Alot of people have been asking why so-and-so got banned, and I want to explain how it is that people obtain the coveted permanent ban.
There have been some accusations that I play favorites and that I will ban people on the reasoning that I don't agree with them. The first is true to some degree; I do play favorites. I will favor people that are productive or level headed members of the forum over someone who has to constantly berate other people and presume that anyone that doesn't fit their little mold is a "libtard". The second accusation is a last ditch attempt by people to try to pull the support of the forum in their favor, and ultimately is meaningless to me. I don't care what your mindset or ideology is as long as you are arguing it professionally and with respect to others. If you are making ultimatums and declaring any dissenter a "libtard" then your argument ceases to fall into this category.
What it takes to get banned on this forum is to constantly be "that guy" that I always have to watch. To constantly berate other people (veiled or outright) and to continuously ignore the warnings I give. In the case of Texas Investigator and MR Redneck I have banned them temporarily in the past for attitude issues, and I've sent PMs in the past, warned one or more on the forum, deleted posts, edited threads, etc. I have made it clear in the past that that kind of attitude would not be tolerated. They continued to go back to their old ways and I banned them.
I don't like banning people from the forum, but sometimes people just don't get with the program, and in my opinion it really takes away from the forum. It makes people become more reclusive and more guarded. When I banned West Texas almost immediately the forum posting increased by 25%, something to think about.
From the perspective of a forum member it may not seem as obvious. Alot of the material that gets people banned isn't left up, or seen (PMs / Emails). It's more or less a series of strikes, so even though they haven't committed the coup de gras, there is a larger picture at work.
There have been some accusations that I play favorites and that I will ban people on the reasoning that I don't agree with them. The first is true to some degree; I do play favorites. I will favor people that are productive or level headed members of the forum over someone who has to constantly berate other people and presume that anyone that doesn't fit their little mold is a "libtard". The second accusation is a last ditch attempt by people to try to pull the support of the forum in their favor, and ultimately is meaningless to me. I don't care what your mindset or ideology is as long as you are arguing it professionally and with respect to others. If you are making ultimatums and declaring any dissenter a "libtard" then your argument ceases to fall into this category.
What it takes to get banned on this forum is to constantly be "that guy" that I always have to watch. To constantly berate other people (veiled or outright) and to continuously ignore the warnings I give. In the case of Texas Investigator and MR Redneck I have banned them temporarily in the past for attitude issues, and I've sent PMs in the past, warned one or more on the forum, deleted posts, edited threads, etc. I have made it clear in the past that that kind of attitude would not be tolerated. They continued to go back to their old ways and I banned them.
I don't like banning people from the forum, but sometimes people just don't get with the program, and in my opinion it really takes away from the forum. It makes people become more reclusive and more guarded. When I banned West Texas almost immediately the forum posting increased by 25%, something to think about.
From the perspective of a forum member it may not seem as obvious. Alot of the material that gets people banned isn't left up, or seen (PMs / Emails). It's more or less a series of strikes, so even though they haven't committed the coup de gras, there is a larger picture at work.
