Just to insure historical accuracy on this topic let me add a couple facts here.
1. Sid was warned a few days prior to this incident by way of a post I made to the Vietnam forums stating that personal attacks would not be allowed on the site.
2. A day latter he stated in another post that I had better "ban him now" because he would not relent.
3. I asked him in that thread to put the object of his displeasure on ignore and handle the matter back channel.
4. I gave it a couple more days and true to his word Sid would not relent, he was therefor suspended from posting.
5. As you can see from the above posts two more people similarly requested to be suspended and were granted their requests.
Some more thoughts on the action taken -
Every person that was suspended literally asked to be suspended.
Some have said "well so and so said this and that and did not get suspended". Good point, and lesson learned, that's why action is now taken sooner rather then later.
It has also been said that I do not understand that Sid was just trying to expose a wannabe. I understand full well what he was trying to do, the objection was to how it was being done, running from post to post and disrupting the site. Most people do not want to walk into a firefight on the site, this has been made abundantly clear over the years, so once again lesson learned, action is now taken sooner rather then later in such situations.
In closing much has been made of the fact long time brothers were "banned" which implies they were cast out from the site with no access. In point of fact though no one was actually banned, as each of them know. They had their posting privileges suspended and still had full access to the site, PM's, and everything else. They are able to log in and do everything except post to the forums.
|