Did he receive a warning? A chance to change his behaviour?

Nope.

Isnt that supposed to be the process?

Did he receive a warning? A chance to change his behaviour? — DingoJones

*Attempting to play that one out in my head*.... :brow:

Lol, I know he most likely wouldnt have changed but I do think rules should be applied to everyone, especially when the rules are whats being enforced with the banning in the first place.

A long post history of low quality is good evidence that a warning is not useful.

How so? What is it about low quality posts that makes a warning ineffective? You are calling that “good evidence”?
I can give you an even better one that Im surprised wasnt obvious to you:
The best evidence that a warning isnt useful is when a warning is given and is ignored or otherwise ineffective.
Im under the impression a warning is supposed to be given? Isnt that part of the guidlines? They are pretty specific about what things are grounds for no warning bans...but maybe Im not remembering the guidelines correctly.

Dude, don't be so hard on the mods. 'specially when you're not a subscriber :wink: .

Its being hard on the mods to expect consistent application of the rules? To simply ask questions about a specific banning in the bannings thread? I cant agree, I dint think im being “hard” on them at all.

Im under the impression a warning is supposed to be given? Isnt that part of the guidlines? They are pretty specific about what things are grounds for no warning bans...but maybe Im not remembering the guidelines correctly. — DingoJones

Everyone low quality posts sometimes.

Some people low quality post all the time.

Gnostic's post history, from what I've read of it, is almost all low quality revelation based pseudo arguments with occasional bible quotes, occasionally insulting other theists, and he outputs thread after thread of it.

It's less about that he posted low quality sometimes, it's that it was his whole posting style.

Your previous post sounded like a interrogation to me.

Winston Churchill to the Japanese ambassador:

"Sir,

On the evening of December 7th His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom learned that Japanese forces without previous warning either in the form of a declaration of war or of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war had attempted a landing on the coast of Malaya and bombed Singapore and Hong Kong.

In view of these wanton acts of unprovoked aggression committed in flagrant violation of International Law and particularly of Article 1 of the Third Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities, to which both Japan and the United Kingdom are parties, His Majesty’s Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to inform the Imperial Japanese Government in the name of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom that a state of war exists between our two countries.

I have the honour to be, with high consideration,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL."

To which he appended, after criticism of what was thought his excessive courtesy, that "After all, when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.”

The moral of the story, it seems to me, is that the high ground is giving warning, per policy: "and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied."

I understand, i read his stuff too. I mentioned him as someone who should be banned for preaching rather than discussing a long time ago. Im not making a point about his post quality nor that he was banned. Im under the impression that forum guidelines say a warning will be given except in certain circumstances like white supremacy etc, i dont remember Low post quality being one if those.

DingoJones Your previous post sounded like a interrogation to me. — Wheatley

Oh. Well it wasnt intended that way, but rather intended to simply raise a concern and gather information. Fdrake, apologies if I came across as rude.

Fdrake, apologies if I came across as rude. — DingoJones

It didn't, it's nice to have to explain decisions. If we fuck something up really bad you lot will probably notice.

My bad, carry on.

It didn't, it's nice to have to explain decisions. If we fuck something up really bad you lot will probably notice. — fdrake

Right, that is the exact spirit with which it was meant. To that end, I did notice you didnt respond to my last post where i tried to clarify the point I was making. :wink:

@DingoJones We usually just ban if the low quality is consistent enough for us to think the poster just isn't suited to the place. If it's a short burst from an otherwise decent poster, we'll warn. So, this is par for the course.

I promise im not trying to be a shit here but what you do and what you should do are different things. Shouldnt par for the course be upholding the guidlines? Unless Gnostic is being defined as a troll, I dont see any support for a no warning ban.

"Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied."

I don't see anything inconsistent with the rules here.

We are upholding the guidelines. If you are a consistently low quality poster, we consider that you are "obviously unsuited to the forum" and a summary ban is likely to be applied. And even if you're not, we only specify in the guidelines you'll "probably" receive a warning.

[Cross posted]

DingoJones My bad, carry on. — Wheatley

I disagree lol
I think what you did was a good, for the same reason that me bringing this up is good (imo). I want to be held accountable, and sometimes I am rude on purpose or by accident and I want to be held accountable in both those circumstances.
Im a disagreeable contrarian I suppose but at least im consistent.

Well I guess there's no winning for me, lol.

Let me guess, you disagree with that too. :lol:

Ok, I take your points. It isnt as obvious to me he wasnt suited to the forum, and it seems like the loose and very subjective “Unsuited to the forum” is being applied unfairly here...there was no chance for him to change his behaviour or to even be aware his behaviour was going to be considered good evidence that he was unsuited to this forum.
Anyway, I understand the reasoning and see the value of having a mechanism to get rid of jerkoffs without the hassle of treating them like they arent jerkoffs.

Lol, i do! :lol:

Not that I mourn the loss of GCB, but I do feel there could be some kind of... chilling effect or something?... with the potential threat of suddenly being banned despite a long post history without any bannings. A mod somewhere recently said something like if you’ve been posting a while and haven’t been banned yet, that’s good evidence that they think you’re generally good enough and worth keeping around. But GCB’s ban seems to contradict that.

I get that given a long low quality history a warning probably isn’t going to affect much change, but I think for the sake of other posters remaining, knowing that they would be warned ahead of time could give them more peace of mind.

The promise of a warning doesn’t give me any peace of mind, and if I were warned I don’t think my behavior would change. If I were in the middle of an interesting discussion I might try to up the quality, as far as I’m able, in order to pursue the topic, but generally I’d continue with my level of quality, such as it is.

I think it's better explained by most of the staff eye rolling at god discussions, they're extremely tedious to moderate for the same reasons as they're a vital gateway drug. A poster that probably should've been banned long ago but who posts almost exclusively about vague religious topics can go unnoticed.

A mod somewhere recently said something like if you’ve been posting a while and haven’t been banned yet, that’s good evidence that they think you’re generally good enough and worth keeping around. — Pfhorrest

I said that. Yes, it's good evidence but not a guarantee. Anyway, we rarely ban for low quality and unless you're in the bottom 5% of active posters, you've nothing to worry about.

Btw: Banned @MathematicalPhysicist for low quality.

Don't know what it is about today.