6Likes
March 15th, 2013, 07:05 AM
One of them is this guy
View Profile: JamesEllis - The Science Forumhe was a person who commented on a thread i started i saw a yellow name, and i was curious so i clicked it. it brought me to his profile page, and it wrote suspended.
i checked him, he has no started threads, and his posts aren't morally wrong/targeting anyone/nonsense/troll.
yet, he got banned...
why?
will not doing anything wrong risk me getting banned too like him?
I'm an apocalyptic dingleberry and I'm still here. I think you'll be fine.
You have to blatantly violate the TOU or agitate the mods pretty bad to get suspended.
He was a spammer. He tried to be clever by making (vaguely) relevant replies to a few posts. Then he added a spam link to his signature, presumably hoping that multiple copies of the link would be more effective. And then he got banned. Simple.Originally Posted by ryanawe123
It appears he was banned for spamming. I don't recall if I was the one who banned him or not. His signature line had a link to a website in it, and that usually causes some suspicion, especially if someone is posting some meaningless drivel. Spammers usually don't take the time to make meaningful posts.
well, i dont see any links in his signature?
You'll have to take my word for it. I can see it on his profile page. Maybe the forum software hides the signatures of banned members.
They were there. That is why I reported him!
So if i put any links on my signature at all i will be banned?
Only if they are spam (purely commercial). Plenty of people have links to web sites they think are interesting; even their own websites. (Of course, I am not a moderator. Ultimately the rules and judgements are up to them.)
What are "spams"?
1) websites that are too common? e.g. Google?
2) virus websites? e.g. idk lol (i know virus are not good, but are they called "spams")?
3) or what? lol...
If a member joins here for the sole purpose of drawing people to their website, where they get paid for advertisement or page hits, they are spamming. They're contributing nothing and trying to make money off us.
If your link is to Neil deGrasse Tyson's facebook profile, you're fine. If it is to a blog about penis enlargement, you're spamming.
lol what if a member have two purpose to contribute here, as well as to "make money off us" <== it could do with a better wording, lol
is it fine?
P.S. im not thinking of that any how, but im curious
If that member made a genuine positive contribution to the forum and their linked website was ethically acceptable then there would be no problem. Remember that this is a forum for, primarily, the discussion of science. Those who get banned are those who are not, primarily, interested in discussing science. They might talk about it a lot, but if that talk is nonsense then that is another effective way, eventually, to be banned.
phew, i am not, right?
anyway,different cultures have different ethic morals, well, are they well/fully defined in the forum regulations?
P.S. again, im not thinking of that any how, but im curious
It's sort of like pornography - hard to define but you know it when you see it. There are some gray areas and the moderators do not always agree. JamesEllis was not in a gray area, because his posts contained little if any intelligent discussion.
Are we going to refine our definition of spam? No. There is no need for that. We would argue more over the definition than the individual cases.
are the only ethically unacceptable content pornography?
What is ethical here is determined by the forum owner. He owns the site and he makes the call as to what he will allow to be discussed. He owns it. he pays the server fees to host it. This is his house. You wouldn't want a stranger to come into your home and demand that you decorate it differently, or to allow him to behave in a manner that offends you. So consider this forum, the forum owners home, his personal property. We are here because he allows us to be. And he allows us to be on the condition that we don't turn his forum into something he dislikes. He is not charging us to participate. So if you do not like that a particular member was banned, feel free to say so and explain why. but don't expect that your personal objection obligates him to agree with you or change his mind. Though it does seem that he is at least willing to hear what you have to say, unlike most forums.
Now if you are trying to get banned, the easiest way is to ask to be banned. But even that may take a few days.
Pornography, advocation of pedophilia, advocation of terrorist activity, Holocaust denial, racism, instructions on bomb making,virulent attacks on specific religions and obviously any website that asserts the feldspars are intrinsically more interesting than the ferromagnesian minerals.
What do you think, Ryan?
no... dont ban me pls.
i dont comment here any more.
Why are you splitting hairs over this?
General rule for the forum; if you have to ask yourself, "Is this appropriate?" it isn't appropriate.
There is no reason why pornography should even come into question on a science forum. Even if you have a post which contains anatomy, you can use MS Paint to black out any potentially offensive content.
If you take 30 seconds to think and consider the material in your post, there is no reason you should ever get banned. People who get banned are either spammers, idiots, trolls, or lost their temper.
No one is thinking of banning you. Do you think they are? Your question was a reasonable one, but I believe it has been very fully answered.
Dwelling on content of worry, concern for acceptance, spiralling delusions, leads to paranoia. This grows as does a snowball rolling in wet snow. Had I personally allowed such concern to heighten my uneasiness in various forums, I would have been reduced to a jello-like blob.
Lighten up.
jocular
This can be true, which is why I walk on eggshells and am very careful about what I say to people here.
| « San Antonio/Houston... | solar panel » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
