Who is/was more deserving of a ban?

[Leinad]

This will be interesting...

[Donerail]

EHarding. That's a volume judgment, not a quality one.

[Illiniwek]

To be honest, and maybe its because we spent most of the time on other boards from each other, I never really even noticed Runeghost. It was impossible to avoid Ehardon, even if I had him on ignore. He deserved the ban.

[Leinad]

Just nonchalantly dropping this here for reference: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=257154.msg5588701#msg5588701

[The Arizonan]

I don't pay much attention to either user, but I'm going with Eharding because Runeghost is merely another Donald Trump basher which is okay.

[DavidB.]

Runeghost (normal) but Eharding was a nuisance too.

[White Trash]

Runeghost (normal) but Eharding was a nuisance too.

[Xing]

When Runeghost starts making 50 posts a day, derailing every thread throughout multiple boards, claiming that we shouldn't have any Republican moderators, and attacking specific users, then we'll talk. His statements about Republicans are awful, and need to be addressed with at least a warning (though there are definitely a couple of posters who have made similar remarks about Democrats, and are not banned), but directly attacking users is on a different level. Those of you accusing the forum of bias, but holding up EHarding as some kind of martyr, while calling for Runeghost to be permabanned should realize that the "bias" argument goes both ways.

[RFayette]

Runeghost (normal) but Eharding was a nuisance too.

[RINO Tom]

It's genuinely hard to pick ... both are horrible posters with horrible opinions and no respect for those who disagree with them.  What the hell is the difference?

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Neither, but I honestly find ruinghost more annoying

[White Trash]

When Runeghost starts making 50 posts a day, derailing every thread throughout multiple boards, claiming that we shouldn't have any Republican moderators, and attacking specific users, then we'll talk. His statements about Republicans are awful, and need to be addressed with at least a warning (though there are definitely a couple of posters who have made similar remarks about Democrats, and are not banned), but directly attacking users is on a different level. Those of you accusing the forum of bias, but holding up EHarding as some kind of martyr, while calling for Runeghost to be permabanned should realize that the "bias" argument goes both ways.

I'm not making Eharding out to be some kind of martyr. I'm just saying that Eharding never said that he wished that people would die based solely on their voting habits.

[cinyc]

Neither.

[Leinad]

Runeghost (normal) but Eharding was a nuisance too.

Yeah I feel like this is the only right answer.

Runeghost is merely another Donald Trump basher

*spews milkshake*

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't come across Runeghost's posts a lot because I'm not much into the US politics board, but if he's as bad as his detractors say, sure, we can ban him too.

[Xing]

When Runeghost starts making 50 posts a day, derailing every thread throughout multiple boards, claiming that we shouldn't have any Republican moderators, and attacking specific users, then we'll talk. His statements about Republicans are awful, and need to be addressed with at least a warning (though there are definitely a couple of posters who have made similar remarks about Democrats, and are not banned), but directly attacking users is on a different level. Those of you accusing the forum of bias, but holding up EHarding as some kind of martyr, while calling for Runeghost to be permabanned should realize that the "bias" argument goes both ways.

I'm not making Eharding out to be some kind of martyr. I'm just saying that Eharding never said that he wished that people would die based solely on their voting habits.

I wasn't referring specifically to you, and while implying people who vote a certain way (which includes members of this forum) should die is obviously inappropriate, my point was that Eharding did quite a few things that Runeghost hasn't done (to my knowledge.) I think Runeghost has made some absolutely awful posts, and should at least be given a warning, but I wish people didn't bring him up as a way of defending/supporting Eharding.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

When Runeghost starts making 50 posts a day, derailing every thread throughout multiple boards, claiming that we shouldn't have any Republican moderators, and attacking specific users, then we'll talk. His statements about Republicans are awful, and need to be addressed with at least a warning (though there are definitely a couple of posters who have made similar remarks about Democrats, and are not banned), but directly attacking users is on a different level. Those of you accusing the forum of bias, but holding up EHarding as some kind of martyr, while calling for Runeghost to be permabanned should realize that the "bias" argument goes both ways.

I'm not making Eharding out to be some kind of martyr. I'm just saying that Eharding never said that he wished that people would die based solely on their voting habits.

They are diffrent kind of "offenders". Eharding was basically an idiot, derailing the forum with spamming, even though he didn't appear malicious. Still, he was rightly banned. Runeghost is malicious and, believe me, he's not under the radar.

A lot of people here brought the issue of consistency and we're listening.