm gonna miss making fun of Mcall's women's volleyball player fetish. He was a good designer, but like someone else said, didn't take to constructive social communication. I must say though that wonderbread and phantomdreamer were getting on my nerves a little. Which is a bad thing when someone... how ever far away, whom you've never met, is getting on your bad side on a message board. Hopefully I didn't stoop to their level lately.

Why do we delete the posts that got members banned anyway? I'll second I miss being able to point to the graveyard thread to show as an example to members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's anything I find weird, it's that, ever since the format switchover, banned members see their accounts deleted (see: PhantomDreamer), except for McCall, evidently. What's the reason behind deleting the accounts of the banned, and why aren't accounts of long-banned memebers also deleted, for that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMU    2,999

For the sake of transparency, here's more background on McCall. Votes were held on punishment for him in 2007, twice in 2012, and yesterday. He has faced suspension before, and previous conduct is considered in votes. Additionally, the voting system is set up so that votes (which are cast on a ten point scale) must increase if subsequent votes are held for a single member. Also, keep in mind that banning requires a unanimous vote of 10. As examples of previous transgressions, McCall had a history of attacking people who recently joined the board, took over a Chicago Cubs concept thread to decry the breaking of tradition, and trying to take over the thread created after the Newtown shooting with political rhetoric.

Another thing to keep in mind is that with the appointing of us new moderators, the amount of active, voting moderators finally reached the number required for the punishment scale that is used. If you're noticing more bannings lately, it's not so much a case of cracking down but rather a case of there finally being enough active mods to carry out votes on a regular basis.

EDIT: accounts aren't deleted. They're permanently suspended, the ability to create content is revoked, and they are moved from "members" to "banned."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil G    99

So, with McCall gone, does this mean he won't start trashing every single realignment ever? That's nice.

By the way, how did Funky Bunky get banned really? He didn't seem like that bad of a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMU    2,999

No problem! Helps to let people behind the curtain.

In regards to Funky Bunky, a vote was called when he posted that he hoped that another member world die. In the middle of the vote, which was heading towards a suspension he replied to somebody's thoughts on the Clippers with "what the :censored: does a douche from Wisconsin know about Los Angeles?" That changed the vote to unanimous tens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil G    99
In regards to Funky Bunky, a vote was called when he posted that he hoped that another member world die. In the middle of the vote, which was heading towards a suspension he replied to somebody's thoughts on the Clippers with "what the :censored: does a douche from Wisconsin know about Los Angeles?" That changed the vote to unanimous tens.

I have no words. That is unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMU    2,999

Why do you guys not think these people will just make a new account. I wouldn't be shocked if 90% of the people who have been "ban" are still on these boards.

We trace IP addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DG_Now    3,798
In regards to Funky Bunky, a vote was called when he posted that he hoped that another member world die. In the middle of the vote, which was heading towards a suspension he replied to somebody's thoughts on the Clippers with "what the :censored: does a douche from Wisconsin know about Los Angeles?" That changed the vote to unanimous tens.

I have no words. That is unacceptable.

I don't see the great offense, but that's just me. I'm also glad I'm not a mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sportstar1212    445

In regards to Funky Bunky, a vote was called when he posted that he hoped that another member world die. In the middle of the vote, which was heading towards a suspension he replied to somebody's thoughts on the Clippers with "what the :censored: does a douche from Wisconsin know about Los Angeles?" That changed the vote to unanimous tens.

I have no words. That is unacceptable.

I don't see the great offense, but that's just me. I'm also glad I'm not a mod.

I don't see that worthy of being banned either. He and I never really got along, so I can't say I miss him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rams80    2,717

In regards to Funky Bunky, a vote was called when he posted that he hoped that another member world die. In the middle of the vote, which was heading towards a suspension he replied to somebody's thoughts on the Clippers with "what the :censored: does a douche from Wisconsin know about Los Angeles?" That changed the vote to unanimous tens.

I have no words. That is unacceptable.

I don't see the great offense, but that's just me. I'm also glad I'm not a mod.

I don't see that worthy of being banned either. He and I never really got along, so I can't say I miss him.

Bunky went off on pretty much everyone in hockey threads during his last few months on the boards. Sometimes the final offense doesn't need to be that great if you've got a large history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nuordr    458

Ignore this post as the next post provided me the information that I was looking for in regards to number of votes to ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nuordr    458

For the sake of transparency, here's more background on McCall. Votes were held on punishment for him in 2007, twice in 2012, and yesterday. He has faced suspension before, and previous conduct is considered in votes. Additionally, the voting system is set up so that votes (which are cast on a ten point scale) must increase if subsequent votes are held for a single member. Also, keep in mind that banning requires a unanimous vote of 10. As examples of previous transgressions, McCall had a history of attacking people who recently joined the board, took over a Chicago Cubs concept thread to decry the breaking of tradition, and trying to take over the thread created after the Newtown shooting with political rhetoric.

Another thing to keep in mind is that with the appointing of us new moderators, the amount of active, voting moderators finally reached the number required for the punishment scale that is used. If you're noticing more bannings lately, it's not so much a case of cracking down but rather a case of there finally being enough active mods to carry out votes on a regular basis.

EDIT: accounts aren't deleted. They're permanently suspended, the ability to create content is revoked, and they are moved from "members" to "banned."

Thanks for the explanation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_Cap    7,414

It was in the MLB thread. Phantomdreamer was going on about how the Mariners need to bring back the star/trident logo and McCall kept sniping at him every chance he could.

He got banned over that? When I saw he'd been banned, I went to his profile and clicked on posts. It took me right to his exchange with PhantomDreamer in the MLB thread. My first thought after reading those posts was "it must have been something other than this."

I thought the same thing, but maybe some posts were deleted that we are not aware of being posted.

Just out of curiosity, did these guys receive warning points first? How many does it take to get suspended? Once you receive a warning post, are you restricted from posting for a set amount of time? I don't plan on getting any warning points, but I do like to know the rules. Thanks

It was in the MLB thread. Phantomdreamer was going on about how the Mariners need to bring back the star/trident logo and McCall kept sniping at him every chance he could.

He got banned over that? When I saw he'd been banned, I went to his profile and clicked on posts. It took me right to his exchange with PhantomDreamer in the MLB thread. My first thought after reading those posts was "it must have been something other than this."

The thing about warning points is that they're rather informal. It's not a simple "3 warning points equals a week suspension" formula or anything like that. They exist as a means to streamline the process of, well, warning people. A pm can be ignored. A warning point cannot. When you receive one you have to acknowledge that you have seen it before you can post again. So we know that if we see someone who posts after we've warned them that they saw the warning. Think of it as an express pm that deals with disciplinary matters.

Now it's obviously better to have as few as possible, and none is ideal. That being said? Say you have two over the course of the year, over relatively minor things. That's probably not going to get you a serious punishment, if it even warrants a punishment at all. Someone else without any warning points, however, could be banned without receiving a single one if they do something that warrants a ban right then and there.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the warning point system has only been around since the summer. It's new. No, McCall did not receive any warning points before he was banned. That's mostly down to warning points not being around for the majority of his offences. As LMU said, he's been disciplined before and has been contacted by the mods before regarding his behaviour. He was given fair and adequate warning in the form of pm's from mods and through suspensions that his behaviour was a problem. No, McCall was not banned just for his altercation with PhantomDreamer. It was only when viewed in the context of his past actions that we decided to vote for a ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slapshot    379

McCall's account was banned because his condescension and antagonistic behavior was not going to change. As LMU mentioned, there were repeated comments to him to stop piling on and attacking certain members. He repeatedly escalated problem situations, and was always one of the first members to tell newbies they were doing something wrong.

The term "backseat mod" comes to mind with members like this. Instead of bringing issues up to the moderators and letting us handle things, he felt he had the authority to determine how some topics and threads should operate.

Trolls aren't always the only ones to blame when threads get derailed. Sometimes, people can't help themselves and continue to antagonize and flame other members.

McCall was one of them, and now he's gone.

He's certainly not the only talented artist here who has problems dealing with other people, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

That's why there are moderators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeypower    644

I'm going to echo sc49er's post and say this is a very interesting and informative thread.

I think with bannings, there might be a bit of "what does this person bring to the boards outside of the ban worthy stuff." In the case of Funky Bunky, sure the final incident leading to the ban might not have been a terrible thing, but he had started to go off the rails a bit and he had his boards version of a permanent record. He started to just be a fighter here.

Same with Phantomdreamer and wonderbread, outside of posting about the Mariners logo and then starting arguements with the Mariners logo or harassing crownking, those two didn't bring much to the boards in terms of content.

Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_Cap    7,414

The "what do they bring to the community?" argument only goes so far. McCall and ICS were both talented artists who were jerks when dealing with people. Sooner or later the attitude outruns the conceptual contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now