the Policy of Banning Members

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, John Cotter said:

 

Would it be fair to say that neither Michael Griffith nor Chris Scally would be favourably disposed to the idea of RFK Jr becoming US president?

No, it would not be fair to say that, not in my case. I guess you have missed the many posts where I have defended/praised RFK Jr. Besides, what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

I got a one-day ban last week without warning for allegedly belittling another member. I didn’t make a fuss about it because I’d more or less decided to stop posting in the forum for the time being at least, for reasons touched on in my last post.

You got off way too lightly. Your next infraction will result in the disabling of your computer for two weeks, the withdrawal of $200 from your checking account, and the placing of wheel locks on your car's tires for two weeks. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Roger Odisio]

18 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

And after more than one moderator has explained the thought process behind a suspension, to say that the moderators have never explained why they took the actions they did is a blatant untruth. You may disagree with the actions of a moderator; that is your prerogative. Just don't say that, because a moderator wasn't swayed by your reason for disagreement, that the moderator failed to explain why they took action.

Not this again.  I never said mods never explained their actions.  I said the explanations given were inadequate and avoided the main point that should be addressed:  that a thread should not be moved if it was relevant to the JFKA, regardless what other point the thread made.

 

Please stop distorting what I said. 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Not this again.  I never said mods never explained their actions.  I said the explanations given were inadequate and avoided the main point that should be addressed:  that a thread should not be moved if it was relevant to the JFKA, regardless what other point the thread made.

 

Please stop distorting what I said. 

Enough already. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[John Cotter]

48 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Would it be fair to say that neither Michael Griffith nor Chris Scally would be favourably disposed to the idea of RFK Jr becoming US president?

No, it would not be fair to say that, not in my case. I guess you have missed the many posts where I have defended/praised RFK Jr. Besides, what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

I got a one-day ban last week without warning for allegedly belittling another member. I didn’t make a fuss about it because I’d more or less decided to stop posting in the forum for the time being at least, for reasons touched on in my last post.

You got off way too lightly. Your next infraction will result in the disabling of your computer for two weeks, the withdrawal of $200 from your checking account, and the placing of wheel locks on your car's tires for two weeks. 

Michael,

Thanks for replying to my question. 

In reply to your question: In the apparent absence of relevant grounds for moderators' decisions, the possibility of irrelevant grounds arises.

In relation to the threat of further sanctions on my good self, I'll have to invoke the assistance of the Irish national security state. Its reputation for inflicting crushing defeats on the Yanks is second to none.

Edited July 12, 2023 by John Cotter

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Does anyone besides me find it odd that a resident of Ireland [or any other nation NOT called the United States of America] is involved in debating who should become President of the US? I don't begrudge anyone from having an OPINION, but actual advocacy for a particular candidate on a forum not meant to be a debate on current politics?

It would be akin to someone from the US inserting their preference for a particular political candidate to become the Irish head of state...which, as a US citizen, I consider to be "not my concern."

As a moderator, I somewhat object to references to a temporary suspension of posting privileges as a "ban." A ban would be if your membership in the EF was revoked. 

And after more than one moderator has explained the thought process behind a suspension, to say that the moderators have never explained why they took the actions they did is a blatant untruth. You may disagree with the actions of a moderator; that is your prerogative. Just don't say that, because a moderator wasn't swayed by your reason for disagreement, that the moderator failed to explain why they took action.

When the mods finalize and fine-tune the penalty point system, I have suggested that the guidelines be posted in the pinned Forum rules. For now, I will advise you that 10 penalty points results in a 1-day suspension of posting privileges; 20 points results in a 2-day suspension; and so on. We're trying to fine-tune the system so that we can have a system with consistency and parity. HOWEVER, "frequent fliers" in the penalty box do tend to accumulate higher point values when they are penalized. But we also are setting up a mechanism under which points do expire. So if a member has a five-point penalty from 2014, for example, and none since, the 2014 penalty will go away if no other offenses occur.

The EF has never been a democracy. Moderators have always had authority to enforce forum rules. And that will continue into the foreseeable future.

 

As a citizen of a small vassal state of the US empire, the question of who becomes POTUS is very much my business.

A ban can be temporary or permanent. There is no stipulation in the standard definition or usage of the term "ban" to the contrary.

Edited July 12, 2023 by John Cotter

[Michael Griffith]

25 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Michael,

Thanks for replying to my question. 

In reply to your question: In the apparent absence of relevant grounds for moderators' decisions, the possibility of irrelevant grounds arises.

In relation to the threat of further sanctions on my good self, I'll have to invoke the assistance of the Irish national security state. Its reputation for inflicting crushing defeats on the Yanks is second to none.

Ha! Nice one. 

My wife and I lived in England for five years when I was in the U.S. Army. I was stationed at RAF Menwith Hill in Harrogate in the mid-1990s. Beautiful country. Wonderful people. We still keep in touch with some of our British friends.

[John Cotter]

28 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Ha! Nice one. 

My wife and I lived in England for five years when I was in the U.S. Army. I was stationed at RAF Menwith Hill in Harrogate in the mid-1990s. Beautiful country. Wonderful people. We still keep in touch with some of our British friends.

Since we’re all members of the same race, maybe someday we’ll get sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H34BgCdH7aY