Ignore Feature?

rabidrabbit said:
Reverend said:
The reason banned persons are named in that thread is to save us the admins the time to explain why we ban folks -- read 90% of the way Scali posts.
That doesn't make sense... at all :?

It still doesn't explain why the person was banned... so how can it save the time to do that ? If anything, it raises more questions of "why he was banned". If Scali wasn't listed there, I'd never even known he was banned, thus I'd never asked myself "why Scali was banned?".
But now that you do know he has been banned, how would you determine the reasons for it? One answer - use the search function to list his most recent posts; that way you'll get an idea as to the reasons. In other words, it's a case of "this person has been banned - go and look at his/her posts to get an idea as to how one should not be posting". By not making any declaration as to who has gone, it's then open to interpretation as to whether the person is taking a break/no PC access/etc or whether their absence is enforced.
 
Searching through old posts to find out why someone has been banned seems like a good idea in theory. Tried it out in practice, and can't for the life of me work out why Scali was banned though!

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough...
 
Yeah, like I really would go and read pages and pages of someone's old posts so that I could learn how not to post.

Ok, I read three pages of Scali's posts (didn't go inside every one of them, but enough to get a general view)

Now I don't understand at all why he was banned :?
I didn't find any of his postings I read offensive, insulting, trolling or anything worth a ban :?
I could name many posters who are 100x worse than him.
I really got the impression from his postings that he was a totally normal, polite poster :?

Posting his name there didn't help me at least.
 
I did say it was "one" answer - it's by no means the only way and of course, searching posts doesn't cover private messaging; nor does it account for posts being deleted or edited.

Scali, normal and polite? Oh dear!
 
l-b, You should put the name(s) in your sig too :)

Neeyik: Well then, if the reasoning behind putting the name of the banned in there is so that others could learn and see why he was banned, it doesn't really work if the posts he's been banned for are deleted.

So, there must be some other reason for the name display, other than to se the reasons and teach others.
Ok, to see a person is banned, instead of wondering what has happened is one good reason.

Edit: And banning based on private messages. I don't agree that should be a reason for ban but in extreme cases. Isn't that what PM'ing is for, for messages that are not for public viewing?
 
london-boy said:
No one's safe from the fashion police!
Not entirely true, us old married type have diplomatic immunity from such frivialities. 8)

BTW-I looked at Scali's posts trying to figure out why he got banned too and came to the same conclusions as most here that he seemed like a pleasant/knowledgeable poster, then I must have hit my critical coffee wake-up mass and I remembered who the annoying little ghit was.

Mebbe this thread will help jog a few peeps memories, his infamous "I have a radeon" thread he posted up after driving everyone a bit bonkers with his silly-assed defense/justification of DST on by default in 3dm2k5.

Good call Rev, but I agree with everyone that a fun little ditty about why they got banned in the banned thread might be a good thing.

For Scali I would have put something like, "For being too much himself and too full of himself too much of the time", or some such. ;)

EDITED BITS: Or who can forget Scali's memorable appearence in Rev's "Reverend at the Pulpit #12?
 
Well, I guess you just had to be there to understand.
Ok, I'm not judging anyone's decision on banning, as a matter of fact I couldn't really care less :)

The mods are doing a good enough job, I wouldn't be here if they weren't ;)
 
Yes married men are safe from the fashion police although the effort would be appreciated.

By the way, yeah i do remember Scali, annoying brat. But i think there is MUCH worse people around here. And they're still around.
 
Scali really was pretty rude, and not just to people like me who pretty much deserved it but to Reverend when Rev was sharing some pretty heavy info.

He was warned politely, he was warned nasty, he just kept it up....the only confusing thing about this one for me is that Scali wasn't banned earlier.
 
london-boy said:
Yes married men are safe from the fashion police although the effort would be appreciated.
HA! Keep dreaming about, it just like my wife. ;)

EDITED BITS: There might still be some people who annoy around, but they ain't annoying in the technical forums which is a bit different. OT & RPSC are judged by different standards than the tech lounges.
 
digitalwanderer said:
london-boy said:
Yes married men are safe from the fashion police although the effort would be appreciated.
HA! Keep dreaming about it just like my wife. ;)

And when ur life meets her Johnny Depp lookalike colleague and strategically starts having "late meetings at the office honey i'll be home soon", don't say i didn't warn you.......................... ;)
 
london-boy said:
And when ur life meets her Johnny Depp lookalike colleague and strategically starts having "late meetings at the office honey i'll be home soon", don't say i didn't warn you.......................... ;)
Pffft! Johnny Depp? No contest.

I don't try because I don't HAVE to try LB, not all of us have to try to be fabulous. 8)
 
digitalwanderer said:
london-boy said:
And when ur life meets her Johnny Depp lookalike colleague and strategically starts having "late meetings at the office honey i'll be home soon", don't say i didn't warn you.......................... ;)
Pffft! Johnny Depp? No contest.

I don't try because I don't HAVE to try LB, not all of us have to try to be fabulous. 8)

That's why u still haven't been banned :devilish:
 
rabidrabbit said:
Edit: And banning based on private messages. I don't agree that should be a reason for ban but in extreme cases. Isn't that what PM'ing is for, for messages that are not for public viewing?
The reasons should be the same as for the public forums, regardless as to whether they are private or not. Beyond3D reserves the full right to withdraw access and private use of the discussion board - they are not presented to allow people to take pleasure from abusing, provoking, insulting, intimidating, etc other members.
 
Neeyik said:
rabidrabbit said:
Edit: And banning based on private messages. I don't agree that should be a reason for ban but in extreme cases. Isn't that what PM'ing is for, for messages that are not for public viewing?
The reasons should be the same as for the public forums, regardless as to whether they are private or not. Beyond3D reserves the full right to withdraw access and private use of the discussion board - they are not presented to allow people to take pleasure from abusing, provoking, insulting, intimidating, etc other members.
Nick beat me to it.

Anyone that insults me repeatedly, publicly or privately, and I can ban that person. It's our party here -- whether you insult me with the crowd watching, or whether you pull me into a room and insult me, the result is the same : you pissed me off.
 
Reverend said:
Anyone that insults me repeatedly, publicly or privately, and I can ban that person. It's our party here -- whether you insult me with the crowd watching, or whether you pull me into a room and insult me, the result is the same : you pissed me off.
I've never agreed with you on a post more than I do on this one right now. 8)
 
digitalwanderer said:
Reverend said:
Anyone that insults me repeatedly, publicly or privately, and I can ban that person. It's our party here -- whether you insult me with the crowd watching, or whether you pull me into a room and insult me, the result is the same : you pissed me off.
I've never agreed with you on a post more than I do on this one right now. 8)
Well, the thing is this -- all we're asking for is for folks to respect the reason why they are even able to register and participate here. It's because Beyond3D exists and its staff allows the public to participate. You may disagree with some/all of the B3D staff on certain matters and the B3D staff will attempt to debate such matters with you but when you repeatedly insult the B3D staff (one staff, all, doesn't matter), then it means two things -- you've taken for granted why you are able to participate in our forums (and in the process thinks this forum belongs to you) and you're disrespectful towards the folks (B3D staff) that allow you to come to this party.

I'm not saying that the B3D staff is all mighty and is dictatorial -- above all, we welcome healthy dialogs, debates and arguments... without insults thrown. This is the Internet after all -- it is extremely likely two persons with opposite views will never agree on certain matters if they're debating using typed messages. Agreeing to disagree is not understood enough. Walking away can be hard to do for some but is something that comes easy for me. Many hard-stanced and emotional characters here are very likely to be less aggressive IRL -- I could probably meet Scali in a bar and we'd have a good debate without insults thrown. But this is the Internet... and it is a good hiding place.

In short :

1) Do not repeatedly be disrespectful, not only to B3D staff but to strangers here in the forum
2) Be polite
3) Walk away when it appears you can't get your point across

I've wanted to ban Scali for quite a while. I don't care what he knows about 3D -- if he's actually John Carmack, I'd ban John like I have done with Scali. He insulted me publicly and privately, on a repeated basis, and the way he posts does not promote healthy dialogs/debates. He incites flames.
 
I took a queue from Rev's stickied ban thread and changed my sig. It's harder to do this without the forum software doing it for me, but frankly epicstruggle has turned into nothing but an overbearing troll in the RSPC forum.

No other option.
 
Back
Top