If a poster constantly makes up shit about others and books at what point should we ban him?

The Major · 07-06-2003, 12:10 PM

I absolutely hate banning anyone so I need your input. I shan't be making the decision.

Russ

The Actuary · 07-06-2003, 12:12 PM

I dunno but the place has allowed the guy that tried to extort Spiro and is generally regarded as one of the bigger scammers online to continue posting unfettered.

DrunkenGoon · 07-06-2003, 12:17 PM

Give him a Dale Hunter type suspension for the hit on Turgeon...

AussieVamp2 · 07-06-2003, 12:40 PM

about 2 years ago

all-in · 07-06-2003, 12:48 PM

ABSOLUTELY!

pmj18 · 07-06-2003, 01:04 PM

I have to agree with TA and AV, it should have happened two years ago.

Immanuel Kant · 07-06-2003, 02:40 PM

the animals have left the barn and you decide to close the door now?.......LMAO

what?.......the poster was going to change, so he/she/it was given another chance?

gimme a break........what's right is right, not just when it's convenient!

tor-evans · 07-06-2003, 03:42 PM

Major: Won't the other posters take care of people like this on their own? Sooner or later he/she will be exposed for their BS!

Superfly · 07-06-2003, 04:35 PM

It's you site so it's your call. But I don't see posting as every asshole's god given right. It's a privilege, and once someone proves they don't deserve it, see-ya! I don't know who specifically you're referring to as I don't pay attention to most of the BS, but I can think of at least a dozen who deserve to get banned.

BuzzRavanaugh · 07-06-2003, 04:43 PM

Before the person gets to 30,000 posts.

Just kidding JJ

OldManSports · 07-06-2003, 04:51 PM

Banning really dont help. If they know what they are doing they can have a new ip address in minutes.

Liam Brady the CFL guy · 07-06-2003, 05:16 PM

Wow. Anger Management was a horrible film.

FENWAY · 07-06-2003, 05:24 PM

I thiought BTJ was already banned for life

GottaWinToday · 07-06-2003, 05:37 PM

This is the kind of decision you get paid for Major.....

You want to make the forum a democracy????.....LOL

GottaWinToday

Raisencain · 07-06-2003, 05:41 PM

<<I absolutely hate banning anyone so I need your input. I shan't be making the decision.>>

you have a problem banning some people, not everybody[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

not that i care, but isn't the person you are reffering to in this thread already suppose to be banned?

Wiz · 07-06-2003, 06:05 PM

Sob...Sniff.... I'm going to miss JJ. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

TTinCO · 07-06-2003, 06:24 PM

There are very few people here who repeated blatantly LIE about others and books. "They" are the extreme case of thinking that they can say anything about anyone because they are hiding behind a keyboard and a nickname.

In reality, these LIES do real harm to real people and businesses. It's not the "big joke" that some people seem to think that it is.

If they have been warned and still pull this crap, toss them for a couple of months. If they screw up again, make it 6 months. Screw up again-give them life!!

Depending on how much of the decision you would like to give to the posters, maybe you would consider some type of "panal" of posters who each get one vote. Maybe each poster over 1K posts gets a vote--I don't know, there's a zillion ways that it could be formed.

In the end, these lies, threats and other BS run off some of the most valuable posters and hurt the credibility of the forum and everyone associated with it.

shoebox · 07-06-2003, 06:36 PM

Major, if they are blatant lies than go ahead and ban him but if they have some truth and maybe an exageration or may go overboard pounding the book or poster dont ban! Lies or liars should never stand on this site, but they must be proven to be lies or liars.

Butch · 07-06-2003, 07:01 PM

It's nice of you to ask us, but it's your decision, not ours.

Here are the two schools of thought on it:

The "Good for business" school says that you should ban a person when he/she starts to cost you in terms of readership and lost sponsorship advertising. In other words, when the disruption starts hitting you in the pocketbook. If it increases targetted hits, it's good. If it decreases them, it's bad. As long asregulars keep posting, lurkers keep reading, and new people keep clicking through to your sponsors, everything is fine and dandy. When regulars start leaving, lurkers stop logging in, and sponsors threaten to stop advertising, then you have to put a stop to it. That's the philosophy that they have across the tracks at Rx, always have, probably always will. It's strictly a question of "is it good for business?" If a guy making disgusting posts increases their hits and doesn't drive anybody away, then they'll let him post. There's no honor, class, ethics, morals, or principles there. It's all about "What's good for business?"

The other school of thought is that you should do what's in the best interest of your lurkers, posters, and advertisers, equally. If a person posts false comments about a sportsbook, and those comments are likely to mislead somebody who doesn't know better into avoiding what every regular knows is a good book (example: Cascade) or posting up at what everybody knows is a bad one (example: English Sports Betting), then that person should probably be given ONE warning. If he/she doesn't heed that warning and continually posts about how, say, some sportsbook stiffed him out of $660, then that person should be at least suspended for a while. Third offense, and goodbye. Yes, they can get a new posting name, new ISP, anonymous proxy, insecure proxies. You and Fred (and Minnow and Grandfather) know all about those because you deal with them everyday. What the agenda-types can't do is hide their intentions. To spread their sermon, they have to open their cyber mouths, and once they do, they're gone again.

That's my 2c on it.