Ban log

[DinoToyForum]

A log to keep members abreast of notable bans.

Banned @Stegotyranno from posting for 1 month for repeatedly violating rule 1 after a warning. They will be permanently banned if it happens again.
Banned @Over9K from posting for 2 weeks for violating rule 1.
Banned P @PumperKrickel from posting for 2 weeks for violating rule 1.

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @suspsy for 2 weeks for violating Rule 1. (Provocation, veiled personal attack).
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg273967#msg273967

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @Triton TR from posting for 2 weeks for violating Rule 1.

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @MagicGlueLong from posting for 2 weeks for violating forum rule 1 (Provocation).

Edit. This member just attacked me on Twitter so I want to clarify that I'm not banning them because they destroyed their own property. I'm banning them because they gloated about it on this forum which is a clear personal provocation to all members.

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @postsaurischian  from posting for 2 weeks for violating forum rule 1 (Provocation).

[DinoToyForum]

2 week ban for P @PumperKrickel for violating forum rule 1 (rudeness). Also, since this is a second offence, this is a final warning. If there's a next time it'll be permanent.
2 week ban for H @HD-man for violating forum rule 1 (personal attack).

[DinoToyForum]

Two weeks ban for @GojiraGuy1954 for violating rule 2 (no profanity).

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @Antey for two weeks for violating rules 1 & 2.

[SidB]

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the Forum, this morning. I usually access the site through my Google Chrome browser, though I took a different route this morning. I recently upgraded my internet security with some AVG products, including their AVG / Google Chrome secure browser. Using this to access the DTF produced an interesting result - "SidB , you have been banned from the Forum"! So there, I'm banned, at least in part, since I can still access the DTF the usual way.

[DinoToyForum]

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the Forum, this morning. I usually access the site through my Google Chrome browser, though I took a different route this morning. I recently upgraded my internet security with some AVG products, including their AVG / Google Chrome secure browser. Using this to access the DTF produced an interesting result - "SidB , you have been banned from the Forum"! So there, I'm banned, at least in part, since I can still access the DTF the usual way.

That's curious. Obviously you're not really banned. Perhaps the software you're using is allocating you with a proxy IP address that just happens to match a banned IP address trigger? I don't see anything in the ban log, however, which is odd.

[SidB]

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the Forum, this morning. I usually access the site through my Google Chrome browser, though I took a different route this morning. I recently upgraded my internet security with some AVG products, including their AVG / Google Chrome secure browser. Using this to access the DTF produced an interesting result - "SidB , you have been banned from the Forum"! So there, I'm banned, at least in part, since I can still access the DTF the usual way.
[/quote

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the Forum, this morning. I usually access the site through my Google Chrome browser, though I took a different route this morning. I recently upgraded my internet security with some AVG products, including their AVG / Google Chrome secure browser. Using this to access the DTF produced an interesting result - "SidB , you have been banned from the Forum"! So there, I'm banned, at least in part, since I can still access the DTF the usual way.

That's curious. Obviously you're not really banned. Perhaps the software you're using is allocating you with a proxy IP address that just happens to match a banned IP address trigger? I don't see anything in the ban log, however, which is odd.

That's curious. Obviously you're not really banned. Perhaps the software you're using is allocating you with a proxy IP address that just happens to match a banned IP address trigger? I don't see anything in the ban log, however, which is odd.

True, it is weird, perhaps especially since it appeared when I pressed the '1 person liked' button under a posting that I had made on a thread.

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @Dinoxels for two weeks for violating of forum rules 1. (No intentional personal attacks, rudeness, or personal provocation.) and 2. (No profanity).

[DinoToyForum]

Banned @BrontoScorpio for two week for violating forum rule 1: "No intentional personal attacks*, rudeness, or personal provocation."

[SidB]

To me, CONTEXT is king. When I initially read @Halichoeres ' post, I perceived that the wording ALONE could be interpreted either way. Based on the cumulative weight of his always positive and good-natured dialogue and banter, it seemed proper to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was poking fun at himself (which turns out to be the case). But the words were taken out of their overall historical context by @BrontoScorpio , which lead to his over-reaction, as far as I can see. Unfortunate. I've had a few very negative reactions (one inactive member, who loved 'firing from the lip' accusing me of being a psychopath) to some of my posts over the years, for the same reason - disregarding the context, so I can see how this can snowball really quickly.

[thomasw100]

Would it not be appropriate to issue a warning to a person first and then after such rule is violated again a ban is issued?

[UK]

What a rogues gallery here, some real reprobates. I just hope the bounder Helge has learnt his lesson.

Hopefully I'm not hitting the hornets nest with a stick here and the humour is shining through. If not, see you in a few weeks.

[DinoToyForum]

Would it not be appropriate to issue a warning to a person first and then after such rule is violated again a ban is issued?

That is what I always do for rules 4-11. But a violation of rules 1-3 is more serious and almost always results in a ban. The forum rules state:

Violation of rules 1-3 will result in an immediate ban depending on the particulars.

The caveat "depending on the particulars" is there to account for outlying cases. For example, when the member may not actually be to blame (hacked), or when a member immediately deletes something they knew was wrong. But basically, if I judge that the person has intentionally violated rule 1-3, they get banned... temporarily if it's a first offence. That IS the warning.

I've always stood by my principles on this, which is why on occasions I've banned respected and usually rule-abiding members when they've acted out of character. Or members who are friends, as far as that's possible on an online forum. There is no favouritism here when it comes to facing the consequences of rule-breaking.

I've tried verbal warnings in the past and they almost always lead to arguments and excuses that exacerbate things, and drag other members into a 'debate' that creates drama and work for me and the moderators. Warnings also make members more inclined to push up against the rules, seeing how far is too far, how much they can get away with, and digging into semantics like "it was just a joke".

An immediate temporary ban is a more effective deterrent for the sort of behaviour we all want to see eliminated from the forum. I've learned from experience that very rarely does a warned member say "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I won't do it again". And rule-breaking members that would say and mean that will be back on the forum after a short two-week break anyway. No big deal.

A temporary ban is a simple shot across the bow to demonstrate to the rule-breaker, and to other members watching, that this forum won't tolerate rule-breaking. And I think the forum is a better place for it.

[postsaurischian]

What a rogues gallery here, some real reprobates. I just hope the bounder Helge has learnt his lesson.

Hopefully I'm not hitting the hornets nest with a stick here and the humour is shining through. If not, see you in a few weeks.

 I still plead not guilty ! I was a victim of circumstances.

[thomasw100]

Would it not be appropriate to issue a warning to a person first and then after such rule is violated again a ban is issued?

That is what I always do for rules 4-11. But a violation of rules 1-3 is more serious and almost always results in a ban. The forum rules state:

Violation of rules 1-3 will result in an immediate ban depending on the particulars.

The caveat "depending on the particulars" is there to account for outlying cases. For example, when the member may not actually be to blame (hacked), or when a member immediately deletes something they knew was wrong. But basically, if I judge that the person has intentionally violated rule 1-3, they get banned... temporarily if it's a first offence. That IS the warning.

I've always stood by my principles on this, which is why on occasions I've banned respected and usually rule-abiding members when they've acted out of character. Or members who are friends, as far as that's possible on an online forum. There is no favouritism here when it comes to facing the consequences of rule-breaking.

I've tried verbal warnings in the past and they almost always lead to arguments and excuses that exacerbate things, and drag other members into a 'debate' that creates drama and work for me and the moderators. Warnings also make members more inclined to push up against the rules, seeing how far is too far, how much they can get away with, and digging into semantics like "it was just a joke".

An immediate temporary ban is a more effective deterrent for the sort of behaviour we all want to see eliminated from the forum. I've learned from experience that very rarely does a warned member say "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I won't do it again". And rule-breaking members that would say and mean that will be back on the forum after a short two-week break anyway. No big deal.

A temporary ban is a simple shot across the bow to demonstrate to the rule-breaker, and to other members watching, that this forum won't tolerate rule-breaking. And I think the forum is a better place for it.

But is it really necessary to publicly display any offenders in this particular thread? I would think that it would be fully sufficient to issue this ban and inform the banned person about the reasons.

[Newt]

I have some experience moderating forums, and I think @DinoToyForum is exactly right to do it this way. 

This forum is about as civil a place as you can find on the web, but that civility is fragile. Decisive action by moderators is key to maintaining the civil culture, and letting everyone know that rules are being enforced, via this ban log, makes it less likely that they will need to be enforced in the future. Besides, seeing that even core members of the community have received temporary bans in the past might take some of the sting out for new offenders.

I think we've all seen anything-goes communities on the web, where flaming, trolling, and general nastiness are the rule. I for one would hate to see that here. A zero-tolerance policy is the best guard against that situation. We can quibble about whether a particular statement rises to the level of an infraction of the rules, but DinoToyForum has taken on the burden of playing referee and we should respect his calls even when we disagree with them.