Members Banned Discussion

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The older I get, the less I care about the opinions of stupid people. I am starting to see why older people just say what they think more often.

+1   Life is too short to tolerate stupid.

[iacas]

@MattM was banned (by me) earlier today.

Long story short, Matt doesn't seem to live in this reality. He's created one of his own.

• He whined about being labeled as "playing the victim" while playing the victim.
• He brought up race in a conversation that had nothing to do with race.
• He'd sent me DMs after I had asked him (or told him) not to as I'm busy this weekend dropping my daughter off at college and didn't want to spend my little daily time on TST dealing with that crap.
• He then DMed me again at Evolvr where, as a customer, he feels that the customer is always right, and it's his right and privilege to continue to pester me there.

The content of the DMs was tame by some standards, but shows just how far out of whack @MattM is with reality in others. Some things were essentially facts, yet denied by Matt.

Matt's first DM, which I didn't really read at first but later read after I'd made predictions (he'd assumed that he was the only individual warned and that I had done the warning) about what he'd written, started off by saying "I know you've never liked me" or something like that.

I don't like or dislike 99% of you here. Why? Because I know about 0.000001% of each of "you." I don't know you guys. I've met a few, but I don't even know if I "like" or "dislike" some of the people I've met a few times. I'm inclined to "like" all of you, though, because we have golf in common, and that's awesome.

But if you think I "dislike" you because you disagree with me every now and then… then I don't know what to tell you, because I don't work that way. Disagreement can be fun. It can be bonding.

Hell, ask @Vinsk if I dislike him, and we've argued now and then a good bit.

Anyway, @MattM is now banned here and at Evolvr, because the customer is not always right, and because as a human being myself, I do not want to or need to be treated as I was by Matt. I don't enjoy participating with delusional folks who craft their own bizarre reality.

[Missouri Swede]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

@MattM was banned (by me) earlier today.

That’s too bad when it comes to that. Maybe this has been asked before (and I’ve forgotten), but in his profile in the forum threads he has a line through his name, but the next line says “well established member” and “established member.” His profile page says the same.  Do those get updated?

 

[Club Rat]

4 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

he has a line through his name

The line indicates member is banned I believe.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

That’s too bad when it comes to that. Maybe this has been asked before (and I’ve forgotten), but in his profile in the forum threads he has a line through his name, but the next line says “well established member” and “established member.” His profile page says the same.  Do those get updated?

Unfortunately, no. His profile shows the line through it, as his username will everywhere, but even that is via a plugin. Otherwise IPB has no real way to show that a user has been banned. They used to have a "Banned Users" group, but they did away with that in version 4.x (which came out like six years ago).

[boogielicious]

@mattm16 was banned earlier today after repeatedly ignoring our requests to post in golf topics. He was a different user than @MattM in case you are confused. He seemed to only want to post in the COVID-19 thread and trolled excessively. It became very tiresome for us to review his attempts to post in that thread.

In the end, he did not contribute anything to the site. We don’t enjoy banning members. First and foremost, this is a golf forum and a place for all of us to discuss golf, learn how to improve and get to know each other. 

[iacas]

The (former) member "Andy Capped" was found to be @Hugh Jars, so "Andy"'s account was merged into @Hugh Jars and Hugh was subsequently banned.

Multiple points of evidence led to this conclusion, and we don't take these types of things lightly.

TST does not allow one person to have multiple accounts, "burner" accounts, etc.

[Darkfrog]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

The (former) member "Andy Capped" was found to be @Hugh Jars, so "Andy"'s account was merged into @Hugh Jars and Hugh was subsequently banned.

Multiple points of evidence led to this conclusion, and we don't take these types of things lightly.

TST does not allow one person to have multiple accounts, "burner" accounts, etc.

Lol. I guess Hugh Jars lived up to his name

Was there any ranking manipulation going on, like replying to/liking each other's posts?

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

Lol. I guess Hugh Jars lived up to his name

Was there any ranking manipulation going on, like replying to/liking each other's posts?

No. Hugh has a bad reputation, so he probably created “Andy” as a reset. And then kept the burner account.

[Denny Bang Bang]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Multiple points of evidence led to this conclusion, and we don't take these types of things lightly.

This may have been some of your evidence already… posted by Hugh, edited by Andy.  But if not, now there’s more.

 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Denny Bang Bang said:

This may have been some of your evidence already… posted by Hugh, edited by Andy.  But if not, now there’s more.

No, that's not even possible. That only shows up that way because we merged the accounts.

One member cannot edit another member's posts unless that first member is an admin or a mod.

[Denny Bang Bang]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, that's not even possible. That only shows up that way because we merged the accounts.

Ahh, gotcha.

[TourSpoon]

On 9/23/2021 at 12:44 PM, boogielicious said:

We don’t enjoy banning members.

Not even the infamous Patrick57? Is there anyone in recent years who could match his troll-ness factor?  🧌 

*Somehow this thread popped up and I do realize it’s a Boogie quote from a year ago…it’s mainly for nostalgia’s sake! 🤣

[iacas]

7 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

Not even the infamous Patrick57? Is there anyone in recent years who could match his troll-ness factor?  🧌 

*Somehow this thread popped up and I do realize it’s a Boogie quote from a year ago…it’s mainly for nostalgia’s sake! 🤣

I will admit that it's sometimes fun to track someone down, to discover the proof that they've created a second (or eleventh) account, but no, we still hate actually banning people.

What typically happens:

• Someone does something to warrant a warning.*
• They're warned.
• Instead of saying "whoa, I should cool it" or something, they decide to burn it all down.

I mean, whatever, but…

Also:
* Many warnings are because people either misread "tone" in plain text or because they take a disagreement or even just information personally.

[boogielicious]

I would add that there is a lot of discussion amongst the staff prior to making the decision to ban. We often reach out to the member privately as well.

[TourSpoon]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

I will admit that it's sometimes fun to track someone down, to discover the proof that they've created a second (or eleventh) account, but no, we still hate actually banning people.

I remember the discussions involving that manhunt well. You guys do a great job on keeping it civil, reasonable, fair, and when you have to be, decisive. 

11 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I would add that there is a lot of discussion amongst the staff prior to making the decision to ban. We often reach out to the member privately as well.

You are more than fair and patient. I know it takes time and its appreciated in a place where people come to share ideas and learn from each other. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by TourSpoon
grammar

[iacas]

@Jarrod Hanks is @ellamia, so the accounts were merged into his original account.