Originally Posted by SPN Lifer

I am relieved to learn that the new "banned" label includes the moderator-imposed 7- and 30-day suspensions. So my favorite reactionary who may have a bit of a temper problem might not be gone forever.

The reason I say this is that with the increased power of moderators comes increased responsibility. One of my favorite moderators, and I say this with utmost admiration and not an iota of sarcasm, seems also occasionally prone to flashes of temper -- we are all human, are we not? -- albeit not to the level, perhaps, that (temporarily?) cost the prickly Christian from Arizona his posting privileges.

Yet while moderators now have new disciplinary tools, the participation of some of them in concerted "Reputation" attacks shows that such power is not always used benignly. Indeed, it would appear that the "banned" member was the subject of an organized baiting campaign, not that the presumed "victim" is always the model of temperate response.

So what I am saying is that if there is any way to give moderators solely the ability to ban within a given forum, it should be implemented.

If not, perhaps we need a little more due process, given the ability of those who participate in the fray to impose sanctions against their very opponents.

It is a maxim of jurisprudence, "No man should be a judge in his own case." Of course our host can do whatever he wishes; he is not the Government. Yet the principle has natural law antecedents.

Originally Posted by Counsellor

Well, IMHO that particular "victim" richly deserved being bounced!

He was another of those cowards who dings from hiding, not man enough to take responsibility for what he does.

Although I will admit that, so far as I know, he hasn't stooped to hiding behind someone else's handle, so I suppose he's not all bad.

Originally Posted by Counsellor

Actually, if I recall Randy’s explanation, it was not intended to reflect judgments of individuals’ use of grammar or their political astuteness or their general bonhomie or even the adequacy of their toilet training, but rather was (solely?) intended to be used in relation to Coupon Connection, to allow others to have additional information in deciding whether to enter into a trade with (or gift to) a particular individual.

In that respect I guess it was to be similar to the system used on e-Bay, which shows who issued each individual rating, what the rating was, and any explanation the rater felt should be provided. This is useful both as feedback to the person rated and as specific information to the reader who might be interested in the reputation of the person being rated.

If indeed the purpose of the “reputation” system was to “rate” individual posts, what you’re suggesting totally perverts that purpose. This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to beg for “plus points” to enhance reputation (as though they were baseball cards, or the like -- I think on another thread you rightly referred to those who continue such shameless solicitations as "Bling Whore").

Seems to me the solution is simple: Fix the system or turn it off.