Blocked gecko related website

Quote:
Originally Posted by KelliH
Look, I'm not trying to bring anyone down. I'm just trying to keep air in my lungs and maybe have some fun every now and then. So sorry if I seem sad sometimes but I DID NOT BRING THIS CRAP UP AGAIN, remember?


No, you didn't. Your friend Marcia did.

However, your prior post is over the top. I did not ban jasballs, Dr. Owens did. Unfortunately, I don't see how jasballs getting banned can be justified without you invoking the same penalty.
__________________
WebSlave

I could be wrong but it appears that it wasn't exactly the same penalty since Jas is back and Jim and Kelli are still banned?

Originally Posted by kmurphy

I could be wrong but it appears that it wasn't exactly the same penalty since Jas is back and Jim and Kelli are still banned?

The penalty was the same (being banned), but the duration was longer based on the textual content differences in the posts. Any time a ban is invoked based on the actions of a member, a mod or myself has the option of determining the length of time to have that ban be in effect. That determination is based on a number of things taken into consideration, including past actions of the member, the likelihood of future similar actions of the member, as well as the relative level of the amount of abuse incorporated in the post that triggered the penalty. Generally speaking, the minimum ban level has typically been three days. The max can be a permanent ban. There are no set guidelines for the duration of a ban and it is entirely up to the mod or admin making the call.

In this case, if you compare the two posts (one for each member) that triggered their banning, I do believe you will note that there is quite a difference in the content of the respective postings. As such, the level of the ban was chosen to match the level of violation evident in each post.

Of course, there is a subjective aspect as well involved. If someone just pisses off a mod or myself, or either is just having an all around bad day, that will certainly play a role in the severity of the penalty invoked.

So Rich,
Are you telling us Kelli and Jim have been permanetly banned?
If not, how long before they can post again?
Thanks,
Randal

Originally Posted by lanceheads

So Rich,
Are you telling us Kelli and Jim have been permanetly banned?
If not, how long before they can post again?
Thanks,
Randal

Nope. I didn't say that at all.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yeah..... Whatever......

I'm tired of people trying to make things "difficult" on this site for everyone else, including me. I have come to the conclusion that temporary bans, suspensions with fines, etc., just do not work. If someone appears to be hell bent to make things difficult for me to get this site in efficient and respectable running order, then a permanent ban is in their future concerning this site. No more amnesties, change of heart, or believing their lies that they will change their ways if given a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) chance. They will be out of here for good.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Nope. I didn't say that at all.

?????

Originally Posted by 11Catalyst

?????

I guess it's a lucky thing for some people I had forgotten that I said that.....

I have been told many times that what is posted accounts for maybe 1/3 of the events that occur outside of the internet, what happens behind the scenes may never be truly known. It was brought to my attention that 2shy2shy is not Marcia, but a family member who was posting from Marcia's home computer.

Originally Posted by Junkyard

I have been told many times that what is posted accounts for maybe 1/3 of the events that occur outside of the internet, what happens behind the scenes may never be truly known. It was brought to my attention that 2shy2shy is not Marcia, but a family member who was posting from Marcia's home computer.

Oh, really? And who told you that?

My though, what a coincidence that this family member decided to join us later the same day when Marcia got banned.

Just as it was yet another coincidence that her husband decided to join when Marcia got banned a while back, I suppose.

Sorry, but I am just not that gullible.......

That family member did sign up to question your motives, she was surprised that you would ban Marcia, I have no other info beyond that. I am not saying you are gullible, but I think it is appropriate to share what I know.

Originally Posted by Junkyard

That family member did sign up to question your motives, she was surprised that you would ban Marcia, I have no other info beyond that. I am not saying you are gullible, but I think it is appropriate to share what I know.

Now, why does this the activity that you mentioned sound like an excerpt of Transactional Analysis; Games People Play?

In my opinion, sending someone (several someones?) after you have been banned for having shown some questionable actions, and having them question "motives" on your behalf is just another method of starting trouble.

It's not like these "family members" were already members, and I am sure Marcia could have told them if she wanted. So there was actually no need for them to register to ask about Marcia's banning.