Originally posted on 12/24/2011:

Quote Originally Posted by shari91 View Post
The guy has slammed so many of my colleagues and bosses (ignore myself and the little dude)... at what point do you bring him back?
No one should ever be banned for "slamming" someone to begin with. Threats could be different, of course.


How many minutes/hrs do you want the people you pay if you're a forum owner to spend modding the same old crap over and over? Answering PMs, reported posts, infracting crap, etc...
John voted to bring him back, and so this seems like a forced argument. Behind it is the fact that you are very irritated (perhaps understandably) to be the one who has to read all of his stupid posts and as you read them, your dislike/hatred grows for the poster, and you simply want to solve the problem easily by perm-banning him. Are you really arguing the issue is "money wasted" on modding him? lol. Come on.


The people cheering for him I liken to those who stare at bus crashes... they know he won't last here so they want to see him blast the wall.
True, but not necessarily bad for the forum. In fact it's quite normal from my experience.


but you can't scare off posters simply because you're a wanker....Don't scare them off.
He was scaring posters off, really? Doubtful to say the least. Anybody who is so easily "scared" by a quite TYPICAL (they're on every board on the internets) forum attention whore/clown/troll can not be protected by you or anyone else anyway. If the "new poster" has any sense whatsoever they will immediately recognize him for his role and can choose to engage or ignore. (And the poster may feel "engaging" is fun, in fact. Some people like a degree of conflict on forums) You make it sound like there are hoards of new posters who are crucial to SBR's bottom line, but then they read one of batemans posts and FLEE to some other inferior forum. No. You just hate the guy and want him punished. Am I right?

Finally, let me just say that It's quite possible the guy deserves a perm-ban for his behavior, as I'm not too familiar with him at all. My "defense" is of a purely philosophical/general nature. But if John votes to let him back in, I doubt anything Bateman's said would override my general thoughts.