Lifetime ban on AGD

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

Note: After a member is banned, at the discretion of a moderator, they will have a period of one week where the ability to contact the moderators about the ban will be left intact. This is a partial ban, and after the 7-day period, it will become a full ban with no board access allowed.

Good idea.

[Jay]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

The latter.

[Jay]

So Andrew can't even see anything on this site?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Correct.  The exception is usually for a temporary ban, although sometimes due to technical issues it doesn't always work.  There were a few times when someone was banned yet somehow got unbanned despite none of us doing it. I thought initially the person had hacked the system,  but I think now it was a glitch. 

[Jay]

Correct.  The exception is usually for a temporary ban, although sometimes due to technical issues it doesn't always work.  There were a few times when someone was banned yet somehow got unbanned despite none of us doing it. I thought initially the person had hacked the system,  but I think now it was a glitch. 

I think I remember an incident like that happening here.

[JK]

So Andrew can't even see anything on this site?

Correct.

That explains why I could still follow events at the now-defunct Capitol Board after only being suspended (until the year 1557058279!) for advertising "my" new BB MB over there.

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

So Andrew can't even see anything on this site?

Correct.

That explains why I could still follow events at the now-defunct Capitol Board after only being suspended (until the year 1557058279!) for advertising "my" new BB MB over there.

Yikes, I doubt humans will even exist by then!

[JK]

So Andrew can't even see anything on this site?

Correct.

That explains why I could still follow events at the now-defunct Capitol Board after only being suspended (until the year 1557058279!) for advertising "my" new BB MB over there.

Yikes, I doubt humans will even exist by then!

Yeah, it might have been better if they'd said 1557058279 or the end of time----whichever comes first. Not that it matters now...

[Custom Machine]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

The latter.

Interesting. I had assumed a banned member simply couldn't log in, but could easily view the board as a guest. But you are saying that a ban also entails denying access from the banned person's IP address? That still would not prevent a banned member from viewing the board from an different IP address or using proxy site or VPN software to hide or change their IP location.

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

The latter.

Interesting. I had assumed a banned member simply couldn't log in, but could easily view the board as a guest. But you are saying that a ban also entails denying access from the banned person's IP address? That still would not prevent a banned member from viewing the board from an different IP address or using proxy site or VPN software to hide or change their IP location.

Indeed, that's what Mike's Beard did.

[JK]

I'm sorry but I fail to understand how a banned poster can be prevented from looking in using someone else's computer.

[Jay]

Well, you couldn't if you're using somebody else's computer, as long as you don't try to log in, right? I think you'd still be able to read the board.

[JK]

Well, you couldn't if you're using somebody else's computer, as long as you don't try to log in, right? I think you'd still be able to read the board.

Yes, that would be logical. As long as he can still see in if he wants to. (I shall trouble this topic no further.)

[rab2591]

Well, you couldn't if you're using somebody else's computer, as long as you don't try to log in, right? I think you'd still be able to read the board.

Yes, that would be logical. As long as he can still see in if he wants to. (I shall trouble this topic no further.)

I think it is based on the person's IP address, in which case, the person could use somebody else's computer to visit the site, but they couldn't be at the location of the banned IP address to do so. I could totally be mistaken, however.

[RangeRoverA1]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

The latter.

Interesting. I had assumed a banned member simply couldn't log in, but could easily view the board as a guest. But you are saying that a ban also entails denying access from the banned person's IP address? That still would not prevent a banned member from viewing the board from an different IP address or using proxy site or VPN software to hide or change their IP location.

Indeed, that's what Mike's Beard did.

Where'd you get this information? You are new poster. Can't imagine smb. new to know & care about the banned old posters. It shouldn't be your problem.

[drbeachboy]

Well, you couldn't if you're using somebody else's computer, as long as you don't try to log in, right? I think you'd still be able to read the board.

Yes, that would be logical. As long as he can still see in if he wants to. (I shall trouble this topic no further.)

I think it is based on the person's IP address, in which case, the person could use somebody else's computer to visit the site, but they couldn't be at the location of the banned IP address to do so. I could totally be mistaken, however.

Almost all carriers supply Dynamic IP addresses. It is very easy to get around, if you know what to do.

[drbeachboy]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

The latter.

Interesting. I had assumed a banned member simply couldn't log in, but could easily view the board as a guest. But you are saying that a ban also entails denying access from the banned person's IP address? That still would not prevent a banned member from viewing the board from an different IP address or using proxy site or VPN software to hide or change their IP location.

Indeed, that's what Mike's Beard did.

Where'd you get this information? You are new poster. Can't imagine smb. new to know & care about the banned old posters. It shouldn't be your problem.

It also proves that you cannot trust anyone to keep in a confidence in here.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

When a person is permanently banned, can a person still at least see and read the board without being able to post, or is all access to the homepage blocked?

The latter.

Interesting. I had assumed a banned member simply couldn't log in, but could easily view the board as a guest. But you are saying that a ban also entails denying access from the banned person's IP address? That still would not prevent a banned member from viewing the board from an different IP address or using proxy site or VPN software to hide or change their IP location.

Indeed, that's what Mike's Beard did.

Where'd you get this information? You are new poster. Can't imagine smb. new to know & care about the banned old posters. It shouldn't be your problem.

It also proves that you cannot trust anyone to keep in a confidence in here.

I can't even tell MYSELF secrets.

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

It was posted on the Hoffman board thread, I'm aware it isn't my problem, I'm just using it as an example. And being new doesn't mean I didn't lurk around for a bit.

[Micha]

If AGD did what the mods say, and when Billy says he saw the evidence I'm 100% sure he really did see it, unfortunately banning him was the only thing the mods could do. Unfortunately, because I still think that in the on-board arguments his point of view was usually the sane one. I was often put off by his unnecessary derogative behavior, including insults, against posters who hadn't thought through what they posted or were simply less informed about a minor issue, and I wish he hadn't behaved that way, but it seems to have been a glimpse of AGD's darker side. I haven't received any of those defamatory PMs, but heard about one incident when a poster received a PM from AGD that said poster found inappropriate, so unless somebody hacked AGD's account and sent those PMs plotting to have him banned, which I find quite unlikely, it was right to ban him.

Still, with AGD gone it's one more reason for me to not frequent this board as often as I used to, as it had turned slowly to a turn-every-thread-into-a-Mike-Love-hate-fest board long before Andrew's now forced departure. It's impossible to discuss any issue in a well-balanced way, the usual suspects always step in and sh*t on it. I can't bear all that hate displayed here.

So, with my own point of view on the wrong side of the general consensus I won't of be of much use posting here, and vice versa, reading the board. I'll try to keep up with what the sane and informed people like Ian, Jon, c-man, and Desper contribute, and maybe post before journeys of mine to try to see balanced minded BB fans in other parts of the world.

That last paragraph had nothing to do with AGD's banning, just ignore it if it bores you. But thanks to the mods anyway for opening up this thread again so I could state my 2 cents on the matter.

[onkster]

Hi all-
Onkster here. I haven't visited for a while (or posted in even longer), due partially to the board infighting (yeah, I would say the last 4 years have indeed been worse), and partially due to not much happening in the BB world (leading to posts like "What would the BB's catalog sound like played in A-Z order?")

I've got to chip in a couple pennies on all this.

I'm wondering if this is part of the life cycle of boards like this--starts off great, some really strong years, then the neighborhood starts to go to hell. And interestingly, some of the members with the most valuable info have turned out to be the reasons I've left, or that the boards have gone down.

- Pet Sounds Mailing List (or was it called SMiLE Mailing List?): things were hunky dory until an honored guest turned out to be domineering, and with a priority towards rudely insulting other guests' opinions that differed from his.

- The 910 (yeah, it's Beatles, but I'm sure we have a few crossovers here) - in this case, it was the board host that was the problem. Things were fair enough at the start--not great, atmospherically, but there was often good info to be had. Then it got ugly, and uglier. Said host developed personality issues as with the abovementioned guest, and berated any and all who disagreed with his opinions, or even held different political views (how was that relevant?) This progressed to outright banning, followed by the hilarious practice of him copyrighting all of his posts, and then charging people to be members. (After all, he didn't want people possibly bootlegging his work, despite his work being entirely about bootlegging!) After the charging policy came, the board dwindled to near nothing.

-SMiLE Shop - I'm sure many here witnessed that shocking debacle! I recall things being generally very civil and upbeat there, then some very creepy sexual harassment set in by a longtime member, followed by--if I recall rightly--disagreements among the main mods? (I don't think these two things were related--the mods weren't harassing members!) But then one day: boom. Gone. No more SMiLE Shop. And then our board here was born, along with another offshoot not nearly as good as this one.

My point is: maybe everything has its lifetime, and then it either explodes, dies, or splits into new cells. I'd rather this place not die, but as of now, it sure feels pretty sick.

I do remember one poster who was very rude and vehement for a long time, got banned briefly, and then grew to become tactful and full of rather enjoyable posts. Others, less successful in playing nice--I do think it's true that the muckraking and trolling has indeed gotten worse. And I do think it's vital and necessary to slap down bad behavior--and AGD, knowledgeable as he was, crossed the line too much and too far IMO. I'm sorry it had to happen, but sorrier he ever felt the need to get so pissy in the first place. It's a big turn-off. It's chased me away. All the fawning and excuse-making for Lorren Darro, as he continued to spew onto the board, didn't sit well; he should have been bid goodbye sooner. I haven't even begun to read all this Rocky Pamplin stuff.

So...I'll probably drop in again some day, but it's no longer a regular haunt, sadly. Finding out the AGD thing was even worse than I thought doesn't help.

[Matt Etherton]

If indeed what AGD did was as bad as inferred, that's a shame. If it isn't, he might have grounds to sue for slander/liable...

[HeyJude]

Slander is verbal/spoken out loud. So that wouldn't pertain to the board.

But really, does anybody think the board admin would not only ban someone, but characterize that banned member's words as "potentially libelous" without evidence, and thus opening himself up to accusations of libel?

If I were a mod or the admin and had to read incredulous posts that kind of say variations on "I can't believe AGD would do something like this, but if what the mods say happened is true, then I guess that's how it has to be", I'd be annoyed by some posts that kind of imply the possibility that the mods or admin don't actually have the evidence they say they do.

[RangeRoverA1]

Can't believe this thread isn't locked. I agree with Mr. Jude. Thread finish.