I feel bad for Tallbig

[Not_Punny]

Why can't they?

They could -- but it would be stupid because anyone can come back under a different name, so why bother?

And like I said, if convicts who have committed REAL crimes can rejoin society, why not here?

 

[Mem]

Thanks, mem! :tongue:

Any time.

I so glad you did not leave.:wink:

 

[Big Del]

I have to say I never encountered Tallbig, but I love Hotmilf - she is simply wonderful and certainly a M I L F

Peace and Love

 

[Not_Punny]

I so glad you did not leave.:wink:

:kiss:

 

[snoozan]

EDit: If I were him, I'd lay low, and then come back and announce myself. They can't ban you permanently if you straighten up your act and start obeying the rules.

This has been brought up repeatedly in the various banning threads, and once a ban is placed, it's permanent. Apparently there's supposed to be a process whereby you are warned, then a temporary ban, then a permanent ban but that doesn't seem to be followed very well here. I don't know which tallbig received, but I was assuming a permanent. Arliss was temporarily banned at one point and was allowed back. But from what I understand that's not the case for most people.

Tallbig did not receive a warning, and was truthfully naive regarding protocol and rules.

Pecker specifically said in the thread where he mentioned the banning that tallbig had been warned about using multiple identities prior to the banning. I'm too lazy to link the post. Other members who have been banned have also said they also never received any warnings at all.

There doesn't seem to be any sort of clearcut way these rules are enforced, but that's been argued about so many times it's probably not worth yet another go around.

 

[Not_Punny]

Peace and Love

Here's looking at ya, Big Del! :wink:

 

[sweatyblackballs]

I shouldn't laugh, but don't you guys think you take this whole thing way too close to heart ... life lived through a computer screen seems to me to be incredibly desperate ... I suggest you guys all CHILL OUT ... simple ... stop doing that thing that all Americans do and making things SOOOOOOO over the top ... It's not as though this is REAL ... DUH! (I got that from an American show)

HOTMILF - Well done for editing your rude remarks out of your initial post ... very clever ... I am sure though you are a lovely lady, albeit one I will never meet. x
PS: Had a great day ... about to go bed ... it's 2am here ... Much love to you guys ... now lighten the fuck up!

 

[rob_just_rob]

They could -- but it would be stupid because anyone can come back under a different name, so why bother?

Plenty of people who have been banned have come back under different names and when found out, subsequently rebanned. Of course, not all of those who come back under another name are found out, particularly if they don't draw attention to themselves. My point is that if they do get found out, they get rebanned. Leading to the conclusion that permanent bans are intended to be permanent bans.

And like I said, if convicts who have committed REAL crimes can rejoin society, why not here?

This isn't society, this is a privately owned website. It doesn't have to follow society's rules. Besides, if criminals aren't allowed to rejoin society, they become an expense society must bear. By contrast, there are no (or minimal) expenses associated with banning people.

 

[Not_Punny]

This has been brought up repeatedly in the various banning threads, and once a ban is placed, it's permanent. Apparently there's supposed to be a process whereby you are warned, then a temporary ban, then a permanent ban but that doesn't seem to be followed very well here. I don't know which tallbig received, but I was assuming a permanent. Arliss was temporarily banned at one point and was allowed back. But from what I understand that's not the case for most people.



Pecker specifically said in the thread where he mentioned the banning that tallbig had been warned before. Other members who have been banned have also said they also never received any warnings at all.

There doesn't seem to be any sort of clearcut way these rules are enforced, but that's been argued about so many times it's probably not worth yet another go around.

Hey snoozan -- I communicated with Tallbig, and according to him, he hadn't received a warning. But then, Pecker wouldn't have any reason to lie. Perhaps TB was warned but hadn't seen it. I don't know. But how do you leap from a warning that may or may not have been seen to a PERMANENT banning for a member who wasn't trolling or disruptive?

We definitely need some consistency in application.

And the problem with "banning" anyone is that they can come back so easily (like, minutes later!).

 

[Mem]

Plenty of people who have been banned have come back under different names and when found out, subsequently rebanned. Of course, not all of those who come back under another name are found out, particularly if they don't draw attention to themselves. My point is that if they do get found out, they get rebanned. Leading to the conclusion that permanent bans are intended to be permanent bans.



This isn't society, this is a privately owned website. It doesn't have to follow society's rules. Besides, if criminals aren't allowed to rejoin society, they become an expense society must bear. By contrast, there are no (or minimal) expenses associated with banning people.

All they have to do is block the person's IP from even being able to read this site. I know it can be done because it happened to me on a Howard Stern site. They have "Wack Packers" for moderator and if you disagree with them or say something bad about Howard you are permanently banned.

You can not even read the web site. If you try to go to the site you get a Dead End sign, and they give you a message saying "get the fuck out, we do not want you here."

 

[Mem]

Hey snoozan -- I communicated with Tallbig, and according to him, he hadn't received a warning. But then, Pecker wouldn't have any reason to lie. Perhaps TB was warned but hadn't seen it. I don't know. But how do you leap from a warning that may or may not have been seen to a PERMANENT banning for a member who wasn't trolling or disruptive?

We definitely need some consistency in application.

And the problem with "banning" anyone is that they can come back so easily (like, minutes later!).

He would start a thread and have another alias agree with him, and then a 3rd alias agree with the other two. That could be construed as trolling.

 

[Not_Punny]

Plenty of people who have been banned have come back under different names and when found out, subsequently rebanned. Of course, not all of those who come back under another name are found out, particularly if they don't draw attention to themselves. My point is that if they do get found out, they get rebanned. Leading to the conclusion that permanent bans are intended to be permanent bans.

This isn't society, this is a privately owned website. It doesn't have to follow society's rules. Besides, if criminals aren't allowed to rejoin society, they become an expense society must bear. By contrast, there are no (or minimal) expenses associated with banning people.

I hear ya, Rob, but I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

Tallbig wasn't a bad person. Hadn't done anything evil. A permanent ban was like putting someone into prison for life for smoking pot.

A temporary ban should have been done.

That's what we're arguing about.

 

[snoozan]

All they have to do is block the person's IP from even being able to read this site. I know it can be done because it happened to me on a Howard Stern site. They have "Wack Packers" for moderator and if you disagree with them or say something bad about Howard you are permanently banned.

most people's IP addresses renew periodically anyway, but it's very easy to get another one or go through a proxy to get by the IP ban.

 

[Not_Punny]

He would start a thread and have another alias agree with him, and then a 3rd alias agree with the other two. That could be construed as trolling.

LOL -- yes, that would be trolling. But in the threads that I went back and examined, it wasn't THAT bad.

In any case, there was a REASON for it --

Too many people were being MEAN to him. Several times I went into a thread and say HEY!

TB only had to SPEAK and someone was saying something mean.

It was extremely frustrating.

It bothers me that so many people were so mean. I could name names, but I won't.

 

[Not_Punny]

Personally, I think it should be against the TOS for people to "pounce" on threads -- sometimes, when someone starts a thread, some people jump in and make derisive comments, like: "Oh God, not again! Drop dead already" -- stuff like that in my opinion is FAR worse.

 

[Mem]

LOL -- yes, that would be trolling. But in the threads that I went back and examined, it wasn't THAT bad.

In any case, there was a REASON for it --

Too many people were being MEAN to him. Several times I went into a thread and say HEY!

TB only had to SPEAK and someone was saying something mean.

It was extremely frustrating.

It bothers me that so many people were so mean. I could name names, but I won't.

You really should, you may teach them something.

Many people were mean and nasty to me when I got here, for posting too much. That's when I found out who the truly nice people on here were. I found that one person here is vile in my eyes. Others are nasty and angry, and some are okay and just get pissed at you and let it go.

 

[Mem]

Personally, I think it should be against the TOS for people to "pounce" on threads -- sometimes, when someone starts a thread, some people jump in and make derisive comments, like: "Oh God, not again! Drop dead already" -- stuff like that in my opinion is FAR worse.

You mean like someone named after a maid?

P.S. Tell Tallbig to stay away from the other site, he will be eaten alive.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I hear ya, Rob, but I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

Tallbig wasn't a bad person. Hadn't done anything evil. A permanent ban was like putting someone into prison for life for smoking pot.

A temporary ban should have been done.

That's what we're arguing about.

Is it? And do we know if the ban is permanent?

So far as I know, using multiple IDs has always resulted in a permanent ban. If we unban tallbig, logically we should unban all the other multiple ID types. That isn't going to happen, of course.

Pecker says tallbig was warned. Tallbig says he wasn't. So someone is lying. If it's Pecker (moderator/admin), that suggests that somebody in charge wanted tallbig gone, and he'll never be reinstated for that reason (see http://www.lpsg.org/57057-why-has-big-dirigible-been.html). If it's tallbig that's lying, then your argument that he isn't a bad person doesn't hold (as much) water.

Anyway, tallbig violated the TOS - which he agreed to abide by when he joined - thus he is gone. It's been explained time and again that if you violate the TOS repeatedly, you'll get banned. That's how it is, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it.

 

[rob_just_rob]

And incidentally, people far, far, FAR more popular than tallbig have been banned, and not reinstated despite intense lobbying from their supporters. So again, assuming this ban is permanent, I'd be very surprised to see him back.

 

[Mem]

And incidentally, people far, far, FAR more popular than tallbig have been banned, and not reinstated despite intense lobbying from their supporters. So again, assuming this ban is permanent, I'd be very surprised to see him back.

If he does come back "i" :biggrin1: don't think he will be able to keep his identity secret for very long.