I have to agree with Draugnar. The PERSON should be banned, not just the account. If we have banned him, then any new account he makes should also be banned as soon as it is spotted.

Oh and although trim seems to be taking the credit for spotting diplofuck, I'm also retrospectively quite pleased with my Fri 01 PM post near the start of this thread.

@Chrispi,
"but he has just mucked up his chance at a new start, in which he was getting credit all around for being a reasonable poster, going as far as to discredit other posters for being fallacious and bigoted."

I don't believe this is true. He likes his fake Dr persona. He doesn't mind being spotted. And I think banning him in the first place was a joke if you are just going to let him back under a different guise, and he's still going to be the same old dick.

Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him!

Yes, he's a troll...but that's not what he was banned for last time. He was banned when he multi-accounted and refused all opportunity to come clean and cut the crap. As long as the trolling isn't disruptive to the forum or community, we have to be the bigger people and ignore them. Trolls only continue to exist when people feed them.

As for banning the player and not the account, it is a standing policy that anyone who is banned is allowed to come back and create a single new account, clear of the mess they created, as long as they play fair from now on. As frustrating as cheaters can be sometimes, I think this is the right call. People make mistakes sometimes and the internet, being a (somewhat) anonymous place affords us the opportunity to give people another chance.

Well lets remember the banning for multi-accounting was also after being threatened to be banned for being disruptive, which had nothing to do with multi-accounting.

What is the point of banning someone, if they can just come straight back on with a new account, and nothing is done about it? Surely banned should MEAN banned!

What is the point of banning them? Justice? Vengeance?

I think the point of banning them is ending the disruption to the community. If someone comes back as a reasonable person, than we should let them back. Banning is a reforming system, not a penal one. :-)

@Jamiet damn right im taking credit :p

If someone comes back and is immediately trying to obfuscate and push the limit, why wait until he crosses the line?

In this case the person banned had been given several warnings, and still continued to behave disruptively. He is no longer welcome here, and his ban should be permanent.

I hear a chant of "Ban Master_Diplofool!" coming on... Perhaps the powers that be here should listen to their citizenship and run him out of town on a rail.

Dang tootin' right, Draugnar. The powers that be oughta haul his lily-livered, no-good, cotton-pickin' ass outta town before us good honest folks lynch his worthless hide.

Yikes. It's like a lynch mob against the poor guy. What's so offensive about this thread? Is it so surprising he wouldn't want to admit he was diplomat1824?

thewonderllama's being fair. Unless he cheats or pulls a ridiculous forum stunt he should not be banned.

If you can be banned for just pissing people off on the forum half the people here should be banned.

Invictus, do you find it disingenuous that we would start a thread asking 'what will get you banned?' Don't you think he already knows that?

I don't see your point. What's wrong with asking what can get you banned?

He's not cheating and he's not pulling any like what Gucci Mane and the Crap Pack did on the forum, so there doesn't seem a reason to ban him.

"If you can be banned for just pissing people off on the forum half the people here should be banned."

+1

Well I'm not banning myself Invictus/rlumley!

As said, standard policy is to give people a second chance. Those asking what the cost is - he lost his favoured name, his points and theoretically his reputation (although loosing that isn't exactly a bad thing).
He was doing well, and as noted above had made some very sensible contributions. However this thread was the one that really caused the problem. He knows exactly what will get you banned having asked a number of times since joining (and he's been here over a year!). He was given several opportunities to email and talk to Chris which he conspicuously ignored.

Hmm, that started off as a logical paragraph, not quite sure what happened to it by the end, hopefully it still pretty well makes sense though

Sounds to me like yu went from "he should have a second chance" to giving reasons why he already blew his second chance with this thread. Isn't that enough to convince you? You noted "this thread was the one that really caused the problem." Hasn't your own contribution shown that he is back to his old self and should get the final ban once and for all?

Figles, "He was given several opportunities to email and talk to Chris which he conspicuously ignored."

Yes. And with his last account, he played dumb saying 'prove i am multi-accounting' and didn't reply to requests for emails. How many times does he need to stick his finger in your eye before you do something?

Dingleberry +1

This is kind of like that Cheers episode where Frazier brings in the treat machine he uses to do studies on lab rats and, depite knowing one side gives a treat, Cliff and Norm are determined to keep trying the other side and keep getting shocked.

P.S. In that analogy, Cliff and Norm are our Mods (sorry guys) and the side with the shocker is Master_Bater, the Diplofool. If they woul djust press the ban button (the side that gives the treat) we would ALL get a treat.

Sent from: DingleberryJones Online (3341 ) Sent: 10:52 PM
...How many times does he need to stick his finger in your eye before you do something?
=================================================
Good question. The correct answer is, "once", but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Maybe, but credit to him he's shut up. Lets just ignore him or give him a chance to be a sensible person again, then see!

OK <sigh>.

Yes, you are correct Figles. He ignored multiple warnings as Diplofool about being disruptive. Then he created a new account and ignored multiple warnings and requests for an email. Now he has created another new account and is playing dumb again. He most certainly deserves another chance. I'm sure this time will be different.

@Dingleberry - you forgot the </sarcasm> tag at the end <grin>. I hear ya, man. I hear ya...

If you have to put in a sarcasm tag, you aren't very good at sarcasm.

Can't believe I pretty much missed this whole thread... well, was a good read, looked like fun.