what is wrong with discussing banned/reprimanded members?
11-28-01, 01:37 PM
#1
Premium Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is wrong with discussing banned/reprimanded members?
Why lock a thread about Kenwood and Bushdog that some up bumped?
It seems to me there is nothing wrong with it in the other forum as long as it is not questioning the reasons for the banning / reprimand.
These two guys were an important part of DVD Talk and both gave a lot of time to help this site. I dont understand how their names need to be removed from the vocabulary that is DVD talk?
I for one miss them both and wish we could find a way to have them back.
It seems to me there is nothing wrong with it in the other forum as long as it is not questioning the reasons for the banning / reprimand.
These two guys were an important part of DVD Talk and both gave a lot of time to help this site. I dont understand how their names need to be removed from the vocabulary that is DVD talk?
I for one miss them both and wish we could find a way to have them back.
11-28-01, 01:52 PM
#2
Uber Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bushdog can come back any time he wants to. His leaving the forum was entirely voluntary. Nor was he reprimanded. Geoff and Bushdog simply disagreed about how to do the job of moderator and it's obvious who's going to win in that kind of situation. As Geoff said in his response, he's unhappy with how things turned out and Aron is welcome to return any time he wants to. And I wish he would too.
The reason we try to discourage these types of threads in regards to previously banned members is twofold: 1. They aren't around to defend themselves. 2. We don't want to encourage them to come back in order to defend themselves.
Also, people who are banned, are normally banned for very good reasons.
The reason we try to discourage these types of threads in regards to previously banned members is twofold: 1. They aren't around to defend themselves. 2. We don't want to encourage them to come back in order to defend themselves.
Also, people who are banned, are normally banned for very good reasons.
11-28-01, 02:02 PM
#3
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Writing as a member....
Did you ever see that Fawlty Towers episode <A HREF="http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_info/0,3699,2316010,00.html" target="_blank">Germans</a>?
Ultimately, it seems that <i>some</i> discussions can be seen as having potential for plenty of heat but precious little light. It may be that speculating over what might have been falls into this category. Bumping old threads <i>can</i>, on occasion, be useful but other times is simply <i>mischievous</i>. I've no idea what was the case in the instance to which you allude.
BTW, AFAIK nothing in the physical realm is preventing <b>Bushdog</b>'s return.
Ultimately, it seems that <i>some</i> discussions can be seen as having potential for plenty of heat but precious little light. It may be that speculating over what might have been falls into this category. Bumping old threads <i>can</i>, on occasion, be useful but other times is simply <i>mischievous</i>. I've no idea what was the case in the instance to which you allude.
BTW, AFAIK nothing in the physical realm is preventing <b>Bushdog</b>'s return.
11-28-01, 03:00 PM
#4
Retired
This doesn't apply in the case of Bushdog or Kenwood, but many people who are banned were the type of people that seek attention. By discussing them (i.e. the "favorite banned member" thread of a few months ago) you are still giving them the attention the craved.
So I think to be consistent across the board it's best just not to allow any threads discussing any banned members, regardless of what they were banned for. It's not fair to allow discussion of some of them, and not of other ones. You have to be consistent in the way you set up your rules IMO.
So I think to be consistent across the board it's best just not to allow any threads discussing any banned members, regardless of what they were banned for. It's not fair to allow discussion of some of them, and not of other ones. You have to be consistent in the way you set up your rules IMO.
11-28-01, 11:18 PM
#5
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally don't see that what kenwood did was so wrong..I mean afterall, what's the big deal about calling Geoff at 3:00 in the morning to talk about DVDTalk? 
11-29-01, 02:09 AM
#6
Uber Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Suffice it to say that that incident was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
And seeing as how there is nothing really to be gained from continuing this....
Closing thread.
And seeing as how there is nothing really to be gained from continuing this....
Closing thread.
