Although it hasn't been stated as a rule previously, please note that posting in the forums for members that have been banned cannot be condoned under any circumstances. I saw it for the first time in the Ethics forum and have informed the proxy. I'll add it to the FAQs, but would like to make this generally known so it doesn't become a bad habit as we get more members on the banned list.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and I return you to your normal programming....

Noted. It's now part of the FAQs

So does she not get put in timeout for breaking the rules like any of the rest of us would have? Bias?

truchas wrote:So does she not get put in timeout for breaking the rules like any of the rest of us would have? Bias?

I don't think it would be fair to ban someone for doing something that wasn't against the rules when they did it.

While I think it's a joke to ban anybody for something like that, stating that it "wasn't in the rules" is just plain stupid. It's pretty obvious that when someone is banned, they should not be posting (either directly using a different account or by proxy).

The mentality that says it wasn't explicitly in the rules is the same stupidity that results in stupid laws like "no texting while driving", which was already illegal without the legislature wasting time passing an unenforceable law. People should try using a little common sense instead of depending on the rules to think for them.

mconnell wrote:While I think it's a joke to ban anybody for something like that, stating that it "wasn't in the rules" is just plain stupid. It's pretty obvious that when someone is banned, they should not be posting (either directly using a different account or by proxy).

The mentality that says it wasn't explicitly in the rules is the same stupidity that results in stupid laws like "no texting while driving", which was already illegal without the legislature wasting time passing an unenforceable law. People should try using a little common sense instead of depending on the rules to think for them.

Now that texting while driving is illegal, can cops go and arrest people for texting while driving before it was against the law?

JasonH wrote:

mconnell wrote:While I think it's a joke to ban anybody for something like that, stating that it "wasn't in the rules" is just plain stupid. It's pretty obvious that when someone is banned, they should not be posting (either directly using a different account or by proxy).

The mentality that says it wasn't explicitly in the rules is the same stupidity that results in stupid laws like "no texting while driving", which was already illegal without the legislature wasting time passing an unenforceable law. People should try using a little common sense instead of depending on the rules to think for them.

Now that texting while driving is illegal, can cops go and arrest people for texting while driving before it was against the law?

Distracted driving has ALWAYS been against the law. I suppose the cops could arrest (and prosecute) someone for texting before it was explicitly written into law, if it resulted in an accident or a dangerous situation.

Isn't it also proxy if someone posts for themselves under an assumed name?

I mean, if you're going to split hairs why not dump everyone who posts here under those auspices and pushes the limits of decorum yet continues to get away with it. Seems they are, after all, the core of the problems on this site.

Lolli wrote:You know on the other hand as well I do, that Truchas' main goal is to see me banned, reason be damned.

I have no reason to see you banned except when you break the rules. Others have been banned when no rules are broken, you break the rules and don't get banned only because you wish the elves happy birthday, send then Christmas cards and stay in their homes for free. That shouldn't get you preferential treatment.

Waring Hudsucker.