They are?

So what rules did they break with their posting that constituted a permbanning?

So what you're saying is that you didn't actuallly ban them for anything specific, but that people told you they would leave if they weren't banned. And you complied.

Pathetic. And here I was thinking that the hugbox accusations levelled against you guys was both wrong and unfair.

And before anybody tries to say "b-but they were toxic!" just remember that we all got booted by the BSN Lobby under the exact same justification.

Ahh. I wrote an explanation for all this too, in case their friends complained, but I thought I'd never get to use it. And now that I do, I'm already lost in a sea of cows and won't be back to my home computer for a week. Guess you'll have to wait till I get home so I can write it, because that first part was a lie. The part about me writing it when I get home is also a lie. What a shame.


We didn't think they deserved an explanation after all their shit, but since you asked, crusty, while what Grav said is true, Seb did make a comment that was a last straw for us in terms of dealing with him. You can figure out for yourself which one it was if you want, but we're not going to drag it out across the forum and argue whether it was justified or not. We know full well you guys will never see eye to eye with us regarding what constitutes acceptable behavior here, so let's not waste everyone's time.


As for Heretic, well, we considered the perma for him when we gave him the week ban. Revising it now is doing him pretty raw, maybe, but if anyone deserves being done raw... I mean, with seb's comment we decided we were permanently tired of his shit too. Their shit pretty much smells the same and this forum was their toilet.


I don't think he would really want to stick around without his sempai anyway. Consider it our encouragement for him to make good on the promise he made to us.

Just so we're clear.

- There was no specific occurrence of rule breaking that triggered the permban
- There was no warnings prior to the permbans to let them know what would happen if they kept posting stuff against the rules
- There was no explanation to either person why they were permbanned
- In the case of one person, they were already banned at the time, so it was impossible for them to actually break any rules
- Your decision was influenced by people who threatened to leave if they were still around
- These are actions you're all okay with

I'm not even interested in bringing them back. Heretic and Seb are buddies but I think I'll live if they can't post on a forum. What I'm concerned about is the sheer disregard for procedure and adherence to the rules that supposedly governs us all here. What's the point in having rules if you guys just make it up as you go? Even the BSN moderators would tell you what rules you break if they ban you. My fault for expecting better from you three, I guess.

And if you're so afraid about losing community members, what have you done to grow it? What have you done to build solidarity between existing members outside the people you're already friends with?

They've actually done the opposite. They're only interested in keeping people that have the same views as them or suck up to them. 

I had little patience for either their politics or their antics (the endless stream of articles on immigrant crime was, to my eyes, one long and tedious exercise in the Chinese Robber Fallacy). But having said, that, there has to be a specific inciting incident that triggers a perma-ban or the rules are pointless. Quick hypothetical: Out of anybody here, I probably have the most left-leaning politics. So if the forum got dominated by white nationalists or something and they decided they don't like all the beta cuck SJW shit I have to say, would that be grounds for banning me? We have to apply the same standards to everyone here, regardless of how regressive we find their views to be.

-there were. Like I said, we're not going to discuss them here.
-they both received warnings both officially and verbally. Not so specific as "you will be permabanned if you keep doing x" but I dunno what else you guys think the warnings are for.
-well the problem with permabanning is that they can't read the explanation after we ban them. But having some sort of official 'grace period' seems unwise depending on what the permaban is for. We thought of informing them on bsn but heretic hadn't logged on there for a month. Eventually we decided fuck them, they don't need an explanation. Perhaps a convenient, lazy, even incompetent solution on our part, fair enough if you're thinking that. Do you have a suggestion?
-he broke the rules pleeeeeeenty of times to deserve it, don't worry.
-only because we agreed with the complaints behind them. If someone threatens to leave just because they don't like someone we'll show them the door.

Regarding making up the rules as we go, the relevant change recently is that we decided that the previous 'banning schedule' was too lenient in dealing with certain unrepentent bullshit behavior that, even when they weren't explicitly breaking the rules, which they did plenty, they were always flirting with the line and testing to see how much they could get away with and playing the victim whenever we finally put a stop to it. But that sort of change is different than us flouting any pretense of rules and order, banning people we disagree with and banning people without any cause or warning. There are plenty of people here I greatly disagree with, and no, not just because they think PMMM is a shit.

Well, if no one liked my PMMM livestream idea, how about One-Punch Man?

A couple of things: It is true that this is a free internet forum, so it's harder to imagine a lower-stakes scenario. And it's true that you can set the rules however you please; if you wanted, you could ban anyone who has an 'X' in their name if you so chose. Still, that's not quite the point. The question is not whether you're allowed to set and enforce the rules; it's whether the rules are good ones. Banning posters on the basis of specific and recent violations strikes me as a better procedure than banning them on the basis of blanket judgments of their value as members of the community. I don't see how retroactively turning a temp ban into a perma ban can be motivated by a specific and recent incident, which is the main procedural aspect of this whole thing that got my attention.

I get that moderating a forum is a pain in the butt which confers little benefit to yourselves, so it sucks to hear people criticizing how you're doing it. Nothing worse than someone giving you a hard time for not doing a good enough job of doing you a favor. And for the most part, I've had no problems with how you've handled things here. Still, I'm a firm believer in the value of constructive criticism, especially if we do want to find a way to expand this community.

Anyways, I'm going to bow out of this now. Like I mentioned before, I have absolutely no interest in white knighting for Seboist or Heretic. In fact, I'm in complete agreement that at least one of those guys has posted things in the past which merit a hell of a lot worse than a perma-ban (won't mention here), but even so, it would be reassuring to know that more transparent procedures will be followed in the future.