Now that the dust has settled hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Let us reexamine this whole situation with F.B.D.’s banning. First, we must acknowledge the fact that heated words have been exchanged and members have been banned. The moderators, unsurprisingly, have acted in solidarity in standing firm on F.B.D.’s ban. It is important to point out that the arguments and flamings, beyond what can be considered productive dialog, were neither condoned nor encouraged by F.B.D. himself. Indeed, quite the opposite, F.B.D. discouraged such transpirations. Therefore, the actions of our fellow Sherdog members should not impact the decision to rescind F.B.D.’s ban. With that being said, we must remember what has caused the conflict in the first place: An over excessive punishment to an unintentional breaking of the rules.
If it is the mods position that there is to be a zero tolerance policy, then surely there are a myriad of users browsing and posting this very second, who should be immediately banned. It is obvious that such a policy is unjust and unwise when considering its enforcement is nearly impossible with the number of moderators and posters on Sherdog at any given time. In the absence of an unenforceable zero tolerance policy, decisions must be, and are indeed in current practice, open for a case by case consideration. As moderators you have the power to examine the evidence of the infraction in question, as well as the character of the individual as evidenced by their posting history and contributions to the forums. I believe that if you exercise these powers in this case, you will be compelled to reinstate F.B.D.
The reasons for F.B.D.’s banning as stated by several moderators are that:
1. He had multiple accounts on his IP.
2. He created threads containing gibberish within the fight forums
3. Mods received several complaints about the “James Thompson WarWagon” and it’s
subsequent threads.
The 1st charge should be considered in the following way; Were these alternate accounts used in a malicious fashion to troll the boards? Decidedly the answer is no. F.B.D. has indicated that he is still unclear about the origins of these alternate accounts. If any alternate accounts result in a ban, no matter what the purpose or origin of the account, then an immediate IP sweep, and subsequent mass bannings are in order. What about people who are roommates, who have separate accounts but are on the same IP?
The 2nd charge is he created threads with gibberish in them. Simple logic as well as an examination of F.B.D.’s posting history, would bring to bear the fact that such action is highly out of character for F.B.D.. It is possible that F.B.D.’s account was compromised, as it has been on other online forums. Finally, logic would dictate that if F.B.D. wanted to create random gibberish threads, why would he not use one of the alleged, aforementioned alternate accounts on his IP? Surely he would use his “troll accounts” to create troll threads.
The 3rd charge should be thrown out right away, as F.B.D. was not responsible for the bulk of the “James Thompson WarWagon” threads which were created in forums in which they do not belong, and instead told members NOT to create threads about James Thompson in the inappropriate forums. He should not be held responsible for the actions of others, especially when those actions are the exact opposite of what he has stated.
It is evident that F.B.D. does not deserve to be banned. If the concepts of justice, and the idea of the punishment fitting the crime, are those to which you subscribe, then you must heed this appeal to reason, you must reinstate F.B.D. with dubs. Surely this punishment is more fitting with the circumstances. If your answer to the questions raised in this post is “Sherdog does not have to be just, and what the mods say goes no matter what,” then Sherdog is not a place that I would like to be associated with, and I respectfully ask to be banned. However, I would ask for a response first. Mods, do what you know is right, reinstate F.B.D..
haha
FREE F.B.D.!!!!1
