I think you're delusional or misguided if you think that's what he's talking about that's being posted at this forum that you're a moderator. In addition, I think it's odd that Baron has stated you're the one that does the bans around here. Yet, upon Baron's return from vacation in which two particular members were causing a major problem here in the Community Lounge while Baron was away... Baron had to do the bans of those two members upon his return...Ninja like bans...swift...decapitation like...give them no quarter. That in itself implies that you're not in touch with what's occurring here in many of the threads or you support what's occurring. Seriously, to eliminate or make it extremely difficult for banned members to return and continue their bullshit via new alias...remove new members ability to post in the Community Lounge until they reach a post number like 100 or 200 message posts. Try it for one month. If you guys think it lowers your views, clicks, or whatever...go back to the way it is right now wrbtrader
I just banned brass_trader after reviewing his posts. But let me expand on what Magna was trying to communicate earlier because this is important information to know moving into the future. As moderators, we have a lot to watch over and we are pulled in a thousand different directions every day, so we prioritize what we work on because we can't handle every situation at once with the same priority level. So for example, the title of this thread and the first post are just way too vague and therefore puts this situation at about a 1 on the priority level. Telling us a certain user is the same as a previously banned member with no supporting evidence is absolutely useless. And a half-sentence post describing the problem is also extremely weak. If you want us to take action, put the core problem right in the title and most importantly, give us multiple posts as examples. One post is often not enough to justify banning someone, so the more examples you give us right from the start, the higher the problem goes up the priority scale because it allows us to quickly see the evidence and take action right that second. So again, details are important. If a member wants to complain but can be bothered to help us out with some evidence and supporting information, then I can assure you there will be no sense of urgency on our end to deal with the complaint.
Baron, Those are fair points. Magna defended Brass_Trader's racists posts as "racism is difficult to define" and "don't go to politics then." Is that the stance you take as well?
Yes but primarily within this context: That's the stance we take when no examples are given to support the racism claim because it's the truth... one person's definition of "racism" could be another person's "no big deal". Without any supporting evidence, it's just a word that can mean very different things depending on the person. Now the argument could be made that the evidence in this case is buried somewhere in the user's post history and all we have to do is go digging around for it, but I'm here to tell you that we are not in the business of digging and searching for a problem in a user's history for every complaint that's filed. It's just too much work, especially if the user has hundreds or thousands of posts. We respond to complaints that have a supporting basis within the complaint itself as the incentive to take action. And the fact that Magna investigated the first portion of this complaint, which is that the user was a previously banned user, yet there was no IP addresses that matched up didn't really help this complaint move up the priority level at all.
It's not a bad idea, but it's one of those ideas that addresses a niche problem but then applies to a lot of users as a side effect. And by that I mean that we can't discern between a newly registered member and one that was previously banned, so all new members wouldn't be able to participate in the Community Lounge at all until they had a 100 or 200 posts under their belts. If every new member had to wait that long, I'm pretty sure that would drastically reduce the participation.
As Tarzan who was NY_Hood had only just been re-banned by Baron, I figured he would know instantly Brass_Trader was the same person from a five second skim of his most recent posts. His MO in prior NICs has been to ratchet up the language over time, start to spam new topics and post crazy into trading side also. Having been banned twice, of course he moved to a new IP. I was being intentionally subtle not sure if site feedback should be cluttered with this individual and I'd tagged @Baron on a prior post of his recently that was sufficiently OTT I figured. The problem with reporting posts is its unclear how these are read over time, sure collecting a bunch of stuff would have been better, just it is hard to do this on the phone. I figure it's easier to just look at posts, quote mining leads to me being accused of bias and not tolerant enough of the both sides of American racism as Magna has said earlier.
you would only lose those that signed up just to participate in the politics section. And I bet most of those are banned people. it would probably improve the dialog in the politics forum.
After some more thought about it...I kind'uv agree with you. Yet, I think you would want new members to join for reasons associated with trading and not for reasons to engage in the Community Lounge section. In fact, I'm sure your sponsors prefer to see more traders join the forum to talk about trading instead of seeing traders join to talk about topics in the Community Lounge. wrbtrader