Petition to readmit chicagosam

[rob_just_rob]

Sure, but it'll never happen. And as has been noted, he may not care to return.

What about all the others who were banned for spurious reasons?

 

[Mem]

I don't think he is interested in coming back, but if he was allowed to come back, and saw all of the support, maybe he would.

 

[Knockernail]

Multiple accounts, I believe.

Chicagosam had multiple accounts?

Definitely, i don't understand the people in the web. I remember him as a nice and correct guy, i can't imagine him trolling with different nicks.

 

[novice_btm]

OK, let's clear something up, and this is NOT aimed at Sam, but banned members, and banning in general. It's a problem.

First, 1/2 of the major banned members, are still here, and gloat about it on the "other" site. They chat about how clever they are, for getting around the system, and are encouraged by other members there to do it, and are given helpful tips on the process. The only thing that they don't have, is access to their original screen-names/personae. To me, that in and of itself is an issue. Most have never done the "time" for their "crime". That is, they didn't abide by their "punishment" in any way. Instead, of examining what they did "wrong", they went, unrepentant, around the message being sent to them ("We won't tolerate your kind and/or behaviour"), and returned to their same disruption. They broke the rules of the community two-fold.

Second, before I go sounding like a hard-liner, for the above, if rules are rules, then apply them evenly. If we're going to have bans, then BAN people. And NO, you can't pick and choose. You can't say one is disruptive and must go, while you stand up and say for another that he's just "misunderstood" and needs more understanding and a "chance". If you ban one member for a certain type of comment/behaviour, then ban ALL members that make that type of comment/behaviour. I just see some of the biggest sticklers and rule book-thumpers, being the biggest offenders of not seeing those rules applying to everyone (this is NOT just towards Mods, but also members).

Third, while I think, for the sake of fairness, that there should be an acknowledged warning before most bannings, no one can seriously hide behind, "but I/they don't even know why." Seriously? You read the sign-up information, and you still joined as a 15yr old, or you knowingly created multiple accounts, posted nude avatars, were constantly offensive/hateful, harassed someone, or spammed the place, etc., and yet no one has ANY idea why there was a banning? REALLY???

Finally, while the general public is never privy to why there was a banning, and can only speculate, due to the mighty "Privacy", and those speculations may or may not be accurate, there's also the actual truth. A banning may be a horrible breach of the TOS, it may be something petty, but it could also be that because we, the general community, don't know the exact reasons for bannings, that there could actually be more to the stories than we know. In fact, it could be that the bannings we consider "unwarranted", we would actually be screaming for, if we really DID know the full story. It's the unfortunate side of the community not having even the slightest hint of why a banning occurs, and no, I don't find all cases of this to be contrary to the thought expressed above. For example, there was a "woman" that I used to PM with, and was always great to me, but in Chat, was actually a totally hateful bitch. I was stunned at the banning (but later, even more so, by the full story).

 

[B_Nick4444]

Since some of the rules for banning appear to be arbitrary, I don't see why letting them back in is a problem.

ditto

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Chicagosam had multiple accounts?

Definitely, i don't understand the people in the web. I remember him as a nice and correct guy, i can't imagine him trolling with different nicks.

Yes he did. He is a great guy. I miss him. Having multiple accounts is a violation of the T.O.S.

 

[Lex]

Yes he did. He is a great guy. I miss him. Having multiple accounts is a violation of the T.O.S.

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.

 

[Mem]

It seems that former Mods are more in favor of giving banned members another chance, than current ones are.

A site that can not change, can not flourish as it should.

Or let banned members join for a $12 a year fee. Many businesses change their minds when you put a $ out there.

 

[novice_btm]

Then why is Knight/Wonderboy/ScaredLittleBoy still here?...

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.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

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

Sam wasn't trolling with the two accounts.

Three, or more - but no he wasn't trolling - he was ousted on a technicality - I don't know why - but I have my guesses, which are, essentially, irrelevant.

To answer the OP - yes the ban should be lifted - I don't think the outcome will be any different though.

And back to the first sentence. Sam has asked, repeatedly, that he not be the "LPSG bannings" poster boy - I don't think Hick knew that and anyway the post was more about whether those who remember Sam want his ban lifted, not about the circumstances or 'justice' of the ban. So I'm not even criticising - just reminding folk that the man in question would probably rather you all went and read something a bit more interesting:

http://www.lpsg.org/42864-summer-stories.html :wink::biggrin1:

 

[Drifterwood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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.