spainlinx0

I think we all know who I'm referring to. What was the official reason? The mysterious bannings that occurred under prior regimes was supposed to be one of the major reasons for that famed tumultuous period and the exodus that was happening on the board. I thought that wasn't going to happen anymore.

Supermallet

Even a brief glance at that member's posting history should tell you all you need to know.

maxfisher

I'm guessing it falls under the rule against 'hateful' posting. If you ignore the childish dancing around semantics to maintain deniability, he effectively said he believed the government should round up and execute homosexuals. Yes, when finally called out to say firmly one way or the other, he backtracked into 'well, I don't really agree with that.' But he really hadn't been all that vague up until then, even though people kept giving him the benefit of the doubt. As a general rule, I don't think the site allows those who advocate genocide to be part of the community.

Cardsfan111

I just assumed that the mods had finally seen enough of the space before the question mark.

spainlinx0

I disagree with that interpretation max. I do believe he said that is what the Bible says, but he doesn't agree with it personally. I think you guys attribute much more harm to him, where as I felt he was just a guy with a crippling social disability.

davidh777

van der graaf

I assumed he was finally uncovered for being a comitted troll and banned for it...he would contradict himself constantly and not confront it when called out. It seemed he wanted to do nothing but stir shit up

MrSmearkase

Normally, I'm all for transparency when it comes to finding out how or why certain members are banned.

In his case, though, I think it is best to follow that old chestnut of "Do not discuss banned members."

Close the thread, and let's move on from him.

The Cow

Sean O'Hara

JasonF: Does your religion command you to put gay people to death?

Spottedfeather: Me personally, no. Through the court system.

He did backtrack once the shit storm started, but even then he kept trying to weasel-word his responses by claiming that "put to death" was different from "kill". I offered the charitable interpretation of his words that, "because you aren't charged with executing homosexuals for their sins, you can think that's wrong without disobeying God," and he said I was, "Wrong. All wrong."

I think we've come to a point in our culture where attitudes like this should be treated like someone spouting neo-Nazi gibberish or saying we should kill all Muslims, and get the ban-hammer.

maxfisher

Yeah, when asked to clarify if he agreed the gov't should execute people for being gay, his response was basically, 'I'm not in the government, so it's irrelevant to me.' He only really backtracked once those in charge here implied he'd be leaving if he was advocating the gov't should kill gays.

dvdjunkie32

My impression was that he was goaded and gang piled into making it appear like he was saying something that he didn't really believe. Even the dialogue you post here doesn't make sense. Through the court system? Granted, I didn't follow the whole thread and maybe something happened behind the scenes.

PhantomStranger

He's probably still lurking. It's a tough situation to decide for a moderator. His relentless confrontations on the same handful of issues indicated a nasty trollish streak, even if he himself didn't realize he was trolling the board. There are plenty of other discussion forums on the Internet, he should look into them.

Navinabob

Now I'll never know if he ever planned on adding me as a Facebook friend

Supermallet

If by goaded and gang piled you mean that people decided not to let him off the hook for implying that homosexuals should be put to death simply for being homosexual, then sure, we can go with your interpretation.

Between the ignore list stuff and his general rude demeanor, he was not a positive contributor to this community. The whole dust up about homosexuals being put to death was just icing on the Christian cake.

dvdjunkie32

No the gang piling I saw was the relentless badgering over the fact that he illegally downloaded some movie in the past. Page after page of harping on the issue. Pointless and unnecessary. But If he truly said gays should be put to death then he won't get any defense from me.

Supermallet

Actually, I agree that too many people went personal too often. So in that sense, you are right. However, none of that was going on when he made the statements he did towards the end of the thread.

Chrisedge

I stopped posting in the thread a while back because it was useless, and I am not a fan of the guy (and I was one to harp on his hypocrisy of downloading, yet against gays), but disagree with the banning. Surprised it happened. Oh well. Back to sinning.

Shannon Nutt

I agree 100% with you. He tried to politely defend his positions while being more or less bombarded with questions from everyone else. The whole thing about gays comes from a misreading/taking out of context Leviticus 20:13.

I don't know, I think banning someone for defending their beliefs - even if it's a belief we find silly or disagree with really goes against the spirit of the forums - the guy posted about 100 responses and got banned for some poor wording over one response that he obviously tried to backtrack on.

Then again, I have no idea what kind of correspondence went on between the Mod and the poster, so we need to keep that in mind as well.

What probably should have happened here is that threads should have been locked long before anyone got banned...it was WAY off topic about 10 pages in, anyway.

This is one reason I tend to avoid posting in the religion/politics thread - I get enough heat for my TV and movie comments.

Shagrath

While I didn't care for the guy, he did provide hours of entertainment for me.

I feel that the situation could have maybe been handled like the last casualty of the Politics & Religion thread. Lock him out of that sub-forum and if he tried to turn other threads in Other into faith-based discussions, then drop the hammer.

dave-o

I'm guessing his general disposition, the fact that he continuously called people liars (or accused them of lying), and his overall negative contributions to any thread he was in had more to do with the banning than any one statement, no matter how offensive it was...

PhantomStranger

That's not a bad solution, one I could support.

Let us be honest, DVD Talk and most other Internet discussions forums aren't bastions of openness towards Christians or their beliefs. If you went off the tone of conversation found on most Internet sites, an alien would get the impression that half of the Earth's population are Libertarian atheists.

As a believing Christian myself, I recognize that and move on. The Gospel can't be spread in such a combative manner and it does a disservice to the faith. Turn the other cheek and all, as the verse goes...

VinVega

From a poster's standpoint, I know it is frustrating not to get all the details as to why another poster was banned from the site. I'd love to share all the details of the mod/admin deliberation over whether to implement such a permanent action, but management's policy has always been and will continue to be not to discuss banned members. I reviewed this subject with IB via a long phone conversation when I assumed the Admin role in 2013 and we agreed to keep the traditional policy intact. The main reason being that the banned poster will be encouraged to sign up additional accounts to continue to post at DT.

As a point of reference, I'll link to the SOP regarding suspensions/bannings and assure you that this process was followed in this instance.

Closing thread.