Are you pleased with Hamilton's banning?

[dead0man]

I'm with Lunar on this.  You guys (especially Alcon) have explained way more than enough why you took the actions you did.  Ignore Hammy's sock.

[Alcon]

GaryJohnson,

A permaban isn't the death penalty.  It's a life sentence.  No, actually, scratch that -- In this analogy, it's being banned from the Wal-Mart you kept shoplifting from.  We're not locking him in a cell, or even kicking him off the entire Internet.  We're just banning him from the one private institution where he kept offending.  And, considering everything else I said, I think we've demonstrated that kicking a belligerent Hamilton out of our metaphorical Internet Wal-Mart was more than fair.

(I think this analogy may end up with me being a Wal-Mart greeter somehow.)

dead0man,

Thank you, and yeah you're probably right, but all the fun 1 AM stuff is 21+ or illegal.  Also, welcome to Wal-Mart, have you seen this week's Blue Light Special on honey-baked ham?  Aisle five.

Lunar,

Yeah, that sucks but I promised transparency and that's more important than disallowing Hamilton to get off ex post facto.  My hands are tied.

i'm going to sleep.

[Lunar]

screw transparency, this isn't mommy's cookie factory that needs to make sure everyone leaves with their tummy full.  Make a single post explaining the process, post it at the top, lock it it, and use copy & paste to handle private message inquiries.  Having your explanation buried five pages deep in one of eighty threads isn't the way to go about it, dawg.

delete everything else.  everyone serious on this forum knows how difficult it is to be banned.

[Phony Moderate]

Possibly my most successful thread.

[Alcon]

screw transparency, this isn't mommy's cookie factory that needs to make sure everyone leaves with their tummy full.  Make a single post explaining the process, post it at the top, lock it it, and use copy & paste to handle private message inquiries.  Having your explanation buried five pages deep in one of eighty threads isn't the way to go about it, dawg.

delete everything else.  everyone serious on this forum knows how difficult it is to be banned.

There's no process detailed enough to be a catch-all.  Otherwise it would be easy to get around.  We make the rule violations clear, but not the process arrived in punishment/bans.
 I have no problem with addressing the fairness of decisions made.  But posting beforehand, "this is how decisions are made," won't be more effective at assuring fairness, and will just add an extra layer of legalism that will be bad for fairness in general.  We won't be able to consider extenuating circumstances, for good and bad for the poster, and if we have open discussion of fairness, I'd prefer to avoid that inflexibility.

It's a nice idea in concept, but things just aren't that mathematical, and I'm willing to take the time to reasonably explain decisions.  As long as the feedback is constructive and specific, obviously.

[Mint]

That's a good point, actually.

[Eraserhead]

Jesus Christ, people. This thread is getting ridiculous. I'm sure Hamilton has already pleasured himself to it several times!

[Lunar]

screw transparency, this isn't mommy's cookie factory that needs to make sure everyone leaves with their tummy full.  Make a single post explaining the process, post it at the top, lock it it, and use copy & paste to handle private message inquiries.  Having your explanation buried five pages deep in one of eighty threads isn't the way to go about it, dawg.

delete everything else.  everyone serious on this forum knows how difficult it is to be banned.

There's no process detailed enough to be a catch-all.  Otherwise it would be easy to get around.  We make the rule violations clear, but not the process arrived in punishment/bans.
 I have no problem with addressing the fairness of decisions made.  But posting beforehand, "this is how decisions are made," won't be more effective at assuring fairness, and will just add an extra layer of legalism that will be bad for fairness in general.  We won't be able to consider extenuating circumstances, for good and bad for the poster, and if we have open discussion of fairness, I'd prefer to avoid that inflexibility.

It's a nice idea in concept, but things just aren't that mathematical, and I'm willing to take the time to reasonably explain decisions.  As long as the feedback is constructive and specific, obviously.

Okay, no more difficulty from me.  You got enough minions and others to deal with, and your job is hard enough.

I know I could never be moderator of this board while avoiding entire legions opposed to arbitrary policies I'd set about not glorifying trolls  So, as Ali G would say, Respek

I do wish there was a way you could publicly address complaints while not negative feeding into the publicity of it all, though.

[minionofmidas]

I don't really care. So it goes.

[Eraserhead]

Alcon, why do we have to spend so much time intelligently discussing a clear sociopath who's only purpose on this forum was to divide, manipulate, and conquer?

Who here is talking about MasterJedi?

MasterJedi couldn't conquer a Baskin Robbins in January.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In my defense, I am against Hamilton's banning on the grounds of freedom of speech. I would've been just as outraged if a Neonazi forumer got banned for expressing his opinion as I am over Hamilton. Personally, as much of a jerk I thought Hamilton turned out to be in the last few weeks, the last thing I would've wished on him or anyone else is a banning. Just because this is an internet forum doesn't change my views of free expression, even if I can't stand whoever is saying it.

Was anyone here not a jerk to him?

I was never a jerk to him.

[JSojourner]

Jesus Christ, people. This thread is getting ridiculous. I'm sure Hamilton has already pleasured himself to it several times!

This post is why Eraserhead is one of my favorites.  Buddy, you rock the forum world!

[Alcon]

I'm just going to delete posts that bait without providing any constructive criticism from now on.  FYI.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

GaryJohnson,

In about the same sense that "sucks" fits under sexually vulgar language.  I'm reasonably sure, although not completely, that I PMed Hamilton asking him to cease reporting "retarded," at least until I hashed it out with Dave.  Either way, if he paid enough attention to notice that the one post was edited, he surely noticed that the others weren't being.  Even if there was a sincere miscommunication about "retarded" and he didn't notice they weren't being deleted, stuff like the "drug paraphernalia" report was clearly systemic abuse of the reporting function.  And it doesn't serve to dispute the central fact, that Hamilton was reporting posts while breaking rules anyway, which makes no sense even if we assume his reports were benevolent, which is straining credulity.

That's the point:  Hamilton was reporting these posts while breaking rules he knew were worse.  How does that disprove the A) and B) points I just outlined?  He knew he was breaking rules, he didn't care, he didn't talk to a moderator about it until his posts were being deleted for it, and even when he did, he refused to cooperate and kept intentionally offending.  Unless anything disputes that fundamental tenant, or you believe that there should be no punishment

Imagine.  You're a judge.  Some dude comes into court with 500 shoplifting convictions, mentally fit to stand trial, with two previous probations for felony theft, and says:

I don't have to cooperate with you, and besides there are other shoplifters out there, and here are ten people who parallel park (or have photographs of bongs!!!)

You're going to, what, just set him free and have him return the merchandise every time he's caught?  Or actually punish him with jail time?  We're doing jail time.

P.S. I appreciate your commitment to this cause and Internet security in general, since you've only posted from proxies.   I have no idea if this means you're Hamilton.  I doubt it, but if you are, I'm not bothered, because this is exactly the way you should have talked to us to have prevented this mess from happening.  If you aren't, welcome aboard, and I appreciate your temperate civility.

Well, I must say, a permaban isn't jail time, it's the death penalty. Make of that what you will.

Also, you might wonder why I post from proxies? I'm at school so I make all my posts from proxies. not because I'm a weirdo (I might be) but because I frequent drug sites while I surf this forum and another political forum. Why do I frequent drug sites, you might ask? To find more like-minded people to support Gary Johnson. I don't think my school seeing a bunch of drug related websites from my name would be very helpful on my resume.

Part of me is beginning to believe this guy is Hamilton. He just used a stereotype (that all Gary Johnson supporters/libertarians are drug users) to justify being here, and already posts from proxies. Plus, he's certainly not only here to promote Johnson. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

GaryJohnson,

In about the same sense that "sucks" fits under sexually vulgar language.  I'm reasonably sure, although not completely, that I PMed Hamilton asking him to cease reporting "retarded," at least until I hashed it out with Dave.  Either way, if he paid enough attention to notice that the one post was edited, he surely noticed that the others weren't being.  Even if there was a sincere miscommunication about "retarded" and he didn't notice they weren't being deleted, stuff like the "drug paraphernalia" report was clearly systemic abuse of the reporting function.  And it doesn't serve to dispute the central fact, that Hamilton was reporting posts while breaking rules anyway, which makes no sense even if we assume his reports were benevolent, which is straining credulity.

That's the point:  Hamilton was reporting these posts while breaking rules he knew were worse.  How does that disprove the A) and B) points I just outlined?  He knew he was breaking rules, he didn't care, he didn't talk to a moderator about it until his posts were being deleted for it, and even when he did, he refused to cooperate and kept intentionally offending.  Unless anything disputes that fundamental tenant, or you believe that there should be no punishment

Imagine.  You're a judge.  Some dude comes into court with 500 shoplifting convictions, mentally fit to stand trial, with two previous probations for felony theft, and says:

I don't have to cooperate with you, and besides there are other shoplifters out there, and here are ten people who parallel park (or have photographs of bongs!!!)

You're going to, what, just set him free and have him return the merchandise every time he's caught?  Or actually punish him with jail time?  We're doing jail time.

P.S. I appreciate your commitment to this cause and Internet security in general, since you've only posted from proxies.   I have no idea if this means you're Hamilton.  I doubt it, but if you are, I'm not bothered, because this is exactly the way you should have talked to us to have prevented this mess from happening.  If you aren't, welcome aboard, and I appreciate your temperate civility.

Well, I must say, a permaban isn't jail time, it's the death penalty. Make of that what you will.

Also, you might wonder why I post from proxies? I'm at school so I make all my posts from proxies. not because I'm a weirdo (I might be) but because I frequent drug sites while I surf this forum and another political forum. Why do I frequent drug sites, you might ask? To find more like-minded people to support Gary Johnson. I don't think my school seeing a bunch of drug related websites from my name would be very helpful on my resume.

Part of me is beginning to believe this guy is Hamilton. He just used a stereotype (that all Gary Johnson supporters/libertarians are drug users) to justify being here, and already posts from proxies. Plus, he's certainly not only here to promote Johnson. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

segwaystyle is not Hamilton.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Maybe not, but his reasoning for being here and using proxies are hilarious. I'm sure others have taken note.

[Eraserhead]

Jesus Christ, people. This thread is getting ridiculous. I'm sure Hamilton has already pleasured himself to it several times!

This post is why Eraserhead is one of my favorites.  Buddy, you rock the forum world!

Thank you, kind sir. I'll be here all week.

[The Mikado]

GaryJohnson,

In about the same sense that "sucks" fits under sexually vulgar language.  I'm reasonably sure, although not completely, that I PMed Hamilton asking him to cease reporting "retarded," at least until I hashed it out with Dave.  Either way, if he paid enough attention to notice that the one post was edited, he surely noticed that the others weren't being.  Even if there was a sincere miscommunication about "retarded" and he didn't notice they weren't being deleted, stuff like the "drug paraphernalia" report was clearly systemic abuse of the reporting function.  And it doesn't serve to dispute the central fact, that Hamilton was reporting posts while breaking rules anyway, which makes no sense even if we assume his reports were benevolent, which is straining credulity.

That's the point:  Hamilton was reporting these posts while breaking rules he knew were worse.  How does that disprove the A) and B) points I just outlined?  He knew he was breaking rules, he didn't care, he didn't talk to a moderator about it until his posts were being deleted for it, and even when he did, he refused to cooperate and kept intentionally offending.  Unless anything disputes that fundamental tenant, or you believe that there should be no punishment

Imagine.  You're a judge.  Some dude comes into court with 500 shoplifting convictions, mentally fit to stand trial, with two previous probations for felony theft, and says:

I don't have to cooperate with you, and besides there are other shoplifters out there, and here are ten people who parallel park (or have photographs of bongs!!!)

You're going to, what, just set him free and have him return the merchandise every time he's caught?  Or actually punish him with jail time?  We're doing jail time.

P.S. I appreciate your commitment to this cause and Internet security in general, since you've only posted from proxies.   I have no idea if this means you're Hamilton.  I doubt it, but if you are, I'm not bothered, because this is exactly the way you should have talked to us to have prevented this mess from happening.  If you aren't, welcome aboard, and I appreciate your temperate civility.

Well, I must say, a permaban isn't jail time, it's the death penalty. Make of that what you will.

Also, you might wonder why I post from proxies? I'm at school so I make all my posts from proxies. not because I'm a weirdo (I might be) but because I frequent drug sites while I surf this forum and another political forum. Why do I frequent drug sites, you might ask? To find more like-minded people to support Gary Johnson. I don't think my school seeing a bunch of drug related websites from my name would be very helpful on my resume.

Part of me is beginning to believe this guy is Hamilton. He just used a stereotype (that all Gary Johnson supporters/libertarians are drug users) to justify being here, and already posts from proxies. Plus, he's certainly not only here to promote Johnson. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

This isn't a Gary Johnson thread, but it's also worth pointing out that people who frequent drug websites aren't exactly likely voters and are a rather problematic constituency to attract (being the "druggie candidate" is a deadly image for a campaign).

[segwaystyle2012]

GaryJohnson,

In about the same sense that "sucks" fits under sexually vulgar language.  I'm reasonably sure, although not completely, that I PMed Hamilton asking him to cease reporting "retarded," at least until I hashed it out with Dave.  Either way, if he paid enough attention to notice that the one post was edited, he surely noticed that the others weren't being.  Even if there was a sincere miscommunication about "retarded" and he didn't notice they weren't being deleted, stuff like the "drug paraphernalia" report was clearly systemic abuse of the reporting function.  And it doesn't serve to dispute the central fact, that Hamilton was reporting posts while breaking rules anyway, which makes no sense even if we assume his reports were benevolent, which is straining credulity.

That's the point:  Hamilton was reporting these posts while breaking rules he knew were worse.  How does that disprove the A) and B) points I just outlined?  He knew he was breaking rules, he didn't care, he didn't talk to a moderator about it until his posts were being deleted for it, and even when he did, he refused to cooperate and kept intentionally offending.  Unless anything disputes that fundamental tenant, or you believe that there should be no punishment

Imagine.  You're a judge.  Some dude comes into court with 500 shoplifting convictions, mentally fit to stand trial, with two previous probations for felony theft, and says:

I don't have to cooperate with you, and besides there are other shoplifters out there, and here are ten people who parallel park (or have photographs of bongs!!!)

You're going to, what, just set him free and have him return the merchandise every time he's caught?  Or actually punish him with jail time?  We're doing jail time.

P.S. I appreciate your commitment to this cause and Internet security in general, since you've only posted from proxies.   I have no idea if this means you're Hamilton.  I doubt it, but if you are, I'm not bothered, because this is exactly the way you should have talked to us to have prevented this mess from happening.  If you aren't, welcome aboard, and I appreciate your temperate civility.

Well, I must say, a permaban isn't jail time, it's the death penalty. Make of that what you will.

Also, you might wonder why I post from proxies? I'm at school so I make all my posts from proxies. not because I'm a weirdo (I might be) but because I frequent drug sites while I surf this forum and another political forum. Why do I frequent drug sites, you might ask? To find more like-minded people to support Gary Johnson. I don't think my school seeing a bunch of drug related websites from my name would be very helpful on my resume.

Part of me is beginning to believe this guy is Hamilton. He just used a stereotype (that all Gary Johnson supporters/libertarians are drug users) to justify being here, and already posts from proxies. Plus, he's certainly not only here to promote Johnson. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

This isn't a Gary Johnson thread, but it's also worth pointing out that people who frequent drug websites aren't exactly likely voters and are a rather problematic constituency to attract (being the "druggie candidate" is a deadly image for a campaign).

Which is why I'm reaching out, also, Senator Duke, I didn't say all Gary Johnson supporters are drug users if you'd actually have read what I wrote. I said I frequent those sites to find people I could convince to support Gary Johnson. Not a very difficult concept, as I've got a few people on board already (even some liberal Democrats!).