February 29, 2012 06:44 PM UTC

Should Pols Ban Repeat Offenders?

•  
• by: Aristotle

(With Tad in the penalty box once again… – promoted by Pita)

UPDATE FROM COLORADO POLS: It has always been our intention to use The Penalty Box as a cooling-off area and as a warning to behave nicely on these pages. But it appears as though The Penalty Box doesn’t always rehabilitate a Pols criminal. This is the third stay for Libertad in The Penalty Box, and there will not be a fourth. If you can’t follow the rules, then go somewhere else. Hopefully Libertad will not make any further transgressions, but if he does, he will be banned from Pols.

For more information on staying out of the joint, read our Posting Policies.

—–

OR: The Curious Case of Libertad.

Every regular Polster is familiar with Libertad. He has been part of the Pols family for years (can’t access his suspended account now, so I can’t see how long it’s been, exactly) and is known for conservative views, the quality of which ranges from factually wrong to incoherent. He was fond of posting poll information from Rasmussen, an outfit known for it’s conservative bias, until even they showed good approval ratings for President Obama. And he holds the distinction of being the only Polster to be sent to the penalty box more than once – and more than twice, too.

This really raises the issue of why he isn’t simply given the boot for good. At best, he’s colorful, a buffoon tolerated because his posts have entertainment value. At worst, he’s an insulting moron who has a long record of disruptive posts. Until his first trip to the penalty box, he was known for posting irrelevant videos that sometimes autoplayed. He’s also posted many mean-spirited accounts. And while his most recent banishment was for racism, I recall previous racist posts about our president, usually phrased in subtle enough ways that some folks here (notably Laughing Boy) believed I was overreacting when I called him on it.* I no longer think anyone will dispute it.

Last I checked, Pols has no rules regarding the use of racism in posting. (The TOS page seems to be down at the moment, so I can’t totally confirm this, but it’s not mentioned anywhere on the Pols Posting Policy page.) So it may be that Pols simply has no rules about it, and thus a temporary ban is their only real remedy. But again, we’re speaking of a polster who has earned three trips to the box, and had one of those stays extended when he registered a sockpuppet account to get around it, which essentially means that he’s had four temporary bans. This in a span of 16 months.

I should note that the Posting Policy Page defines banishment terms of 2, 5, and 10 days, and that ‘tad’s latest 3 day stay isn’t in conformity with what Pols has written.

When is it enough? Should polsters be allowed to remain with a record of disruption like this? Do these incidents add up to equal the transgressions that have led to previous permanent bans? Should Pols adapt a “three strikes” rule?

* I tried using google to find those earlier instances, but was unable. It’s unfortunate, but I can no longer remember the exact word he used. I will look again later – maybe I’ll remember what he actually said, which would make locating it easier.

 Loading ...