An interesting ban (my intention is an impartial discussion)

[ManlyBanisters]

I say we have Luka come to the States and try out the bomb joke, and see how it's handled. It's the only way we can know for sure. :biggrin1:

Touché

I agree a perm-ban is an overreaction to a dumb joking statement by Spiker. I read the posts yesterday and could tell he was bullshitting the other member he was arguing with. Looked at in the context of the inane discussion, it was very clear there was no virus. In fact I went to the link and opened it right away.

IMO he should have been spanked, but not perm-banned given that there was no virus and he retracted the statement.

Yes - I think it was fairly clear that the virus comment was a goaf and nothing else. And yes, a spanking, for sure - but 'indefinite' ban (as per JF's post) seems a tad on the draconian side.

Northie - I meant to quote you but seem to have failed - still I can address your 'last straw' comment. I didn't want to just specifically discuss Spiker for that reason - yeah, he's taken it to the edge a few times, but if he wasn't actually on a heads up or official warning should it matter what his past behaviour has been?

 

[Northland]

.

Northie - I meant to quote you but seem to have failed - still I can address your 'last straw' comment. I didn't want to just specifically discuss Spiker for that reason - yeah, he's taken it to the edge a few times, but if he wasn't actually on a heads up or official warning should it matter what his past behaviour has been?

Which is why I carefully stated it 'may have been'. The thing with banning is often it seems out of nowhere, and even though a reason is listed, it still seems somehow wrong. Since the mention of 'heads up' and 'warning' has only been recently added to the reviews (mod actions thread) it's hard to say. Maybe he'd been issued several prior to May 11.



Lastly, I'd feel much better about the seriousness of the moderator staff, if they'd stop making their personal snide remarks about banned members or attempting questionable humor in a thread on such matters- it gives the moderating staff a decidedly biased appearance at times, and at other times, makes them appear childish, immature. (note: I am not saying that refers or does not refer to statements in this thread)

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

A stupid and unpleasant prank played purely for the amusement of the Prankster is one thing, and might elicit a fair quantity of rightful hostility toward the Jolly Japester, but in this case the "prank" was aimed at manipulating people, and at manipulating a debate. A prank from which the prankster wishes to benefit in some way, the equivalent of the person shouting "fire!" in the theatre and then going round robbing people's bags after they've run screaming out the fire exits in panic, is of a totally different character.

The latter kind of prank is not just for kicks, it's about malice and manipulation.

Do I think it deserves a perma-ban? In light of what JF says about the negotiability of a perma-ban and that they can in any case be commuted to a temp-ban on appeal it seems fair that Spiker067 should be required to apologise for his actions and perhaps explain himself and make some case for why anyone should trust him again before he can be allowed to rejoin the site.

 

[B_Nick4444]

oh, no! not Spiker! he had recently (day before yesterday) become one of my favorite boarders

am not familiar with the particular post (as someone who knows a little about economics, political science, history, and finance, the level of ignorance was intolerable, and so for the most part, I hardly read any of it), however, I'll assume that Vince is correct, in that it was readily, patently just part of the inanity of the discussion

given that, I agree with the majority position expressed that the ban was unwarranted and excessive

 

[luka82]

It calls into question, should just the baited be banned or should the baiters also be included, especially when they gang up and repeatedly dangle their bait (lord knows they've nothing else to dangle:biggrin1. A ban for those in increasing increments. 3 days/1 week/2 weeks/1 month/3 month/6 month/Forever, with a new slate being used if they've remained clean from violations for a year.

I believe we had this discussion in an another thread...I may be mistaken, it just sounds familiar.:smile: And opposite to popular belief, I do make mistakes....sometimes!:smile:

(Although I've not given up on my thoughts regarding "the Luka experiment". Just for the sake of certainty, of course.)

(Neither have I :biggrin1

Touché

You are more than welcome to visit Serbia, and not to scream BOMB!:biggrin1:

Lastly, I'd feel much better about the seriousness of the moderator staff, if they'd stop making their personal snide remarks about banned members or attempting questionable humor in a thread on such matters- it gives the moderating staff a decidedly biased appearance at times, and at other times, makes them appear childish, immature. (note: I am not saying that refers or does not refer to statements in this thread)

Lighten up,answers today actually are funny!
Come to Luka I`ll teach you humor!:biggrin1:
P.S. Grumpy faces make wrinkled foreheads!

 

[Mr. Snakey]

This is very serious indeed. Joking or not. Any attempts to implant viruses in links or manipulate any of the contents on this site are grounds for a permanent ban. A reminder that implanting viruses is a federal crime. The moderators did the right thing in giving him a permanent ban. I would also like to add that if he apply for reinstatement he should be denied. The moderators actions reflect their concern in keeping this site safe for all of us.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

This is very serious indeed. Joking or not. Any attempts to implant viruses in links or manipulate any of the contents on this site are grounds for a permanent ban. A reminder that implanting viruses is a federal crime. The moderators did the right thing in giving him a permanent ban. I would also like to add that if he apply for reinstatement he should be denied. The moderators actions reflect their concern in keeping this site safe for all of us.

Agreed. Its the same a threatening to kill someone. On the board it might not be serious, but if someone were to say they were gonna track their IP address or something, if thats possible, then its worth a ban, if its a joke or not.

 

[luka82]

But Snakes, he is punished, he was taught a lesson.
As some members pointed it out, the link didn`t have a virus in it.
If it were a real virus I would support you 100%, but he was joking.
Lame joke, OK, he probably scared couple of members and all, but the link wasn`t infected.

 

[vince]

This is very serious indeed. Joking or not. Any attempts to implant viruses in links or manipulate any of the contents on this site are grounds for a permanent ban. A reminder that implanting viruses is a federal crime. The moderators did the right thing in giving him a permanent ban. I would also like to add that if he apply for reinstatement he should be denied. The moderators actions reflect their concern in keeping this site safe for all of us.

Did you read the thread before posting? There was no virus. There was no attempt to implant a virus in a link. He did not manipulate content on the site. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks he should be banned or not. You are entitled to your opinion. But let's not make shit up here.

Spiker67 made a lame ass joke (very obvious one at that) in the heat of a stupid argument and it got blown way out of proportion.

I also agree with the poster above who pointed out that the snide remarks from the staff is unbecoming of them.

 

[dreamer20]

You didn't watch it. I embedded a virus in it and it hasn't called home yet.

P.S. Attacking you? Hahahah.

He erred. ...
A month away would seem fairer on this.

spiker067 didn't err as his action was not a mistake, but deliberate, malicious mischief.

This is very serious indeed. Joking or not. Any attempts to implant viruses in links or manipulate any of the contents on this site are grounds for a permanent ban. A reminder that implanting viruses is a federal crime. The moderators did the right thing in giving him a permanent ban. I would also like to add that if he apply for reinstatement he should be denied. The moderators actions reflect their concern in keeping this site safe for all of us.

Yes.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

But Snakes, he is punished, he was taught a lesson.
As some members pointed it out, the link didn`t have a virus in it.
If it were a real virus I would support you 100%, but he was joking.
Lame joke, OK, he probably scared couple of members and all, but the link wasn`t infected.

People planting viruses (hacking etc) is a big problem on the internet.Whether joking or not this was a threat. A member saying he committed a crime. This is no joking matter. The fact is in my opinion he can no longer be trusted. Please understand the moderators take the safety of this site very seriously. They work hard at keeping this site safe.

 

[Mem]

"But Mr. Airport-security-man, I was just joking about having a bomb."

Without discussing any specifics of this particular case, and strictly as a member, I don't take kindly to threats of a virus, whether they be on my computer, or a common cold. Keep your "ick", and even your threat of "ick", away from me.

signed, self-admitted germaphobe

Does a bomb threat warrant a death penalty with a right to appeal?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Does a bomb threat warrant a death penalty with a right to appeal?

A perma-ban isn't analogous to the death penalty.

 

[Pitbull]

Does a bomb threat warrant a death penalty with a right to appeal?

Yes.
But you may only appeal after the death penalty sentence has been carried out and not before.

 

[deleted3782]

Does a bomb threat warrant a death penalty with a right to appeal?

If it did, I bet we would see a dramatic reduction in the amount of bomb threats.

If the intended result is to reduce the amount of virus threats (both real and imaginary), then the action was useful. We can academically ask the question "What is the intended result of the mods actions...and were there other ways to achieve that result aside from banning?"

 

[deleted3782]

A perma-ban isn't analogous to the death penalty.

For some people on here, that's debatable.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

For some people on here, that's debatable.

:biggrin1::wink: Perhaps a death like that really would be a release.

 

[luka82]

For some people on here, that's debatable.

Unfortunately-TRUE!

:biggrin1::wink: Perhaps a death like that really would be a release.

Smart!

 

[Mem]

A perma-ban isn't analogous to the death penalty.

It certainly is, your account is dead, and you have a right to appeal, there is no better analogy.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

It certainly is.

Well no actually in the context of the metaphor of a bomb threat in an airport it's more like being banned from ever using the particular airport in question every again. But feel free to be absurdly hyperbolic to prove a point if you prefer.