So, Grimby's banned? What's the deal, guys?

so what are you saying?

 

Dunno... I took it to mean that perhaps Grimby did not ban himself... these MS folk are a bizarre bunch.

 

Well, if you want to get technical, its not possible to actually ban yourself, because a user has to be demoted to regular user before the ban can go through, and if a mod demotes himself as the first part, he would no longer have the ability to ban. But Grimby made the decision about this, and thus for all practical purposes did it himself.

Again, we can't say more than that.

 

What you can say is whether or not you find it to be ridiculous and / or insane... so?

 

Here's the facts:

a) It's self imposed;
b) We will leave it solely at that because the MS policy is that we don't discuss individual user's bans;
c) If you want to know more than that the only person you can get it off will be the person who is serving the ban.

 

Stupid question, but why is it policy that MS doesn't discuss bans?

 

Given that the policy was created by .....

Okay, I'll leave the personal commentary out of it and just say I don't know. Personally don't see why they can't be, and the world never fell on us back when we used to, but it's just the way policy is currently.

 

Also, before anyone mentions changing the policy, Philip was asked a couple of years ago about it, and he has indicated that he doesn't want that to change.

 

So, he hasn't answered another simple question given years to say y/n?

Surprise

 

The Emperor Has No Clothes!!!


But seriously, stuff like this does not engender confidence amongst the populace.




Especially this close to the move.



Seriously guys, this is some Dick Cheney crap.

 

Publicity stunt. Why would the head admin of a forum force a ban on himself, and then leave the forum in the dark for a short period of time, if not for a reason. If it's not a big deal like previously said, then I'd assume that he'd have enough reason to clear this up with a decent explanation for ye common folk before the ban, since there isn't a rush, and he is after all...the head admin. You can punish the HA as a user, but you can't hold the same behavioral expectations of him.

 

Is it move related? Not sure how it would be but who knows!

 

I'll say it again (and for the last time), if it's no big deal, then there's no reason why Grimby should have been banner or why it can't be discussed more. All of this is creating unnecessary uncertainty.

They beat Boston!: 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: Back-to-Back World Champions

 

We can't discuss it because we don't discuss individual users' bans with anyone but the user (even if said user is the Head Admin), so the only person who can discuss it is Grimby, who is currently banned. Just wait a few hours, he'll be back.

 

There are exceptions for every rule.

They beat Boston!: 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: Back-to-Back World Champions

 

No, it's not. Grimby said that no one is above the rules, up to and including admins, and felt he should serve some time for what happened. That's really it, no vast conspiracy I promise!

 

Two part answer. First, it's honestly not a publicity stunt. Second, I may not be interpreting your last statement correctly. All mods should be held to the same behavioral standards as regular users. Otherwise, you'd have mods being allowed to say and do things without fear of repercussions which would not serve this place well.

Also, as a note, Grimby has sent a message that he will provide an explanation when he returns.

 

so Grimby has posted something that he himself, in retrospect, or whatever, deems ban worthy, and thus, essentially, banned himself for it.

the only rationale conclusion to be made from all this is: lol

 

No, he was banned for overuse of commas

 

So fifty-post threads about nothing won't appear in Communications.

 

I think he must have replied to 4 or 5 threads in a couple of forums in half an hour one morning prior to having coffee and after having coffee he decided that he was giving VIPs a bad name by spamming so he banned himself. It's the only thing that could make sense.

 

Just out of curiosity... why is it now very plainly obvious when someone's account is on a ban? It didn't work that way before one of the updates last year or the year before.

 

That came in with one of the bunch of board code changes by IGN. We don't have any control over it, I'm afraid.