Should Straha return without mod review?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just a poll to gauge the general sentiment...

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nader/Santorum

[Eraserhead]

Yes he should.

[Gabu]

No.  He might as well have been an automated 4chan RSS feed.

[Eraserhead]

Atlas will never truly be free until the original Humble Man makes his return.

[Gabu]

Atlas will never truly be free until the original Humble Man makes his return.

Hooray for oppression then.

[Dr. Cynic]

Straha could never be truly humble until the Iron Sheik has his way with him.

[Alcon]

No.  He might as well have been an automated 4chan RSS feed.

I am going to come for you and ply my analogy from your cold, dead hands.

[Gabu]

No.  He might as well have been an automated 4chan RSS feed.

I am going to come for you and ply my analogy from your cold, dead hands.

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE

[Smash255]

I haven't paid much attention to straha so I don't know first hand if he continued to break the rules or not and became a constant spammer.

if he wasn't a spammer I say let him back.  if he did spam and continued to do so after being askednot to, I say keep him on moderation for a little while to see if he behaves himself and stops spamming, if he does let him back without mod review, but under the condition if he starts spamming again he goes back to where he was.

[Gabu]

Quite frankly I think Straha is a case in point for why it's important to nip idiots who add nothing whatsoever in the bud.  If you eject them early enough, they won't have developed a cult following of those who enjoy seeing everyone else get annoyed.

[Eraserhead]

It seemed like he was spamming a lot less lately to me. Having certain "out there" view points shouldn't count as spamming.

[opebo]

People just claim 'spamming' when they disagree with the poster.  Straha was merely contributing his viewpoint and arguments.  Of course I would prefer that no one be subjected to censorship. 
 

[Ban my account ffs!]

People just claim 'spamming' when they disagree with the poster.  Straha was merely contributing his viewpoint and arguments.  Of course I would prefer that no one be subjected to censorship. 
 

[KEmperor]

It seemed like he was spamming a lot less lately to me.

That might be due to the mod review.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I continue to be mildly amused at the failure of you lot to get outraged about Stark's punishment (which happens to be exactly the same as Straha's). Hypocrisy is fun, no?

[opebo]

I continue to be mildly amused at the failure of you lot to get outraged about Stark's punishment (which happens to be exactly the same as Straha's). Hypocrisy is fun, no?

Stark was 'punished'?  I wasn't aware of it.  But certainly I would not support censorship of him either.

[Hash]

No. And stop the Straha obsession already BRTD

[AndrewTX]

No. And stop the Straha obsession already BRTD

Correct, opebo is get lonely

[afleitch]

I continue to be mildly amused at the failure of you lot to get outraged about Stark's punishment (which happens to be exactly the same as Straha's). Hypocrisy is fun, no?

I think the problem people have is that the punishment may be the same, the 'crime' isn't.

Stark was nothing more than a thread whore and persistent bumper and head pigeon of some crazy Stromfront 'front' that wished to infiltrate here. He was a troll in it's purest form. He never intended to make a valuable comment or contribution to debate or the forum in the short time he was here. Straha was not exactly like this. Yes the posts were a b-gger to clean up most of the time but there was something in there. That was not the case with Stark. As has been said before, when Straha was treated like a troll when he tried to contribute, he then acted as one.

[Eraserhead]

I continue to be mildly amused at the failure of you lot to get outraged about Stark's punishment (which happens to be exactly the same as Straha's). Hypocrisy is fun, no?

What made you assume that everyone here knew that Stark had got the same punishment? I certainly didn't know that and I don't support that either.

[Sam Spade]

Quite frankly I think Straha is a case in point for why it's important to nip idiots who add nothing whatsoever in the bud.  If you eject them early enough, they won't have developed a cult following of those who enjoy seeing everyone else get annoyed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Eraserhead]

I continue to be mildly amused at the failure of you lot to get outraged about Stark's punishment (which happens to be exactly the same as Straha's). Hypocrisy is fun, no?

I think the problem people have is that the punishment may be the same, the 'crime' isn't.

Stark was nothing more than a thread whore and persistent bumper and head pigeon of some crazy Stromfront 'front' that wished to infiltrate here. He was a troll in it's purest form. He never intended to make a valuable comment or contribution to debate or the forum in the short time he was here. Straha was not exactly like this. Yes the posts were a b-gger to clean up most of the time but there was something in there. That was not the case with Stark. As has been said before, when Straha was treated like a troll when he tried to contribute, he then acted as one.

It's true. It isn't exactly a fair comparison. I think most people here would support some action against Stark because of the old thread bumping for no reason and especially the constant post deletion (this made several threads very hard to make sense of). Even so, banning him for a year seems too harsh and for Straha it seems absurd. Straha is just being punished for being Straha.

[Jake]

Being Straha has meant posting things only for shock value (ie trolling) since before he came to this forum.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I continue to be mildly amused at the failure of you lot to get outraged about Stark's punishment (which happens to be exactly the same as Straha's). Hypocrisy is fun, no?

The two weren't comparable at all. Straha said some odd things, but that's what was amusing about him. He actually did occasionally contribute valid things to discussions.

Whereareas Stark was a total troll with no redeeming value. About half of his posts were just quoting someone else's (or his own), and the rest were just little snips about he wanted to deport illegals/hated Eliot Spitzer/Ravings about the Illuminati and Rothschilds/Liked Lou Dobbs. Then his habit of bumping countless old threads without adding anything substantial to them. Stark actually made the forum more frustrating, while Straha just added a bit of surrealness.