Re: User JohanCruyff
 

All,

I don't get this. There are many banned users who come back and post. How long did perma-banned yves post here with mods aware of that fact?

I think you guys take bans way too seriously, especially for stuff like this case where it's more for being an annoyance than anything else.

I get banning "RJPITTM2" or some similar account. But a guy comes back with a new account and is not posting as version 2 of banned account or anything like that, I don't see why he should be banned given the existing precedents.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

[ QUOTE ]
All,

I don't get this. There are many banned users who come back and post. How long did perma-banned yves post here with mods aware of that fact?

I think you guys take bans way too seriously, especially for stuff like this case where it's more for being an annoyance than anything else.

I get banning "RJPITTM2" or some similar account. But a guy comes back with a new account and is not posting as version 2 of banned account or anything like that, I don't see why he should be banned given the existing precedents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am with Diablo here. There was no reason to ban him unless he stepped out of line by letting the cat out of the bag (like YS) or if he continued down the same path (like RJ). A ban is losing your identity, only rarely is it really that strongly enforced where people cannot come back under new user names - PITTM's mistake was making it obvious (you probably missed that post Diablo, it was deleted within 5 minutes after i saw it).

Personally I would have give guys like him enough rope, RJ was busy grabbing all the rope he could this morning.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

El D,

I think that people who were mildly observant and non-mods knew it was RJ, and that is what mods were taking issue with? The fact that they knew was because RJ was acting like RJ and saying what RJ would say.

However, I don't believe the mods should be going out of their way to "out" a poster like RJ who (I believe) was axed mostly for being an annoyance. His ban should be "sorry you lose your identity" not "ban on sight" or whatever. So as long as he isn't banworthy in his new account, he shouldn't be banned, and shouldn't be outed by the mods.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

This was Ryan's call. I'll let him explain.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

I just want to add that I am perfectly okay with him being banned forever.

I don't believe he is a positive force on this site. On the other hand, I also don't mind if he's allowed to stay. I don't believe he is very important one way or another.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

[ QUOTE ]
But a guy comes back with a new account and is not posting as version 2 of banned account or anything like that

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't care one way or the other nor do I have a strong opinion about RJ as a poster. However, I just wanted to point out, that within the first 10 posts of his new account, he had posted in the thread that got him banned in the first place, posting exactly the same kind of thing that got him banned in the first place. Thats how several mods (including me) were even able to guess that it was RJ.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

Mat,

Just for the record, I'm just stating my opinions here. I don't give a rat's ass either way about whether he is banned or not. Though I don't believe he's more of a "negative force" than countless worthless posters. And that is coming from someone who has had extensive and very annoying arguments with him on the forums. I definitely fully understand the annoyance/prick component of RJ.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

Actually this is why I lean towards a permaban. Of all the things you and I or anyone could be talking about, why him?

Why not a rat's ass? Unlike many others who have been critical, he has made posts about me which are simply false. If I have to spend time correcting that, it's a waste of my time.

Especially if other users don't value him. And therefore, I realize as I type this, I do believe he is worse than worthless. Not much worse, but definitely worse.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

I would do the same if it were any other banned member. He essentially announced who he was right away and continued where he left off.

That's a pretty blatant violation of a ban, and I'm never comfortable allowing users to do that. It sends a message that you can do almost whatever you want and bans only mean a loss of name.

I'm not sure that I'm ready to say he's ban on sight, but it's very close to that.

Re: User JohanCruyff
 

I think in general the policy of letting banned users come back on new accounts is a bad one, especially when they do it like the next day after being banned.

I think it's weird how RJ's ban happened, because it seemed like Mat kinda baited him into it, but I also understand Mat's position on the guy.