Basic is obviously anachronistic aka RAIDS. He’s been banned here before once and a whole shitload of times over on 22. He’s stepping out of line here now once again.
Re-Ban RAIDS
- Yes
- No
0 voters
1 Like
Someone with a history of erratic bans should be citing the offending posts so we can take a measured view.
Doesn’t matter who’s doing the banning. All mods should cite offending posts for something like this.
2 Likes
Well been a fun two weeks since some good forum drama…
3 Likes
We already voted on this. Making a new screen name shouldn’t change anything and I don’t think we even need a new vote. If all you have to do is make a new alt to bypass a ban then bans are totally worthless.
4 Likes
I agree with your general sentiment but read any thread in the politics sub.
1 Like
Ok. I did shortly after writing my post.
If it’s the same guy we voted to ban previously exhibiting the same behaviour he was banned for, then another ban is obviously in order.
But as a general point, doesn’t this
prevent someone (not this poster probably) from being rehabilitated?
1 Like
Should there be at least a requirement to present some evidence that it’s RAIDS? I don’t doubt Wookie’s judgment that it is, but maybe we should ask for more for the sake of having a good process.
Did we ever have a vote the first time he was banned? I can’t find it.
1 Like
Christ man. Can’t you drop the ad hominems and make an effort to understand what’s being discussed? You’re not scoring any goals with this.
Wichita said he thinks we shouldn’t need to vote again if a banned poster reappears under a new name:
and I said that removes the potential for other posters to become rehabilitated.
If banned posters start a new account and stop doing ban-worthy stuff, they probably won’t be re-banned.
I agree this is the best course. I also agree that some evidence is needed that name B is the same poster as name A.
Your obsession with me is getting a bit weird.
My first post implied that I’d change my vote if the offending posts were cited, which is standard practice for mods here, I think.
That was before I was directed to the thread containing the posts.
Me: Having breakfast, clicking on a new thread, voting
You: “You’re following Wookie around!”
jal, you started it back up with your first post in this thread. goofy, you’re not any better. You’ve both made your feelings clear and you don’t need to drag it out with repeated posts.
6 Likes
Making a new account to dodge a previous ban should be in and of itself a bannable offense regardless of posting quality.
7 Likes
If we’re banning alts I do think that process needs some evidence. If it’s some kind of legit due process. … seems contrary to simultaneously be considering ads to attract new users and insta bans wo any proof.
1 Like
There really is no obvious way to do that. One would think to compare IPs but I’m sure anachronistic/RAIDS was IP banned but uses a VPN to access UP.
It would make an interesting poll but for that to be binding you’ll have to first raise the paperwork.
That’s not an ad hominem. How is it one?
Well the guy has been identified 15 or so times over 2 sites, if he hasn’t figured out how to disguise himself by now it’s probably beyond him.
Easily horrible enough for me to change my vote.
2 Likes