Just for the record regarding banned posters. Close to 90% of banned posters are newbies who are either ghosts of previously banned posters, spammers of the worse sort, racists or some other sort of fanatic.
Ocasionally a poster is banned after a vote in the The Rx. Board Room for generally being negative and abusive and personally I regret seeing this (Whalewagwe being one that comes to mind) happen, he probably is not anything like his posting persona in real life but his case was one of a long list of complaints finally getting a little to long. Finally there rarely is a need to ban a poster for a combination of reasons, such as lack of respect for fellow posters and The Rx. itself, displaying the worst kind of childish immaturity you can display as a poster, constantly being judgemental and insulting to the site, it's sponsers, other posters and the moderators here at The Rx. added to that you can include internet thievery, lieing, scamming, maipulating rules and in the end just plain gross ignorance. Since I have been head moderator there has only been a single case (no names mentioned) where a veteran poster displayed all of these violations, which considering the thousands of posters coming and going here at The Rx. is not that bad.
Recently, I had to ban a white supremicist newbie which I have no problems doing and also a group of usernames created by the same poster to spam the forum and just blatanly flame other posters. The poster starts out from different IPs to register but usually after a few days winds up at his base which where the IP match is made. He also starts out innocently with typical newbie questions that always get polite responses from posters and moderators but soon after turns to his real agenda which is just to see how many posters he can try to abuse. Then of course there were the touts who ghosted after being warned amoung other things.
Bottom line we do not like to ban posters and I know judged by my email a lot of you may think that certain posters should be banned but I am doing my best to warn flamers and abusive posters first, then useing post review with banning a last resort and only for the worst cases..
Thanks, wil..
Ocasionally a poster is banned after a vote in the The Rx. Board Room for generally being negative and abusive and personally I regret seeing this (Whalewagwe being one that comes to mind) happen, he probably is not anything like his posting persona in real life but his case was one of a long list of complaints finally getting a little to long. Finally there rarely is a need to ban a poster for a combination of reasons, such as lack of respect for fellow posters and The Rx. itself, displaying the worst kind of childish immaturity you can display as a poster, constantly being judgemental and insulting to the site, it's sponsers, other posters and the moderators here at The Rx. added to that you can include internet thievery, lieing, scamming, maipulating rules and in the end just plain gross ignorance. Since I have been head moderator there has only been a single case (no names mentioned) where a veteran poster displayed all of these violations, which considering the thousands of posters coming and going here at The Rx. is not that bad.
Recently, I had to ban a white supremicist newbie which I have no problems doing and also a group of usernames created by the same poster to spam the forum and just blatanly flame other posters. The poster starts out from different IPs to register but usually after a few days winds up at his base which where the IP match is made. He also starts out innocently with typical newbie questions that always get polite responses from posters and moderators but soon after turns to his real agenda which is just to see how many posters he can try to abuse. Then of course there were the touts who ghosted after being warned amoung other things.
Bottom line we do not like to ban posters and I know judged by my email a lot of you may think that certain posters should be banned but I am doing my best to warn flamers and abusive posters first, then useing post review with banning a last resort and only for the worst cases..
Thanks, wil..
Last edited:
