Petition to unban Straha!

[Senator Napoleon]

The mods are about Dave's vision, haha, until Dave has apparently decided not to ban someone.

[Big DaddyTX]

LOL to this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ya'll do realize, that instead of a flame war (fun as those may be), we do have a chance to turn this into a legal discussion concerning:

a) double jeopardy (Dave already dealt with Straha's antics 3 years ago)
b) The Mods are trying to institute an ex post facto law (Straha's actions took place prior to new rules, yet the Mods are attempting to penalize previous actions under the new rules)
c) statute of limitations (actions were 3 years ago)

I think Straha has pretty good grounds for appeal.  And I think Straha will win his appeal if he has the tack-sharp legal mind of the jmfcst representing him...even though the jmfcst will probably end up kicking Straha's ass at some point down the road.

[wormyguy]

ya'll do realize, that instead of a flame war (fun as those may be), we do have a chance to turn this into a legal discussion concerning:

a) double jeopardy (Dave already dealt with Straha's antics 3 years ago)
b) The Mods are trying to institute an ex post facto law (Straha's actions took place prior to new rules, yet the Mods are attempting to penalize previous actions under the new rules)
c) statute of limitations (actions were 3 years ago)

I think Straha has pretty good grounds for appeal.  And I think Straha will win his appeal if he has the tack-sharp legal mind of the jmfcst representing him...even though the jmfcst will probably end up kicking Straha's ass at some point down the road.

Not only that, but he was *locked out of his account,* so the only thing he could do to stay was create a new one, and it's within the realm of possibility he didn't even know about the mod review (or that it was meant for a year rather than a week, as usual).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

a) double jeopardy (Dave already dealt with Straha's antics 3 years ago)
b) The Mods are trying to institute an ex post facto law (Straha's actions took place prior to new rules, yet the Mods are attempting to penalize previous actions under the new rules)
c) statute of limitations (actions were 3 years ago)

adding a fourth grounds for appeal:

d) legal precedent - the mods have previously honored the statute of limitations (e.g. someone will quote an old post of mine from years back and then report it, but the Mods will refuse to infract it due to the infraction having taken place prior to the new rules)

(Note to Straha - I do case work pro bono; though I do, however, charge a mandatory retention fee.)

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

The funny thing is the excuse Inks used for why Kalwejt was never punished for his sock, the "statute of limitations" had expired.

[asexual trans victimologist]

X Nathan, for all the reasons that the others have already stated, even though I obviously don't remember him from before.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not only that, but he was *locked out of his account,* so the only thing he could do to stay was create a new one, and it's within the realm of possibility he didn't even know about the mod review (or that it was meant for a year rather than a week, as usual).

shhhhhh...our case will be based on arguing the law, and not the facts of Straha's ignorance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The funny thing is the excuse Inks used for why Kalwejt was never punished for his sock, the "statute of limitations" had expired.

Did Kalwejt create his sock more recently than Straha created his?  If so, obviously if the statute of limitations had expired on Kalwejt's sock, then they certainly have also expired on Straha's sock.

[© Tweed the Younger]

not going to sign, but I will note that the period of near-total Moderator-community peace that dates back to the Inks-shuts-the-Deluge firestorm and backlash shows signs of ebbing.

[Senator Sbane]

While I am glad Straha is banned, this does set a bad precedent.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The mods are discussing this.  The lack of moderator input so far shouldn't be construed to mean that we're ignoring this, just that we're having a discussion at the moment.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

not going to sign, but I will note that the period of near-total Moderator-community peace that dates back to the Inks-shuts-the-Deluge firestorm and backlash shows signs of ebbing.

I noticed the lull, myself.   But, as in most totalitarian regimes, periodic massacres are necessary for the regime to retain its grip on power through the use of terror.

It certainly has been interesting to watch how many members of the Mod team seem to be have their menstrual cycles in phase synchronization.  Of course, some members – not naming names – seem to always be on the rag.

And the Straha case has the potential to flow rivers of blood, seeing how the Mods have painted themselves into a corner with a very weak case.  Either they will take a whole bottle of Midol and drop the case, or they will bunker down in their usual stubbornness and push a weak case which will force them to kill many witnesses, including the most vocal leaders of the Resistance.

So, either the lull will be reinstated, or we’re gonna need a lot of body bags, maybe even for ourselves.

[The Mikado]

So, yeah, I know I really shouldn't leak from the Mod Board, but look at the timestamp.  This post is close to five years old.  I think it's past the Statue of Limitations:

Hi,
This has been a tough call for me - As you know, I tend to be very lenient in my administration of the forum (to the dismay of some and to the pleasure of others) - I believe in multiple chances to reform -> Straha is on the boundary of bannable action - his postings are rarely in the obvious ban category, but many push the envelope.  I receive a lot of "report to moderator" postings when he was off-moderated action.  I placed him on 30 day moderation, his posting quality improved for those posts I read / approved.  Then it deteriorated again, more reports -> I placed him on 30 day moderated posting again -> same thing - short term improvement, followed by the expiration and return to previous posting style.  Then I placed him on longer ("indefinite") moderated posting so that I might follow his posts -> I didn't mean for him to get the information that the duration is 365 days - I made a mistake in posting this information -> I really meant it to be "back on moderated posting".   My actions tend to be driven by feedback from the community - followed by my judgement in considering the offending posts.  As for [Redacted]'s argument with regard to action against other posters - the bottom line is that there are rarely posts by those members that have been reported to me.  I read what is reported and therefore don't always have the big picture of the heartbeat of forum issues (this board is to help the moderators and myself sort out problems as they occur).

Thanks for your help and comments - open communications and points are important to me for allowing this forum to run smoothly.
Thanks,
Dave

[Formerly Californian Tony]

X Antonio V

Yeah, this really makes no sense.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

So, yeah, I know I really shouldn't leak from the Mod Board, but look at the timestamp.  This post is close to five years old.  I think it's past the Statue of Limitations:

Hi,
This has been a tough call for me - As you know, I tend to be very lenient in my administration of the forum (to the dismay of some and to the pleasure of others) - I believe in multiple chances to reform -> Straha is on the boundary of bannable action - his postings are rarely in the obvious ban category, but many push the envelope.  I receive a lot of "report to moderator" postings when he was off-moderated action.  I placed him on 30 day moderation, his posting quality improved for those posts I read / approved.  Then it deteriorated again, more reports -> I placed him on 30 day moderated posting again -> same thing - short term improvement, followed by the expiration and return to previous posting style.  Then I placed him on longer ("indefinite") moderated posting so that I might follow his posts -> I didn't mean for him to get the information that the duration is 365 days - I made a mistake in posting this information -> I really meant it to be "back on moderated posting".   My actions tend to be driven by feedback from the community - followed by my judgement in considering the offending posts.  As for [Redacted]'s argument with regard to action against other posters - the bottom line is that there are rarely posts by those members that have been reported to me.  I read what is reported and therefore don't always have the big picture of the heartbeat of forum issues (this board is to help the moderators and myself sort out problems as they occur).

Thanks for your help and comments - open communications and points are important to me for allowing this forum to run smoothly.
Thanks,
Dave

For the record, I agree.

[Simfan34]

Based solely on his "advice" to Bushie, maintain the ban.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

x20RP12

This is ridiculous.

You're new ... what the hell are you signing thisfor?

What does being a newer poster have to do with opposing an idiotic ban? I am sure he of all people would be against banning posters for stupid reasons considering what happened to him. Why was Straha banned?

Because he has no clue about why he was originally banned.  I'm fairly confident Jake hasn't researched the circumstances surrounding Straha's original account.

True.

[Gustaf]

It has come to my attention that Straha, an integral person in this forum's history and an intelligent and amusing poster, was today banned for no [good?] reason.  There is no reason to "automatically" ban him; he (contrary to popular belief) was never actually banned, merely accidentally locked out of his account until recently.  He did create several new accounts due to being locked out, but none of them ever claimed to be anyone else or denied being Straha when asked, and several other members (most recently Mechaman) have created new accounts due to being locked out of their old one.

It's very much ridiculous to treat any forumite, especially a well-liked regular, in this way.  Unban him!

x wormyguy

You lost me at "intelligent and amusing poster".

[opebo]

x opebo

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

So let's look at the timeline:

-Straha is put on mod review in 2007.
-Straha makes at least one sock account to circumvent it.
-Dave bans the sock but makes the choice to not ban the main account.
-Straha's mod review expires.
-Straha returns under his original account.
-Straha is banned.

As jmfcst noted, we're dealing not just with statute of limitations, but double jeopardy, Straha was already found "guilty" of creating the sock and was given the penalty of continued mod review and a banned account. It is not legitimate to ban him after the fact because some mods think Dave didn't go far enough. In fact that also brings up issues of a "lower court" overruling the "Supreme Court". There is simply no legally valid argument for the banning of Straha, not even "Dave's forum Dave's rules" as it wasn't Dave who banned him and in fact Dave seemed to make a clear decision NOT to do so.

[ModerateCoward]

The mods are discussing this.  The lack of moderator input so far shouldn't be construed to mean that we're ignoring this, just that we're having a discussion at the moment.

Everyone praise the progressive policy of our mods!

[The Mikado]

-Straha makes at least one sock account to circumvent it.
-Dave bans the sock but makes the choice to not ban the main account.

Without agreeing/disagreeing, I'll just make a minor clarification: Straha creates two sock accounts (Havelock Vetinari and donut4mccain).

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

-Straha makes at least one sock account to circumvent it.
-Dave bans the sock but makes the choice to not ban the main account.

Without agreeing/disagreeing, I'll just make a minor clarification: Straha creates two sock accounts (Havelock Vetinari and donut4mccain).

OK well point remains that Dave did not ban the main account.

[© Tweed the Younger]

BRTD has made a solid case.  xTweed