Petition to readmit chicagosam

Drifterwood · 02-03-2008

If I were banned from a site that I cared about, I would enforce my IP copyright rights and insist that everything I had written, was withdrawn.

I don't care what the terms of the sign up are, they do not override international copyright.

I think this board is big enough to deal with real trolls.

Mem · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManlyBanisters

Sorry S, I know I said I'd leave this subject alone but it is too difficult not to post - I am weak

And back to the first sentence. Sam has asked, repeatedly, that he not be the "LPSG bannings" poster boy -

I think someone else is the poster boy for bannings. Sam could be the poster boy for unbanning.

true, if he says that he is not interested in having his name attached to this thread it should be closed and reposted as a non specific thread.

SpoiledPrincess · 02-03-2008

I'm against banning, if we ban a troll from here it just moves on to another site and a troll another site has banned moves here to fill the space, most boards handle trolls in their own way, whether it's to ridicule them or to ignore them, many trolls, given a little time, start to interact with other board members and settle down to less trollish behaviour. The idea of the net should be freedom to interact with other people, if that interaction is sometimes unpleasant that's all part of life.

ManlyBanisters · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mem0101

true, if he says that he is not interested in having his name attached to this thread it should be closed and reposted as a non specific thread.

Then it wouldn't be a petition to readmit him then, would it?

Which is the raison d'etre of the thread.

kalipygian · 02-03-2008

Sam has given detailed explanations about the circumstances of his banning at the other site.
He also said that at the time he was banned he was planning on leaving. So, other than having been subjected to rude and arbitrary and unnecessary treatment, and no communication, the issue was for him at that time moot.

As some time has passed, it might be that he might wish to return.

It would only be decent of the system if a person was given that option.

The present practice of sudden, secret, arbitrary, no explanation, no appeal, very inconsistent interpretation and application of the TOS is not decent.

Mem · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManlyBanisters

Then it wouldn't be a petition to readmit him then, would it?

Which is the raison d'etre of the thread.

If he does not want his name used it shouldn't be used.

This petition really means nothing, unfortunately. I've never heard of the TOS rules ever being changed for one person. Only a clarification of them for all.

It can come back as a thread to readmit all unfairly banned members.

prepstudinsc · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex

Then why is Knight/Wonderboy/ScaredLittleBoy still here?

Answer: read Novice's post for more.

Sam wasn't trolling with the two accounts. Like many others, he was leaving one account behind and starting a new one. Mistakes sometimes happen when a poster does this (see: Bronx, Wonderboy, etc.) Had he had a chance to explain that and not been on the bad side of a moderator, he may still be here. Who knows?

Now that Danny is resting in peace, perhaps the moderators will reconsider the idea of reinstating people who may have been banned and could be allowed back? I doubt it, but since he was the main reason that a few resisted the idea, maybe it is time to reconsider?

As we used to debate, there would have to be a good reason and all that, and, of course, it would be the moderators call.

It would not be easy.

For every Sam or Spladle that people want back there will be people who want others reinstated as well who are not as "popular" or "even-tempered." Stronzo is an example of a polarizing figure. There are several others.

Matthew and the gang were all talking about where we think we original mods went wrong. I think the "privacy" issue was the first mistake, especially in the event of multiple accounts. After we banned DMW, we should have exposed ALL of his multiple accounts for the board to see. I actually began to and was asked to edit my posts to another effect.

As Matthew notes, NOT exposing these people rewards them, allows them to fool more people, and leaves those attached to the accounts ripe for more abuse.

The banning of Spladle (prompted by Rob_E and argued for by Heath, most notably) was a second mistake in that it led to the banning of several members who were considered a part of this place, love them or hate them. That is a vote I wish I had back.

I am glad I am connect with Sam, Spladle and even Stronzo on the other site. I doubt that any mod will want to consider what I have to say given how critical I have been. All I can say is what often appears one way when you are a moderator, appears differently when you aren't.

We certainly had good intentions and made our share of mistakes. This is hindsight. Things are always clearer when you have time and distance from which to view them. With the site as big as it is, banning someone and keeping them away is next to impossible.

Ahhhh, the selective memory that inhabits a certain other site. ChicagoSam had multiple IDs, which he knew was a violation. Knight/Wonderboy/ScaredLittleBoy is a different story. He let us know he was going to change screen names. All it takes is a little communication. Let the Mods know and the account can be changed, it's when no one communicates and then multiple IDs appear AND it's even worse when they post and respond to each other--which is something Sam did, just like your beloved Danny. Let's see--PonyPete and DMW used to communicate in threads, as did Dantesco and DMW, as did several personae who claimed to be DMW's brothers. It's that sort of nonsense that is bannable.

I will also say that I feel (note I'm just saying ME and not speaking for the rest of the Mods) that if a member here knows someone who has been banned is here under an alternate screen name, that person should be reported. I will go further to state that I think that if someone knows that a banned member is here posting, they should be banned as well--because you're an accomplice.

Should a vote be taken to readmit ChicagoSam, I will vote NO. How's that for being transparent?

I hope this post makes it over to another site for you all to bitch about.

novice_btm · 02-03-2008

Look, I'm not picking on Sam, or anyone else, but if anyone pops over to the other site, and looks around for 5-10 minutes, like I have, about once every month or two, you'll see that they not only DO want to come back, but they're already here, at least reading, because they post comments to that effect there, and sent out emails to current members about it as well. I was congratulated by SEVERAL "banned" members just recently when I hit 5K.

Don't go playing the "Oh, if only they were here...", or the "They're so hurt, isolated, and innocent, who knows if the WOULD come back..." cards, because you KNOW that it just isn't true.

rob_just_rob · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by prepstudinsc

I will go further to state that I think that if someone knows that a banned member is here posting, they should be banned as well--because you're an accomplice.

Fuck that, and fuck you, you cowardly, Nazi cunt.

If you were half as good a moderator as you think you are, this place would actually be decently run and we wouldn't be seeing threads like this one.

If you can't do what you think is your "job" properly, don't expect the rest of us to bail you out and do it for you.

Mem · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by prepstudinsc

. I will go further to state that I think that if someone knows that a banned member is here posting, they should be banned as well--because you're an accomplice.
.

I don't know of any, but if I did know about someone who was an asshole and came back here as a new persona I would be a rat.

I don't think that knowing about a banned member coming back is the same a harboring a fugitive. If you helped him come back by helping him change his IP address that may be a different story.

rob_just_rob · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by prepstudinsc

I will go further to state that I think that if someone knows that a banned member is here posting, they should be banned as well--because you're an accomplice.

And isn't it funny how this site started out with no formal mods - trolls were dealt with by the membership at large - and now a moderator is asking for the membership to do the moderators' jobs for them again.

Guess we won't be needing you anymore, psNsync, if that comes to pass.

Mem · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob_just_rob

Fuck that, and fuck you, you cowardly, Nazi cunt.

If you were half as good a moderator as you think you are, this place would actually be decently run and we wouldn't be seeing threads like this one.

If you can't do what you think is your "job" properly, don't expect the rest of us to bail you out and do it for you.

That was uncalled for. Change your IP address and come back soon.

SpeedoGuy · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mem0101

Now, if some odd fish comes back after they have been banned, and gets caught in the net again, they should stay out.

We can thank a sharp eyed fisherman named alex8 for that catch.

Lex · 02-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by novice_btm

I *THINK* it's under the technicality of, "he never logged in again to the accounts he left behind" clause.

In these cases, I really believe that the old accounts should be "closed", "converted to Guest" or whatever the Admin function is that would prevent an "accidental" accessing of the old account. There has definitely been the case of a legit mistake of a user opening the old account that was cached, and no sense anyone getting banned over something so simple, and also removes the temptation from those who aren't as honest.

Actually, no. He started a "18% bigger thread" with one account. Then posted with another (Without ever telling us). He knew exactly what he was doing. Matthew (of course) was among the first to catch it (after we had given him the benefit, mind you).

Quote:

Originally Posted by prepstudinsc

I hope this post makes it over to another site for you all to bitch about.

If I wanted to bitch about you, I would do so here. And I haven't. I've taken the "leave well enough alone" route and patently ignored you. Sadly the same can not be said for you. This is the second time you have taken a benign post I made and tried to slam me for it. Did you notice that your last post that you wanted to make it over there did not? I am sure you did since you read the other site so often.

You supposedly come from a moral high ground, and many know better. Sending cock pics to members who are not (at that time) 18 isn't really in God's plan is it? Or am I missing something?

Next.

SpoiledPrincess · 02-03-2008

I don't really find it acceptable to call someone a cunt in a thread unless they've exhibited truly cuntish behaviour. The mods on this site are, by and large, ok.

Petition to readmit chicagosam

If I were banned from a site that I cared about, I would enforce my IP copyright rights and insist that everything I had written, was withdrawn. I don't care what the terms of the