Petition to unban Straha!

[crypto-fascist superhero]

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

[dialectical fetishist]

x Windis

FREE STRAHA

[ModerateCoward]

x Seatown

[State Comptroller Atkins]

X Obamaisdabest/JGL

[CathKhan]

X Cathcon

[Senator Napoleon]

X Napoleon

Whoever did this should be ashamed.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

x20RP12

This is ridiculous.

[So the Heroes Fall]

X BRTD

I mean he returned under his original account, not a sock. There is no precedent to ban him.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

x20RP12

This is ridiculous.

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

[So the Heroes Fall]

Because he realizes how much of an awesome legendary poster Straha is?

[Senator Napoleon]

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?

[Joe Republic]

I too am a little surprised by this development, but certainly don't mind.  I remember well the headaches he caused to this forum, including Dave, who actually wrote a pretty lengthy post in the Mod board about the trouble he was causing him.

There doesn't need to be a 'precedent' for this type of thing; Straha was a useless spammer who recycled whatever memes he could find on 4chan and dumped them here.  Good riddance.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

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.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Straha wasn't originally banned (hence, why he was here with his original account).  And while he certainly can be unoriginal at times he definitely doesn't "recycle memes from 4chan."

[So the Heroes Fall]

Yes, if Straha was banned he'd have to create a new sock. He was not banned, and there is no reason to ban him. Did he even accumulate any death points at all?

[Senator Napoleon]

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.

Why was he originally banned? I don't know the circumstances either but wormyguy indicates he was never banned. The Forum seemed to welcome his return. I'll ask again: why was Straha banned before, unbanned and allowed to return, and banned this week?

[So the Heroes Fall]

He was never "originally banned".

[The Mikado]

Guys, is there some sort of FOIA for ancient posts on the Mod Board?  Would I be in trouble if I post that post from Dave from November 2007 here in this thread?  

[Joe Republic]

Dave put him on mod review for 365 days*; Straha circumvented that a couple of times with sock accounts.  The socks were of course banned, but Dave decided to maintain the mod review on the original account.  By the time it expired, Straha had already decided to give up and leave.

Circumventing Dave's actions in that way on more than one occasion is probably enough grounds for a ban.


* After putting him on mod review for a week and then a month, IIRC.  No idea why he didn't just ban him then, but you know Dave.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

X Pingvin

[Communists For McCain]

X Mechaman

The double standard is ridiculous.

I mean my god, do you guys love being unforgiving douches?  Straha was gone for like three f***ing years.  THREE F***ING YEARS!  He wasn't even banned damn it!

[Grumps]

XGrumpy Gramps

Mod review wasn't sufficient to determine if he was going to be trouble after years away?

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

To my Friends...and everyone else,

I'm getting the bad feeling, again...the feeling the jmfcst gets right after someone is banned, and right before he is inevitably served a 20-30 death point sandwich worth of collateral damage.

So, please.  Help preserve my life by avoiding your own execution; being aware that for your sake, the jmfcst faces death all day long.

Thank you.

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

Circumventing Dave's actions in that way on more than one occasion is probably enough grounds for a ban.

but he circumvented Dave's actions 3 years ago, and even though at that time Dave had knowledge of his circumvention, Dave didn't ban him.

So, if Dave didn't ban him 3 years ago for these actions, why is he being banned now for actions that were already penalized?

Sounds like double jeopardy to me.

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

Sounds like double jeopardy to me.

also, a statute of limitations has been applied several times before on this forum (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).