|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 9, 2007 11:53:44 GMT -4
Just checked the msn forum and found that he has been joined there by our old friend lunatic. They are having a lovely time telling each other how much we all resemble Hitler. Ah, bless. Well, I am 1/4 German. Did old Adolf have dark blond hair and blue eyes too? I'd rather think we all resemble Von Braun.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 9, 2007 12:03:17 GMT -4
Would it be possible to ban an IP address from creating a *new* account (and posting as guest, I suppose) but still allow those with existing accounts to login and post? That's how I've seen this solved in the past. Unfortunately that isn't an option with this forum software and I don't have access to the code. I have made it so that I have to approve new members, that way I can at least have a chance of catching him before he posts.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 9, 2007 14:54:45 GMT -4
I would like to invite SpongeBob to defend the following claims from reply #59. MoonMan was banned because he believes that the Moon landings were hoaxed.This is contradicted by the fact that you are allowed to post here, despite being an HB and likely a sock-puppet of margamatix; that Moon Man was allowed to post hundreds of times over many months and was banned for a completely unrelated violation of the board TOS; that heavenlybody, 3onthetree (both likely sockpuppets) and turbonium are all allowed to post here freely. So how do you back up such a claim? "I had to do it or ProBoards would have shut us down" is one of the Administrator's standard excuses.Which has been invoked twice, for the exact same TOS violation. How is that a "standard excuse"? The simple truth is that Lunar Orbit lost the argument and so reacted in the only way left open to him.Lost the argument to MoonMan? Could you explain this in light of Moon Man's nearly unblemished record of egregious errors? I don't need to go back to his earlier "how did they unzip the LM?" run for a good selection: 3, 2, 1, liftoffThis was a private contractor lifting off today. NASA had competition now.Wrong. NASA is forbidden by law from competing with commercial launch services, and in fact owns the land the spaceport is on and supports the launches. This from the guy who claims "inside knowledge of the American aerospace, defense and media industries that you peeps could only dream of". Golf ShotWe will be flying in 2010 and we will beat America to the moon.Factually incorrect, as Canada has no plans for an independent lunar program. It's a shorter flight to the moon from Canada than it is from Floriduh.Pure trollish nonsense. We're going for the minerals. A total gold mine of ore. All ours once we get there and stake our flag.Wrong. Specifically forbidden by a 1967 UN treaty... International law doesn't apply in outer space.... which Canada signed. From the guy who claimed to be a big-time legal whiz. Saturn V rocket needed to be 266 times bigger.The Delta is bigger than the Saturn V.Absolutely wrong in every meaningful sense. He bases this on seeing a rocket on TV with two strap-on boosters and decides it's 3x the size of the Saturn V! If the Saturn was so great they wouldn't have created the Delta Rocket.Utterly wrong no matter which way you look at it. The original Delta entered service before the Saturn was even built. The Delta IV heavy, which he was what he saw on television, entered service decades after the Saturn V left service. The Delta Rocket is the rocket of the future. Not even wrong. Moon Man was shown to be entirely incapable of understanding the differences among the Delta variants, nor knew anything about the history of a vehicle that goes back to the early days of space exploration. They will be using it to launch future Shuttles, the new age shuttles. Wrong. The CEV will not be launched on any kind of Delta; none of that family is man-rated. But the clincher is when he finally answered my question don't you ever get embarrassed by spouting nonsense about subjects of which you are totally ignorant? with about the only accurate statement he ever made: No.So I ask you again: how exactly was Moon Man winning the argument when virtually everything he said on the topic of spaceflight was glaringly wrong? We can start a separate thread on this if you like. (edit: changed sock-puppet allegations to "likely")
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 9, 2007 16:28:32 GMT -4
I'm glad I'm not the only one who picks up on this.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 9, 2007 17:59:51 GMT -4
Well, I've changed them all to "likely". The posting styles are all quite similar to previous users, but I don't care enough to build a case.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 9, 2007 22:52:47 GMT -4
Wow! I don't post for a couple of days, and miss all this action!
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jan 9, 2007 23:45:44 GMT -4
I'm glad I'm not the only one who picks up on this. This should be moved to the other conspiracies section, but then again someone else may have suggested that. I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 11, 2007 15:03:04 GMT -4
I realize it would be a lot of work for the moderators otherwise, but it always bothers me to see a permanent ban. They just provide ammunition for the banned, and others, to whine about unjust persecution. I'd be in favor of much more suspension, and perhaps more use of 30 or even 90-day suspensions -- the latter would stifle most trolls, as they'd have plenty of time to get themselves deep into some other board by then.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 11, 2007 15:12:58 GMT -4
Yes, temporary bans are an option that I will consider in the future. I just don't see it helping in some cases, such as when the person was banned because they enjoy provoking flame wars... that won't likely change after a temporary ban.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 11, 2007 15:28:56 GMT -4
I'd be in favor of much more suspension... I agree that suspensions may be justified depending on the particular infraction and its severity. For somebody like greigdempsey however, who was admittedly here just to provoke everyone, I think the permanent ban was the correct thing to do. I also support suspensions for regular Apollo believers who get out of hand. I agree with the HBs that there are sometimes users whose participation in a thread is for no other purpose than to heckle the HB. That type of behavior is counterproductive and I think the threat of a temporary ban would help to curb it. A lack of civility should be disciplined no matter who it comes from
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 11, 2007 15:42:13 GMT -4
Second the motion. Glanced back at lunatic's postings, and committed HB that he certainly was and sock-puppet that he may have been, he nonetheless started politely. We need to be more polite than the average HB, even when provoked, and even in the face of the "Gish gallop" so favored by the likes of HBs.
And, yes, I include myself in that. I've been rude here more than once.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 11, 2007 15:54:37 GMT -4
I tend to let the occasional insult slip from anyone if they have a history of politeness, regardless of which side they are on. The worst offenders are people who are new to the forum and immediately begin insulting people, and I punish both hoax believers and Apollo supporters equally in this case. As you are aware, I have banned several people who claimed to be Apollo supporters and joined the forum thinking it was a hoax believer forum. They were quickly banned for rude and insulting behaviour... in fact they were banned much more quickly than greigdempsy was. I would like to see everyone, on both sides, discuss this topic politely. Stick to debating the hoax claims and leave the personal attacks out of this. Edited to add: 1000th post! Woohoo!
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 16:30:04 GMT -4
Ah, 1K posts. And me at a measly .06K.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 25, 2007 16:15:53 GMT -4
David's account has been disabled (not banned) because he re-registered under the name "rocky". The forum rules forbid members from having multiple accounts because this leads to confusion. Any additional accounts registered by David without my permission will be disabled.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 3, 2007 19:43:17 GMT -4
kj has been banned for 30 days. He agreed to support a claim he made with a 3D model within one month or be banned, the time elapsed and no 3D model was provided.
|
|