Banned Users

[ThePiombino]

Personal attacks are one of the signature rules no matter who is attacked. Its definitely infraction worthy. Everything Lax is saying is true.

To be fair, people are attacked all the time and nothing ever comes of it. We just don't* hear about it because most of us don't have the power to ban.

EDIT*

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This guy had only 64 posts total in his 3 years here as a registered member. Despite that modest posting history, his rep bar was deep red. In reading through his rep comments, they are overwhelmingly negative (one of which came from me). It looks like the most objectionable stuff was deleted long ago, but he did choose to defend Cardale Jones' infamous tweet as "speaking truth to power".

Then he logs on today and decides to call one of our mods a "dipsh!t". Perhaps there are other factors here of which I'm unaware, but in light of the above, his ban strikes me as totally reasonable.

 

[IrishLion]

Ban Beau and Free Pat. No 'talics. Beau can take one for the team. I'd do it.

We also have an entire, super-secret webpage built in your honor to memorialize all of the arguments you've had with people on this site.

Surprisingly, all of the mods think you are the winner in those arguments every time. Especially when you argue against Wooly.

We just can't show you any favoritism, so we dish out warnings and bans instead.

 

[ulukinatme]

Yeah, didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you. That very well may be the reason, I just don't like it.

I looked at his history (which frankly, there's not a lot) and it looks like he got most of his red from saying mean things about Tommy Rees a couple years ago. Just didn't post enough to ever change it. He's certainly not a big "value add" to the board or anything, but he's not a troll either.

I may have had a hand in that...no italics...maybe. I've negged a few posters for going overboard on Tommy hate, but I've done the same anytime someone has gotten a little too personal towards one of our guys.

The good Reesus giveth rep, and he taketh it away.

 

[koonja]

We also have an entire, super-secret webpage built in your honor to memorialize all of the arguments you've had with people on this site.

Surprisingly, all of the mods think you are the winner in those arguments every time. Especially when you argue against Wooly.

We just can't show you any favoritism, so we dish out warnings and bans instead.

You joke, but I 100% buy this.

 

[ThePiombino]

This guy had only 64 posts total in his 3 years here as a registered member. Despite that modest posting history, his rep bar was deep red. In reading through his rep comments, they are overwhelmingly negative (one of which came from me). It looks like the most objectionable stuff was deleted long ago, but he did choose to defend Cardale Jones' infamous tweet as "speaking truth to power".

Then he logs on today and decides to call one of our mods a "dipsh!t". Perhaps there are other factors here of which I'm unaware, but in light of the above, his ban strikes me as totally reasonable.

Interesting coincidence - comments defending Cardale Jones then resurfaces the week ND is announced to face off against OSU in the Fiesta Bowl. Hmmm, could he be.....AN OSU TROLL???!?!?!

 

[woolybug25]

This guy had only 64 posts total in his 3 years here as a registered member. Despite that modest posting history, his rep bar was deep red. In reading through his rep comments, they are overwhelmingly negative (one of which came from me). It looks like the most objectionable stuff was deleted long ago, but he did choose to defend Cardale Jones' infamous tweet as "speaking truth to power".

Then he logs on today and decides to call one of our mods a "dipsh!t". Perhaps there are other factors here of which I'm unaware, but in light of the above, his ban strikes me as totally reasonable.

This is what i'm talking about though, Whiskey. Why does it matter that one of his neg reps were from a mod? Why is it worse to insult a mod than a regular poster?

Also, if all of his neg posts were long ago except for a couple, then how is the argument that his ban was cumulative? I don't see us banning Koon two years from now because he was giving Pat reach arounds in early '15.

The best way to know if an action was reasonable or not would be to follow an actual process. Am I wrong about that?

 

[wizards8507]

It looks like the most objectionable stuff was deleted long ago, but he did choose to defend Cardale Jones' infamous tweet as "speaking truth to power".

I'm pretty sure Cardale was joking. I wasn't at the time, but he's made his personality pretty clear with tweets about Ronda Rousey and whatnot, and I honestly think he's just a giant troll.

 

[ulukinatme]

RIP ACamp

I hold the firm belief that ACamp is alive, but he's held against his will in a secret government facility.

That, or he's hanging out with Elvis and Andy Kaufman somewhere.

 

[ThePiombino]

I'm pretty sure Cardale was joking. I wasn't at the time, but he's made his personality pretty clear with tweets about Ronda Rousey and whatnot, and I honestly think he's just a giant troll.

Let's get one thing clear- INTENT =/= TROLL. He could very well have meant every word of that tweet, but he's still a troll. Just look at our own koon. Derails thread after thread without even trying. Some people are just born with it.

 

[Luckylucci]

We also have an entire, super-secret webpage built in your honor to memorialize all of the arguments you've had with people on this site.

Surprisingly, all of the mods think you are the winner in those arguments every time. Especially when you argue against Wooly.

We just can't show you any favoritism, so we dish out warnings and bans instead.

Definitely wins the internet for the day, quality.

 

[Cackalacky]

To be fair, people are attacked all the time and nothing ever comes of it. We just don't* hear about it because most of us don't have the power to ban.

EDIT*

To be honest, you, as a poster should not have to hear about it. I try as much as possible to handle things via PM with posters that are breaking rules or being a nuisance. Its not because you can' ban people... its because much of what happens in issuing infractions and discussions by mods, reported posts, etc... all happens off the general forums for a reason.

You don't get to see who reports posts. You don't get to see how many complaints there are against other posters. You don't get to see how the mods discuss things.

I really dislike this thread for many reasons, but mostly its because whenever anyone gets banned, it becomes a major issue like today when in reality, it should not be a big deal. Banning posters is not taken lightly and then we have to come here an ddefend ourselves to the posters who don't have the background info and everything gets hairy. I mean... I seriously doubt woolybug25 even knew who this cat was before he started raising a stink about it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is what i'm talking about though, Whiskey. Why does it matter that one of his neg reps were from a mod? Why is it worse to insult a mod than a regular poster?

I hand out neg reps very infrequently. I can't access the post that precipitated it, so I offered that tidbit only as anecdotal evidence that Teomonsternd had a history of sh!tposting. It wasn't an appeal to authority.

And it's not "worse" to insult a mod than a regular poster. But this a community of actual human beings. Some posters (like yourself) are well respected and have accumulated a lot of social capital through sustained quality contribution to the site. Others have no (or negative) social capital. Posters in the latter group have a lot less leeway when they make mistakes than those in the former, especially when they target respected posters. That's just how societies work.

The best way to know if an action was reasonable or not would be to follow an actual process. Am I wrong about that?

We do have an exhaustive process in place for active members of the IE community. FNGs and malefactors don't get that benefit. It's like citizenship. If you want the benefits of due process, you've got to pay your dues and actually become a part of the community.

Teomonsternd had only 64 posts and a deep red rep bar due to his previous sh!tposting. He threw a rock at a cop and got promptly deported. Don't feel bad for him.

 

[woolybug25]

I mean... I seriously doubt woolybug25 even knew who this cat was before he started raising a stink about it.

What does that have to do with anything? I even added originally that I don't really like him. My feelings towards a poster has no bearing on whether they should be banned or not.

I agree with you guys handling things behind the scenes, but that doesn't make it right to disregard the process in which someone is permantly banned. If Lax would have came back and said, "hey fellas, this guy has an unexpired infraction and has been warned. His comment was against board policy, and for all of that, I am banning him. Peace". Then no one would have said a word.

But when you post a gif and seemingly rejoice in the public banning of someone because they were mean to you... well... that's entirely different, isn't it?

 

[Henges24]

...
You don't get to see who reports posts. You don't get to see how many complaints there are against other posters. You don't get to see how the mods discuss things.
...

This post makes me curious for how many points or complaints I have against me. Is that something we can request or is this not a democracy?

 

[koonja]

Let's get one thing clear- INTENT =/= TROLL. He could very well have meant every word of that tweet, but he's still a troll. Just look at our own koon. Derails thread after thread without even trying. Some people are just born with it.

Can we get this thread back on topic? GAIII should have been a safety.

 

[IrishLax]

I bolded the two items above to illustrate two points.

1) His post count has 64 posts and none of them really have anything inflammatory in them. When I brought this up, you told us there were "missing posts" that we couldn't see. So which is it? He has 60 posts or a lot more that we can't see?

2) Does he have previous infractions or not? "probably" isn't exactly a solid reason for banning. It was always my impression that you guys actually had a process. Hence the infraction ability. Someone gets warned, if they don't listen, they get banned. But it seemingly looks as if bans are now a subjective process based entirely on opinion of a poster.

Again, my apologies for putting my previous comment on here in that context. It certainly reads as if i'm stating that as fact, when in is actually my opinion. But it certainly doesn't change my viewpoint.

Wooly, I respect you and I think you've earned the right as good of an explanation as I can give. Also, I have time for one last post and then I gotta leave my job site here and head back into the office, so FYI I'm not able to immediately respond to any follow up.

1) I don't have an official post count for you, nor do I know if posts that are "soft deleted" show up in your post count still (I imagine they do? I can test it later I guess) versus "hard delete" where they are physically removed. I don't know if he has 60 visible posts or 55 or 70. He doesn't have dozens and dozens of deleted posts, just a chunk... I'm going to guesstimate it was like 5-10. Obviously, most (all?) of which were deleted by a mod for being out of line or breaking rules in some way. None of them were deleted by me, so I don't have any kind of personal memory of ever deleting one of his posts. I want to be very clear, like I said in post #2472 in this thread, I made a judgment call after looking at his profile. I didn't sit there and analyze every single one of his posts, I looked over his profile and came up with a general impression/opinion.

2) To see if someone has previous infractions is something you actually have to look up. I didn't do that, I looked at his profile and posting history to the point where I was relatively comfortable he was a troll, worthless, and would not be missed.

There is a process. The way infractions work in this site's software is like yellow cards in soccer. They're a warning and they generally expire after a set amount of time... at the same time, we reserve the right to hand out a straight red card. Usually after that happens, there's a short discussion about why it was done to see if there are any objections, and the ban either sticks or is reduced or removed. People who get a "straight red" either egregiously break the rules or they fall into a specific category... like they're from an opposing team and talking shit, or posted nudies, or have a really bad posting history and stepped over the line yet again or are otherwise too disruptive to the site(see: NJNP), or -- in this guy's case -- appear to be a troll.

So to walk you through what I did... I gave him a one point warning for "Inappropriate Language" expiring in a short amount of time (I forget, think it was a month or a week or something like that)... it takes 3 points for a ban, so this is a slap on the wrist. It doesn't affect him at all unless he racks up other infractions. Then I went back to the thread and noticed he had a REALLY red rep bar and very few posts so I checked out his posting history... after quickly looking through three pages of posts and seeing what appeared to be trollishness/rudeness/rule breaking in some of them and nothing to tip the scale back in his favor, I went to the Mod CP -> Ban User -> Ban. Around the time I finished doing that, BeauBenken was already asking some questions about him in the mod forum in the thread that auto-generated from the 1-point infraction.

So that's it.

 

[koonja]

Am I the clubhouse leader in complaints against? LMK so I can add that notch to my belt.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Wooly, I respect you and I think you've earned the right as good of an explanation as I can give. Also, I have time for one last post and then I gotta leave my job site here and head back into the office, so FYI I'm not able to immediately respond to any follow up.

1) I don't have an official post count for you, nor do I know if posts that are "soft deleted" show up in your post count still (I imagine they do? I can test it later I guess) versus "hard delete" where they are physically removed. I don't know if he has 60 visible posts or 55 or 70. He doesn't have dozens and dozens of deleted posts, just a chunk... I'm going to guesstimate it was like 5-10. Obviously, most (all?) of which were deleted by a mod for being out of line or breaking rules in some way. None of them were deleted by me, so I don't have any kind of personal memory of ever deleting one of his posts. I want to be very clear, like I said in post #2472 in this thread, I made a judgment call after looking at his profile. I didn't sit there and analyze every single one of his posts, I looked over his profile and came up with a general impression/opinion.

2) To see if someone has previous infractions is something you actually have to look up. I didn't do that, I looked at his profile and posting history to the point where I was relatively comfortable he was a troll, worthless, and would not be missed.

There is a process. The way infractions work in this site's software is like yellow cards in soccer. They're a warning and they generally expire after a set amount of time... at the same time, we reserve the right to hand out a straight red card. Usually after that happens, there's a short discussion about why it was done to see if there are any objections, and the ban either sticks or is reduced or removed. People who get a "straight red" either egregiously break the rules or they fall into a specific category... like they're from an opposing team and talking shit, or posted nudies, or have a really bad posting history and stepped over the line yet again or are otherwise too disruptive to the site(see: NJNP), or -- in this guy's case -- appear to be a troll.

So to walk you through what I did... I gave him a one point warning for "Inappropriate Language" expiring in a short amount of time (I forget, think it was a month or a week or something like that)... it takes 3 points for a ban, so this is a slap on the wrist. It doesn't affect him at all unless he racks up other infractions. Then I went back to the thread and noticed he had a REALLY red rep bar and very few posts so I checked out his posting history... after quickly looking through three pages of posts and seeing what appeared to be trollishness/rudeness/rule breaking in some of them and nothing to tip the scale back in his favor, I went to the Mod CP -> Ban User -> Ban. Around the time I finished doing that, BeauBenken was already asking some questions about him in the mod forum in the thread that auto-generated from the 1-point infraction.

So that's it.

All well and good. As Wooly pointed out, next time don't post the gif. It was in poor taste and frankly contributed to the concerns many of us had. The gif made us automatically question your decision as it appeared to be made out of spite because the poster attacked you.

 

[woolybug25]

Am I the clubhouse leader in complaints against? LMK so I can add that notch to my belt.

No way, jose. Pat made you look like an amatuer.






Thanks for the reply, Lax. That was more than a sufficient response. The clarity is much appreciated.

 

[Grahambo]

This will get buried but:

Every year we should have a public poll with a list of banned users then we can all vote to see if one of them should be given another chance.

Let the people have a voice!

#FreePat

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming:

DOWN WITH THE FASCIST PIGS WHO MODERATE THIS SITE!!!11ONEELEVENTYONE

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This will get buried but:

Every year we should have a public poll with a list of banned users then we can all vote to see if one of them should be given another chance.

Let the people have a voice!

#FreePat

No.

 

[koonja]

This will get buried but:

Every year we should have a public poll with a list of banned users then we can all vote to see if one of them should be given another chance.

Let the people have a voice!

#FreePat

WWJD.

#FreePat

 

[koonja]

Honestly, if you wouldn't want to hear Pat's take on Joe Schmidt, you have wayyyy too much of a life going on and you need to cut some exciting ish out of it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Honestly, if you wouldn't want to hear Pat's take on Joe Schmidt, you have wayyyy too much of a life going on and you need to cut some exciting ish out of it.

Hadn't though of that. /shudder

So glad we didn't have to suffer through his hot takes this season.

 

[koonja]

Hadn't though of that. /shudder

So glad we didn't have to suffer through his hot takes this season.

You are dumb.

 

[Luckylucci]

Hadn't though of that. /shudder

So glad we didn't have to suffer through his hot takes this season.

So true, that would've been miserable.

 

[connor_in]

This will get buried but:

Every year we should have a public poll with a list of banned users then we can all vote to see if one of them should be given another chance.

Let the people have a voice!

#FreePat

WELCOME TO THE ANNUAL IRISH ENVY HUNGER GAMES !!!

May the odds be ever in your favor...

 

[IrishLion]

Hadn't though of that. /shudder

So glad we didn't have to suffer through his hot takes this season.

This is a fun game. Let's play.

He would have maintained the entire time that ND was not top-4 worth, citing the early-season matchup against UVA as "WE WOULD GET WRECKED BY BAMA" ammunition, and use ONLY that as support for his own crazy rantings.

Even when ND started to look like a legit playoff contender, he would have been unhappy/inconsolable, and would have called at least seven different posters variations of the female anatomy during arguments about whether or not ND was a top-4 team.

HOWEVER, he also would also have left himself some breathing room, probably through some absolutely insane comparison and/or obscure evidence, that way he would have had an "out" in case ND did the improbable and made the playoffs.

He would have still been unhappy on the inside, and would then maintain that it was a joke that ND was included because any sane person knows that top teams don't have any flaws whatsoever.

It is also probable that he would have been banned when Bruce Jenner decided to identify as a female.