Was it not possible to go for a 'suspension style' cooling off period? — universeness

It was possible, but that’s not what I chose to do. What I saw of his posts did not make me think a suspension would be the better choice.

Would you consider a more democratic system of deciding SOME CASES of who gets banned?
For example, If your membership has survived a 1 year probation, then you gain a right to appeal a ban and it's gets put to the vote of all current members who have been members for at least 1 year and who post at least (say) 4 times a month?
Do you prefer the current monarchistic (Jamal) and the aristos (we arra mods! we arra mods! we are, we are, we arra mods!), approach?
Don't worry, I am not trying to start a TPF revolution from my keyboard, :scream: I am only asking! :halo:

democratic — universeness

:down:

monarchistic — universeness

:up:

An easy decision. An adolescent style of rigidity and dogmatism. Thought everything fit nicely into a flowchart. Constantly uncharitable, frequently insulting.

An adolescent style of rigidity and dogmatism. Thought everything fit nicely into a flowchart. Constantly uncharitable, frequently insulting. — Mikie

:chin:

My apologies your Kingship!

You got to stop posting pictures of Jordan Peterson, Prax. People will talk. — Tom Storm

They have an intimate relationship but are not one and the same, I think.

An easy decision. An adolescent style of rigidity and dogmatism. Thought everything fit nicely into a flowchart. Constantly uncharitable, frequently insulting. — Mikie

I'll let the moderators make the judgements about banning, but I strongly disagree with your judgement about the quality of his philosophy. I think he brought something valuable to the forum. Again - that's not a criticism of this decision.

For the record, you are also often uncharitable and frequently insulting.

What program are you using?

Midjourney

Sweet!

Point of order. There is a distinction without a difference, between a sock-puppet and a glove-puppet. a sock puppet being a glove puppet made from a sock.

I'll let the moderators make the judgements about banning, but I strongly disagree with your judgement about the quality of his philosophy. I think he brought something valuable to the forum. Again - that's not a criticism of this decision. — T Clark

I more or less agree. I found his unpleasantness easy to ignore. But he pretty much asked to be banned in his last post, and he robusty refused moderation.

I more or less agree. I found his unpleasantness easy to ignore. But he pretty much asked to be banned in his last post, and he robusty refused moderation. — bert1

As I said, I didn't question the decision, but I often found his posts interesting.

It was Ayn Rand and Wittgenstein who pointed out (I paraphrase) don't attempt anything before your definitions become clear . — Nickolasgaspar

That quote alone earns a banning.

I banned @invicta for persistently low quality posts even after multiple warnings and a one-week suspension.

No loss at all, as far as I'm concerned. My opinion of him was a particularly low one.
I normally find some redeeming feature in a poster, but I could not, in his case.

No loss at all, as far as I'm concerned. My opinion of him was a particularly low one. — universeness

Ranting on someone who no longer can post here...
Pretty humble from your side.

What do you mean? I also ranted at him when he was here as a member, especially when he made little sense!

Ranting on someone who no longer can post here...
Pretty humble from your side. — javi2541997

Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out.

I banned invicta for persistently low quality posts even after multiple warnings and a one-week suspension. — Jamal

I appreciate that you have started using the suspension prior to banning in some cases.

Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out. — T Clark

:up:

I also want to use your iconic thumb.

I also want to use your iconic thumb. — javi2541997

It is in the public domain. Actually, it's probably not, but you're welcome to use it.

Thanks Javi. There is a lot of mean spiritedness here and It's good to see you pointing it out. — T Clark

:lol: How mean spirited of both of you!

Worse, self righteous.

If you were mean spirited to their face, its really nothing more to be mean spirited here when they get banned.
Its like not speaking ill of the dead…if the dead was a prick that doesnt change just because people want to pretend they weren’t for a few days.

Ignore the behaviour police, good riddance to a moron.

Absafragginlootly! :up:

How mean spirited of both of you! — universeness

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the phrase.

Gentlemen, don't fight here, this is the war room.

Worse, self righteous. — DingoJones

Ah, yes. I believe you sang that song before:

Lol, well come on. He NEVER misses an opportunity to express his self righteous condemnation of other posters... — DingoJones

Well, geez, I have to be true to my calling.

I've done a citizen's ban on you, by the way. I talked to you about your behavior and just couldn't get through to you. So, don't whine because I won't be able to hear you and you brought it on yourself. You committed suicide by citizen.