What do people here think about the connor banning on BAUT?

[Frogmarch]

http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/802 ... anned.html


connor240287 was a 13year old kid who just joined, posted some interesting science threads and posts, and the was mad enough to think that a science forum could cope with some politics, and started a thread about politics.

He was then suspended by HenrikOlsen, until after the election; at which point m1ong got annoyed at the over kill moderating and started another politics thread and the thread linked above.
He was then suspend until after the election.


People then started questioning who and what connors was; implying that he was not 13, and casting suspision on the name "connor"

Later in that thread connor turns up after creating another account specifically to address the accusations, making it clear that he was a "13year old male" and that he would be back after the suspension.
Tinna then banned him permanently as a sockpuppet.

What annoys me is the "rules are rules" attitude, especially from the mainly F&G people, when it was just a new poster who hadn't learned his way around yet.

He is a bright lad, who is interested in science; yet he was treated like garbage..



Maybe Connor will turn up here, to state his case; now that he can't on BAUT.


Just BAUT politics I suppose......

[Lance]

Some of our membership here are here because they got tired of the politcs there. The "too quick to judge and then over-react" mentality has gone on there for a long time. This is just another case of it.

[Мастер]

The thing that amazes me is that I am only self-banned there.

If he wants back in, that should be a trivial exercise - reset his internet connection to get a different IP address, re-register, and just hide his former identity.

The "rules" are most definitely not the rules. ATM theories on some topics are relegated to a special forum where proponents are obligated to answer questions and present evidence, whereas ATM theories on other topics appear every single day of the week throughout the board, with no obligation to present evidence, ever. One of the moderators is quite an ATM theorist. All sorts of ad homs are tolerated, provided the person doing it is an accepted part of the club and the target is unpopular enough.

After reading the thread you linked, I tend to agree with Jeff Root:

It certainly looks like the cure is worse than the disease.

Certainly what he did was not the standard sock puppet offense.

[Мастер]

BTW, what's up with this?

http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/804 ... ounts.html

I think a few people there never post anywhere else :)

[Arneb]

Such as me...

[KLA2]

{Sigh}. Why am I the only person here who feels he should defend BAUT?

C'mon, folks. The rules are clearly stated there. This is analogous to a 16 year old driving a car at 100 miles an hour the wrong way down a one way street, and when stopped by the police, complaining that he had just been driving for a week and couldn't be expected to know all the rules of the road. Yes, that should be expected.

Having said that, however, I think more effort should be made at BAUT to warn, including by PM's from moderators, or temporary bans before perma-banning. Valuable people are not always slavish rule-followers, and there are varying degrees of offence and harm.

[Мастер]

Having said that, however, I think more effort should be made at BAUT to warn, including by PM's from moderators, or temporary bans before perma-banning. Valuable people are not always slavish rule-followers, and there are varying degrees of offence and harm.

I think that is pretty much what a lot of connor's defenders are saying.

[Мастер]

I have just placed my account at BAUT beyond use.

[Arneb]

Just for the record, I concur with KLA2. If this place means something to you (and I read frogmarch's OP as implying that it did for connor), you gotta read the rules, much more after you have received a few day's worth of suspension.

If ATM views on subjects other than astronomy or ad homs against unpopular members from the "upper crust" of BAUT are tolerated there, that is a very vaid point of criticism - reason enough for some serious PM exchanges with the mods or the admins, maybe even reason enough to refrain from posting there altogether. But that doesn't militate for reinstating a poster who was thrown out after committing a maximum penalty offence - installing a sockpuppet, for whatever noble cause. If this kid was so intelligent and his contributions so valuable, couldn't he just, you know, behave?

[Мастер]

reason enough for some serious PM exchanges with the mods or the admins,

No thanks.

maybe even reason enough to refrain from posting there altogether.

Committed myself to this strategy just a short while ago, more strenuously than prior commitments. Not really because of what happened to this kid, but the discussion brought the place back to my attention for a bit. I have banned myself before, but relented; this time I did it in a way that I don't think I could regain control of my account if I wanted to.

If this kid was so intelligent and his contributions so valuable, couldn't he just, you know, behave?

If the goal was to get him to behave, I'm not sure trash talking him for six pages while he was banned was a good idea...

[Lance]

I haven't read the rules there for a while but this has come up before.

Doesn't the definition of sock-puppet include something about intended use? Paraphrasing: To hide and conceal your identity for the purpose of debating with yourself.

If so, then that's not what the kid did and his banning should be reevaluated.

[Arneb]

Committed myself to this strategy just a short while ago, more strenuously than prior commitments. Not really because of what happened to this kid, but the discussion brought the place back to my attention for a bit. I have banned myself before, but relented; this time I did it in a way that I don't think I could regain control of my account if I wanted to.

Well, you can always ask the very respected admin/mod junta to reset your password and thus give you a fresh start. It's only really beyond use if they banned you. :D

If the goal was to get him to behave, I'm not sure trash talking him for six pages while he was banned was a good idea...

No, probably not. But that doesn't change my view on the fact that he might have sat and read and thought a bit before creating his second identity.

Lance, regarding sock puppetry, I think they use this term generically for creating multiple accounts for whatever purpose. The Roowlz state explicitly that it won't ever be tolerated, IIRC. I vaguley remember someone from the modadmin crowd explaining the original and the expanded meaning of the word.

[Мастер]

Well, you can always ask the very respected admin/mod junta to reset your password and thus give you a fresh start. It's only really beyond use if they banned you. :D

The question then arises as to whether they would be willing to take my word that I am in fact the person that once posted under that ID. I'm not sure I have any way to prove that, if proof were demanded...

[MM_Dandy]

I'm glad I'm a moderator here, and not there...

The more I look at this, the more I wonder about this particular action.
First, I find it hard to believe that they can reasonably expect new users to discover this "political threads/posts will result in a suspension until after the election" rule. It is not part of the general forum rules, and is not mention in any sticky or announcement in the Bad Astronomy Stories forum which is clearly stated by the rules to be the only place on the board for political discussions.

Second, it is not clear that conner was warned, and that he subsequently violated the rule in a similar manner. It may be that the special political rule sates that no warnings will be given, but as I mentioned, this rule is not easily discoverable. Without that knowledge, one has only the protocol laid out in the forum rules to go by, and they indicate that the first rules violation will result in a warning; bannings not happening until after the second violation at the earliest.

At this point, though, he has little choice but to be patient and try to have his case heard through the appropriate channels if he wishes to get back on BAUT.

[Arneb]

Interesting. AFAIK, the system offers you to send a new password to the E-Mail adress from which you frst registered. If that doesn't exist any more...

Well, there should be an easy way to test it: Create a new ID from a different IP with a different clear name and a different e-Mail adress and see if they can blow your cover. If they can, you'll never be tempted to come back for more posts, ever.

[Мастер]

Interesting. AFAIK, the system offers you to send a new password to the E-Mail adress from which you frst registered. If that doesn't exist any more...

I just attempted to login, which I cannot do, because I don't know the password. The result was a page saying to click on a link if I forgot my password. When I do that, a page comes up, saying that I should enter my email address, and an email with instructions on how to reset my password would be sent. I put in my original registration email (recall that I since changed my email of record at BAUT), and the result was:

You have not entered an email address that we recognize. Please try again or contact the administrator.

I think I have successfully banned myself :P

Well, there should be an easy way to test it: Create a new ID from a different IP with a different clear name and a different e-Mail adress and see if they can blow your cover. If they can, you'll never be tempted to come back for more posts, ever.

Maybe I will try that. What do you think about Arneb II as a username?

[Мастер]

I'm glad I'm a moderator here, and not there...

The workload is pretty tough here, isn't it :P

[KLA2]

Mactep, banned from BAUT.

Sounds like a lose/lose proposition to me.

I guess I am not that bright. :?

[Arneb]

Maybe I will try that. What do you think about Arneb II as a username?

Oh, and here I thought you were just the most affable friendly angelically GOOD person I ever met...

[Мастер]

[KLA2]

^ Aaaaahhh! My screen! It burns ...

[Enzo]

Hmmm, I just logged in over there, it still knows me even though my last log in was June 2006. Forgot to check my post count....maybe in another couple years.

SO I know nothing of this connor, did he seem like someone that would fit in here? We could always use a couple more new ones.

Do the communications things still work when you are banned over there? (PMs etc)

[Frogmarch]

PMs don't work when you're banned; as far as I know.

I tried to PM someone who was banned once and it didn't work.

[Heid the Ba]

Shame we can't get him over here.

I haven't checked any of the Connor threads but it might be interesting to compare them with the knobhead whose name escapes me for the moment who has been banned at least four times and always let back.

[Мастер]

Shame we can't get him over here.

I haven't checked any of the Connor threads but it might be interesting to compare them with the knobhead whose name escapes me for the moment who has been banned at least four times and always let back.

I never saw the original offending post, and it seems it was removed. The subsequent post (which resulted in the perma-ban) was in the thread discussing his ban, where people were arguing that he was not in fact 13 years old as he claimed. He popped in under an alias, clearly did not try to hide his identity, and stated that he was 13 years old. That resulting in him paying what someone called "the ultimate price," which reflects a different perspective than mine, having voluntarily paid the ultimate price myself.

Any distinguishing characteristics that would help us identify the particular knobhead?