Missin U <3 - lamentations for those felled by the SB

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/115673331_71be4e65e5.jpg?v=0

xx-post Of course you did!

lol john we used to be such buddies when i had my other login - a compelling study perhaps of the conditional nature of opinions

I should probably not be nice to you now Mr. D. but I will anyway. A friend of mine was playing some music the other day and I was like oh this song is alright what's this then and it turned out it was you! I then said oh I know who he is on the internet. ha.

who could sb such an innocent? u should all be ashamed

just hope they have better animes in heaven

i think that the mods have been pretty clear on all this actually, weve pretty much said from the beginning that sb reversals are going to be up to moderator discretion, which means that there isnt going to be a hard and fast rule. cankles racked up 49 of his sbs in the past three months, and the posts that got him sbs wouldn't really be very surprising. if someone else gets 102ed but has a bunch of bans for saying that blur sucked or whatever, or it took them far longer to hit the mark, it just isn't the same situation. if yall want a set in stone procedure, we might as well just code it into the system, but i (for one) think that is a pretty bad idea.

speaking for me, not mods in general btw.

also, to quell the raging against secretive conspiratorial mods, i think the reason no one has stepped up to give a concrete answer to the various specifics people are asking for is because a couple of the site wides are busy with other things at the moment, so it wouldnt exactly be accurate or fair to nail this stuff down without all of them having their say.

Someone asked this on another thread but I guess there was some confusion as to what exactly a 102 means. Is it an automatic permanent ban for all time or something that is subject to mod reversal somewhere down the line? That seemed to be what ppl wanted clarification on (see sarahel's thread about that specifically).

ENBB no offense but im pretty sure i just answered that in the first paragraph i wrote right above your post

Sorry will reread - am pretty tired so perhaps reading comprehension skills not the best right now. :-(

The short version is "a 102 means the same thing as a 51, ie the poster returns at the mods' discretion, usually in 30 days".

Dan I keeees you! That is, in fact, how I read it but there was a lot of chatter earlier in which it was obvious that people were not clear on that. Hopefully yr v helpful and clear answer will end some of that. :D

btw - Check boston dirty water thread. We gonna FAP.

"I then said oh I know who he is on the internet. ha."

I have to avoid saying this at least once a day.

do u know a lot of mt gts fans then

cankles appears to have just been posting on i love nfl for the past week. maybe it was all very offensive to people who understand american sport

FWIW: I would wholly support a unbanning of cankles on I Love Baseball if acceptable by da modz.

also on ILNFL

I would bet good money that canks acquired NO sbs on ILNFL

Thomp, not just for John D, for all kindsa people.

i preferred my idea

the identity of the people reading week-old cankles posts and thinking "i must protest" are the real mystery here tbh. unless he went on a real trolling spree somewhere and the thread got deleted : /

maybe it was angry, angry juno fans

Is this the Juno thread?

this should've ended with j jonah jameson bashing her to death with her faggot burgerphone

― candice spergin (cankles), Saturday, 19 September 2009 07:29 (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

do you guys really have nothing better to do than to ponder the mystery of why people would click "suggest ban" for a guy who liked to post sexist, racist and homophobic stuff in the name of posting style

poll

huge lols @ the proposal of an offensive word filter as if that would have any effect on creative neologisms like "niglord"

get the scribblenauts team on this project asap

damn this is hittin me hard... miss ya till im with ya dom ;_;

― s1ocki kong country (cankles), Thursday, March 5, 2009 9:18 AM (6 months ago)

HI DERE i am not remotely surprised that cankles accrued 51 suggest bans again; i'm just slightly bemused that he reached the total in a period of time where he didn't seem to have posted anything particularly in-character in 72 hours or so, because it suggests users whose mode of catching up on ilx involves looking at days of recent posts at a time

He could've already had something like 50 SBs before his temp ban was lifted - all it would've taken then is one person to SB him, for example because of his post on the Juno thread.

The moral of the story might be "don't make posts like that to random people who do not appreciate them"; I am 100% certain that if cankles confined that style to ILNFL, fewer people would have a problem with him.

ban him from all the other boards?

I think cankles can be an interesting dude, but seriously, anyone who can't refrain from racial/etc. slurs should be permabanned. the fact that this is even a subject of debate is absurd.

maybe if mods want to keep him banned but would allow him to return to the nfl and mlb boards that would be a good compromise...

Cankles was sitting on 50 SBs during his temp ban, it did indeed only take one person to push him over the threshold.

He was accumulating SBs pretty consistently since the previous time we let him back in, and from a much wider cross-section of posters than the particularly thin-skinned ones. I think I've only ever seen Gabbneb accumulate SBs that quickly, which makes me think Cankles was either outright trolling for them, didn't care whether he got SB'ed or not, or was just a complete idiot. Leaning towards option 2.

sitting on 50 SBs during his temp ban

man that's cold

I don't think he was literally sitting on them.

we'll never know, cos it's not in the FAQ ;_;

the notion that a person returning from a ban does not do so with a clean slate opens up exciting stultifyingly dull avenues for discussion and more importantly questions

was he seriously felled by that burgerphone post?

no

John makes a pretty good point there.

Cankles was sitting on 50 SBs during his temp ban

this is actually kind of hilarious

I already said in the other thread that it seems kinda unfair if SB bans and mod bans can overlap in a way they seem to do in Cankles' case (I assume at least some of his SBs came from the same posts that the mods temp banned him for), because then you're essentially punishing a person twice for the same crime. I hope the mods are thinking of some way to deal with this problem.

maybe we should assign you as his buddy to keep him on the straight and narrow

I'm not talking about Cankles specifically, merely pointing out an inherent problem in a system where both suggest bans and mod bans exist simultaneously.

It's a bit sad if site mods deal with this like it's a joke instead of taking it into serious consideration.

I think they disagree with you.

But responding to your concerns is not their main job, iirc.

Who said it's just "my" concerns? I brought it up here because John and ENBB mentioned the problem too.

the notion that a person returning from a ban does not do so with a clean slate opens up exciting stultifyingly dull avenues for discussion and more importantly questions

Please let's not. Temp bans and SBs are totally different things. A temp ban is a time out/warning and nothing more.

I mean, if you actually think about it:

- Poster A is pretty obnoxious to lots of people, racks up lots of Suggest Bans
- Poster A then starts getting REALLY obnoxious, possibly several days later, picks up temp ban
- As a result, Poster A gets a load of SBs knocked off his total purely because he acted like an arse and got himself temp banned

Doesn't actually make an awful lot of sense.

Er, I'd say it's not merely a "warning". To the person who gets banned there's no difference between an SB and a mod ban, he's still banned. They're both punishments for non-tolerated behaviour.

(x-post)