[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette's PR Nightmare

[Hards Alumni]

And my initial post was to point out that the selective bannination suggests that maybe he had a legitimate gripe.

Short of Ners (just recently) how many people have made it their business to constantly antagonize mods?

How many of those have been warned?

How many have been given a 2 week break already?

You only get so many chances.

[4everwarriors]

Man, I'm 100% with Evil Pat on this one. Never met Chicos, always thought it would a neat idea. But, found him to be forthright and honest. Held true to his convictions plus insightful and entertaining. Whenever this board got mundane, you could always count on JD to make a positive contribution. Hell, now that's gone and this community is worse for it.
Really don't want this board to turn into the Gestapo that exists elsewhere concerning MU basketball. Lifetime ban? Sounds serious, don't think this was. Sorry if this sounds like Chicos eulogy.

[Nukem2]

Man, I'm 100% with Evil Pat on this one. Never met Chicos, always thought it would a neat idea. But, found him to be forthright and honest. Held true to his convictions plus insightful and entertaining. Whenever this board got mundane, you could always count on JD to make a positive contribution. Hell, now that's gone and this community is worse for it.
Really don't want this board to turn into the Gestapo that exists elsewhere concerning MU basketball. Lifetime ban? Sounds serious, don't think this was. Sorry if this sounds like Chicos eulogy.

Bring Chicos back.  He is not the problem.  Many here need to look in a mirror.

[StillAWarrior]

Short of Ners (just recently) how many people have made it their business to constantly antagonize mods?

How many of those have been warned?

How many have been given a 2 week break already?

You only get so many chances.

I never said that anyone made it their business to constantly antagonize the mods.  And I don't think that anyone has made that their business.  But there are several posters on this board who constantly made it their business to antagonize Chicos.  And he antagonized them.  At times it makes this board almost unbearable.  Unless I missed it, they're still here.

For the record, notwithstanding my original post on this subject, I'm not honestly suggesting they should be banned.  But I don't think Chico's should have been either.  But, like others have said, it's not my site.  I appreciate the work that the mods do and it's their prerogative.  I just happen to disagree with this call.  Not the first time I've disagreed with something someone has done or said on this board; probably won't be the last.

[Pakuni]

One thing Chicos did was lay it out there, for better or worse. Giving him a perm is an overall loss for the board. That said, I do appreciate the owners and mods of this site.  They have volunteered thousands of hours and headaches, and scratch--to feed our addictions.

It's ultimately the mods' site, and it's they who have to deal with whatever issues there are to deal with here. If they've come to the conclusion that the problems caused by Chicos outweigh the value he brings to the site, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. They, after all, are the ones who have to deal with him, not me. I'd guess none of us are privy to the personal communications that have gone on between Chicos and the mods, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's more to this than we know. Having received unsolicited and unwanted personal messages from him myself (you know, the ones where he shows off his ability to acquire personal information about you), it can be at the very least a little creepy.
Given all that, I don't feel particularly qualified to tell the mods how to run their site.

Personally, I'm neither celebrating or mourning Chicos loss. I really don't care much either way. Nor do I care if he's allowed back. He did offer some insight, but he also instigated a lot of unnecessary arguments around here (some of which I, unfortunately, have allowed myself to participate in), often simply for the sake of starting an argument.

All that said, if you really believe what you said above about appreciating the mods, the thousands of hours, the headaches, etc., their decision to alleviate some of those hours and headaches should, if not supported, at least be respected.
Hinting of a "Gestapo", as another poster has done, seems perhaps a bit out of line.

[Hards Alumni]

I never said that anyone made it their business to constantly antagonize the mods.  And I don't think that anyone has made that their business.  But there are several posters on this board who constantly made it their business to antagonize Chicos.  And he antagonized them.  At times it makes this board almost unbearable.  Unless I missed it, they're still here.

For the record, notwithstanding my original post on this subject, I'm not honestly suggesting they should be banned.  But I don't think Chico's should have been either.  But, like others have said, it's not my site.  I appreciate the work that the mods do and it's their prerogative.  I just happen to disagree with this call.  Not the first time I've disagreed with something someone has done or said on this board; probably won't be the last.

If you don't think that Chicos antagonized the mods, you haven't been paying enough attention.

[StillAWarrior]

If you don't think that Chicos antagonized the mods, you haven't been paying enough attention.

If you think I said that, you can't read.

[StillAWarrior]

If you don't think that Chicos antagonized the mods, you haven't been paying enough attention.

And perhaps I owe you a more thoughtful response that my initial knee-jerk response (although I stand by my initial knee-jerk response).

Take a look back through this thread and offer an honest opinion on whether Chicos antagonized Rocky first, or whether Rocky antagonized Chicos first.

[Hards Alumni]

If you think I said that, you can't read.

You said:

I never said that anyone made it their business to constantly antagonize the mods.  And I don't think that anyone has made that their business.

The problem isn't this thread, SAW.  The perma-ban has been a conglomoration of many posts over many different threads.  I unfortunately have way too much time, and probably have read most of his posts over the last 4 years.

I am only saying that I understand why they banned him.  I tend to agree with Pakuni that I don't think I am happy or sad... I'm indifferent.

[StillAWarrior]

You said:

The problem isn't this thread, SAW.  The perma-ban has been a conglomoration of many posts over many different threads.  I unfortunately have way too much time, and probably have read most of his posts over the last 4 years.

I am only saying that I understand why they banned him.  I tend to agree with Pakuni that I don't think I am happy or sad... I'm indifferent.

I understand all of that...you said "constantly antagonize" and I disagreed.  Your words, not mine.  I don't believe that anyone has done that (Chicos, Ners or anyone else).  Maybe I'm mistaken.  I absolutely acknowledge that Chicos antagonized the mods.

I understand why they banned him too.  I disagree, but I understand.  My original post was simply to make the point that he's just one of several who have been constantly arguing on here.  I think you would agree (but perhaps not) that there are a handful of posters on this board who frequently antagonize him.  He takes the bait every single time, which is pretty stupid in my opinion, but they keep doing it.  And those people are still here.

Keep in mind, in the post announcing that he was banning him, Rocky said it was "because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue."  My response to Rocky was premised on Rocky's statement that Chicos was banned for arguing, not for bugging the ever-loving crap out of the mods.  If they're going to start banning people for arguing, then I've got a few more suggestions for their list.  If they're banning people for antagonizing the mods...well, that's another issue entirely and they absolutely have that right and, frankly, I don't blame them.  It's a thankless job, and there's only so much they're going to put up with.

[Hards Alumni]

I understand all of that...you said "constantly antagonize" and I disagreed.  Your words, not mine.  I don't believe that anyone has done that (Chicos, Ners or anyone else).  Maybe I'm mistaken.  I absolutely acknowledge that Chicos antagonized the mods.

I understand why they banned him too.  I disagree, but I understand.  My original post was simply to make the point that he's just one of several who have been constantly arguing on here.  I think you would agree (but perhaps not) that there are a handful of posters on this board who frequently antagonize him.  He takes the bait every single time, which is pretty stupid in my opinion, but they keep doing it.  And those people are still here.

Keep in mind, in the post announcing that he was banning him, Rocky said it was "because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue."  My response to Rocky was premised on Rocky's statement that Chicos was banned for arguing, not for bugging the ever-loving crap out of the mods.  If they're going to start banning people for arguing, then I've got a few more suggestions for their list.  If they're banning people for antagonizing the mods...well, that's another issue entirely and they absolutely have that right and, frankly, I don't blame them.  It's a thankless job, and there's only so much they're going to put up with.

I agree with you... I was under the impression that he was poking the mods with a stick.  I reserve the right to be wrong.

[rocky_warrior]

Gosh, I don't feel like I should have to weigh in on the "chicos banned" topic any more, but I'll oblige a little bit.

My goal as a moderator (and I think I'm safe in saying "our goal") is to not moderate at all.  We don't want to be a "Gestapo", and in I'd rather just sit back, read, and enjoy the board as all of you do.

Unfortunately, Chicos was a key contributor to making that impossible.  I believe our experience is not so different than Dodds' in that Chicos apparently has far too much time to post, to cross the lines we tried to set, and then apparently needed to publicly complain about the moderation after he had crossed the lines.

I've never met Chico, But I'd probably enjoy having a beer with him.  But when I have to interrupt my summer vacation to moderate him (as I mentioned, for a second summer in a row), it's gotten past the point that I want to deal with him on a message board anymore.

Sorry to those that feel differently, but when we've silently banned him in the past (and thus, hardly anyone noticed or complained), you'd be surprised how smoothly this place runs.

Will he ever be allowed back?  I donno.  At this point the answer is no.

[Lighthouse 84]

I understand the ban, but agree with several that this Board will be less interesting without Chicos.  Unfortunately, there probably isn't a good or effective way at making Chicos-Ners (there are others but let's face it, this is the main one) rants go straight to private messages.  

I agree with StillAWarrior.  I disagree but I understand.  Hopefully, others who argue for the sake of arguing will get the message and limit their posts to those which are beneficial to MU Hoops.

[Lennys Tap]

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

I think it's fair to assume that you (and Sultan) would include me among those "posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick a fight with Chicos". I respectfully disagree. We fought because we had fundamental differences on numerous issues. The idea that other posters and the moderators were "picking on" Chicos because of who he was and not what he said was a canard foisted on this board constantly by none other than Chicos himself. The truth is that he finds people to fight with wherever he goes, which has resulted in lifetime bans on other sites.

Not my call, but I hope that something short of that can be the solution here - he has strong opinions and they generate discussion from all "factions" of the MU community.

[MerrittsMustache]

I have no problem with the decision to ban Chicos. Yes, he brought a lot to the table but he also took a lot off the table. He was like an athlete who had the abilities to contribute but only wanted to play on his own selfish terms and wanted to see what he could get away with. He often criticized the mods and recently he basically dared them to ban him, which they did. Be careful what you wish for. Honestly, I was surprised that he didn't get banned for, on multiple occasions, all but posting the players' names who were involved in the sexual assault accusations.

[BUzz Willliams 4 Mayor]

What are MODs?

[rocky_warrior]

What are MODs?

Short for moderators

[MUCam]

If the mods lift the ban on Chicos, he will not be able to claim victimization as effectively as if he was permanently banned.

Keep Chicos banned for Chicos benefit. It can only help him in the future when he resurfaces under other names and claims victimization.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

1)  The dude was 3/3.  Banned at old ahoya, banned at scout(2 or 3 x's), banned here.  That's hard work.

2)  He'll be back.  Watch for new posters the next few weeks that rapidly climb to the top of the # of posts list.

3) Buy Directv stock.  his productivity will soar the next few weeks, and their earnings should improve as such.

4)  Let Freedom Ring.

[ATL MU Warrior]

1)  The dude was 3/3.  Banned at old ahoya, banned at scout(2 or 3 x's), banned here.  That's hard work.

2)  He'll be back.  Watch for new posters the next few weeks that rapidly climb to the top of the # of posts list.

3) Buy Directv stock.  his productivity will soar the next few weeks, and their earnings should improve as such.

4)  Let Freedom Ring.

5) Feel sorry for his co-workers.  If he wasn't a pain in the rear to work for before, he certainly is going to be now 

[HouWarrior]

I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

[Lennys Tap]

I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

I realize that as a lawyer there's a penchant for codifying, grading offenses, adding rules, etc., but if you do that people will still fight over nuance and how the rules are applied. Sometimes the answer has to be "because I said so". People are free to not participate if they find the rules too arbitrary for their tastes.

[Pakuni]

I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

It doesn't seem right that someone who takes the time and effort to set up this kind of website for the enjoyment and benefit of mostly complete (but like-minded) strangers would then have to establish some sort of quasi-legal regulations by which to justify his or her decisions regarding the conduct of said site. Much less to govern the conduct of the people who post here.
MU Scoop, after all, is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

[MerrittsMustache]

I put this up in the MU Scoop Sugestions thread...but as few read that one...it is duped here for thoughts and public comment (just like the feds pre post regulations, for public comment before passage in the CFR--lol)...
In any democratic country, Its harder to enforce and justify any law that is not published and on the books...and harder still to get the citizenry to accept enforcements without them eagerly debating the fairness, of an action taken on an unwritten rule--wouldn't you agree?

I have read and searched throughout the site...something is missing, ...

there is nothing on mods remedies, including deleting postings, locks, and on warnings/bans:

1-
If mods wish to delete postings or content at their sole discretion...just add such a term to the rules.

"At our sole discretion, we may delete a posting, or  lock out a thread"

2-
Also, to avoid having to debate/defend bans...put it in the rules...

"Any offense or violation of the above rules, over and above deletion of the posting, or a thread lock, include, and also may be subject to one to three warnings in either mods responsive postings, or by PM to the offender, followed by bans (you can grade the ban levels, or number of instances allowed), including that repeated infractions, after these warnings and shorter bans, may lead to a permanent ban from posting on this site".

The benefits are obvious.
If the above is actually set out in your rules...then posters will more likely back you up, with a simple: "read it, he had it coming as  it was clearly laid out-- right in the rules"

...this eliminates the near surface attacks/defenses of personal subjectivity, by mods.

Good points but I don't think it even needs to be that lawyered up 

It could simply say: "The moderators reserve the right to delete posts, lock threads and ban posters. If you don't like it, start your own message board."

[Skatastrophy]

This isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship.  Democracy doesn't work on the Internet.

For the system to work you must fear the moderators.  Chicos was merely a citizen chosen at random by the mods as a vehicle to show-off their immense power.  As Machiavelli explained, for a Prince to continue wielding their power after a serious crime they must find someone guilty and it doesn't have to be the actual perpetrator.  Punishing an innocent as a show of force and justice is just as effective to keep the populous in line as it is finding the person that's actually responsible.

I, for one, welcome our new Internet overlords.