Reasons for bans should be made public.

[Stargate38]

I really think that for every banned user, the reason (i.e. spam, troll, malware, sock puppet, ban evasion, etc.) should be put in the last post they made (or on their profile), as well as the duration of the ban (1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, permanent, etc.). That way people will know why any given person was blocked from the site. For example:

John Doe was banned because of this post. Reason: rude comment. Duration: 1 week.

The reason I'm asking is because I don't know why Zcyyu and JeppeSN are banned. I really think that information should be made available to the general public or, at the very least, to registered users, as I've been wondering why certain users are banned, even though the last visible post doesn't break any rules.

[Uncwilly]

The reason that JeppeSN was banned is stated here:
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...2&postcount=27
It is the same reason that R.D. Silverman was banned. Bob got it for just the initials, Jeppe for the full words. The lengths of time for the bans were chosen taking various factors into account.

I will let the mod who banned Zcyyu give their reason (and why the length). The users that are banned normally receive the reason that they are banned. If they are a first time poster/spammer, sometimes the mods don't even bother with that.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Bob got it for just the initials, Jeppe for the full words.

I think that more to the point, it isn't just the words, but the intent, target and tone. Individual words can mean anything or nothing without context to clarify.

For example this is the first result when searching for those initials on WP.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I will let the mod who banned Zcyyu give their reason (and why the length). The users that are banned normally receive the reason that they are banned. If they are a first time poster/spammer, sometimes the mods don't even bother with that.

This particular user was the subject of cautions about reposting the same material repeatedly. These cautions, both informal and formal, were posted publicly in the thread he started.

The user became the subject of discussion amongst the Moderators. That discussion included one Moderator mentioning postings to other threads being moved to the original thread, and had progressed to the point where one Moderator suggested a 3-month ban, and another indicated the user should be banned.

I reviewed the situation and decided to do the honors. Three months seemed reasonable. The length of the ban is three months. The reason is "excessive multiposting." If another Mod wants to commute it, fine with me.

[paulunderwood]

I banned eric1999, some say excessively, for ever for what seemed to me a politically motivated racial slur. I guess if he promises to behave he is welcome back!

[masser]

I disagree with the recent decision to ban RDS. The original post in that thread, and several others by that author, belong in the Misc. Math or blogorrhea sections. I can understand the frustration the mathematicians on the forum have for the stubbornly ill-informed posts that are little more than numerology.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by masser

I disagree with the recent decision to ban RDS. The original post in that thread, and several others by that author, belong in the Misc. Math or blogorrhea sections. I can understand the frustration the mathematicians on the forum have for the stubbornly ill-informed posts that are little more than numerology.

I have a lot of sympathy for Bob, as many long-time forum members know. I've spent over 20 years trying to get him to show a calmer, more-measured tone in his public pronouncements, despite the lack of reciprocity shown by differently-clued posters and the provocation he receives.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by masser

I disagree with the recent decision to ban RDS. The original post in that thread, and several others by that author, belong in the Misc. Math or blogorrhea sections.

Other peoples' poor behaviour or willful ignorance does not justify rude language. I did not move the thread in question as I could no be certain if it truly merited the move. If any mod wants to contravene the ban, they can.

Like Paul, I have been trying to get Bob to understand that he has a couple of options with regard to the inane. One is to tell them where there folly is, then give a single reply after their response, then ignore them. Second is to realize that he does not have to respond to every nut.

BTW, yesterday I banned a spammer that tried to spam on their first post. Since it was a first post, it was moderated. So, the average user never saw it. Most bans are spammers.

[LaurV]

I like RDS, and appreciate him for his knowledge, in spite of our public altercations (usually, that's when he sends me to the books, and he is kinda right about that). However, I think that the ban will help him calm down a bit. As Unc' said, he is not obliged to intervene in such debates where he feels like cursing, etc.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by LaurV

I like RDS, and appreciate him for his knowledge, in spite of our public altercations (usually, that's when he sends me to the books, and he is kinda right about that). However, I think that the ban will help him calm down a bit. As Unc' said, he is not obliged to intervene in such debates where he feels like cursing, etc.

I have been pleasantly surprised with RDS's restraint since his last reinstatement.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Prime95

I have been pleasantly surprised with RDS's restraint since his last reinstatement.