Has The Recent Bans of Some Controversial Members Made SF Less Interesting

[Mr. Moo]

Underhanded/backhanded compliments: keeping SF fun since 2005.

 

[JensenH]

Okay, back to the topic, which is discussion about whether too much banning is detracting.

I have been vague about the identities of the banned members and those whom I find hypocritical and cliquish because I want this to be a discussion on general terms, not particular individuals.

Once names are named, fans and detractors will argue endlessly about that individual and derail the thread -- which is not my desire.

 

[dragon8]

Whatever happened to that costume designer Kozinn or something similiar to that?

 

[JensenH]

Originally Posted by dragon8

Whatever happened to that costume designer Kozinn or something similiar to that?

Don't know. I do notice that there have been more bans in recents months than before.

 

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by JensenH

Don't know. I do notice that there have been more bans in recents months than before.

It is always sad to see someone being banned but in some cases it is necessary...

I have heard one or two tales of extreme stalking and that's not acceptable.

There is a line in the sand we mustn't ever cross...

I don't know why Spalla has been banned for example.

 

[aj_del]

^^ of the luca rubinacci most tacky thread

 

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by aj_del

^^ of the luca rubinacci most tacky thread

What did happen?

He can't be banned for finding him tacky ?

Must be worse than that.

 

[JensenH]

Originally Posted by lasbar

It is always sad to see someone being banned but in some cases it is necessary...

I have heard one or two tales of extreme stalking and that's not acceptable.

There is a line in the sand we mustn't ever cross....

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by lasbar

I don't know why Spalla has been banned for example.

Neither did he. Apparently he was given no warning before he was banned.

Originally Posted by aj_del

^^ of the luca rubinacci most tacky thread

The timing does make it appear that way.

 

[aj_del]

Spalla started that thread, thereafter L Rubinacci saw that thread and made a mention of that in an interview with a NY newspaper/magazine and that article was the topic of another thread. Something like that.

 

[aj_del]

This +

Originally Posted by gdl203

/ thread Awful taste and obnoxious attitudes is a pretty nasty combination. The place is run by annoying and loud clowns. Hard to get on board with that. And to think that we were making fun of the Cruiserification of AAAC - ironic that we got worse. That we're known to wsj blog readers for the inane rants of a deranged and poorly dressed bozo is symptomatic. I disagree with a lot of the answers saying nicely that it's about repeat topics and quality of content. I think it's about the posters and the tone. dopey, Manton, vox, etc... were always happy to give answers or updated views on repeat topics. That's not it.
+ THis resulted in

 

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by aj_del

Spalla started that thread, thereafter L Rubinacci saw that thread and made a mention of that in an interview with a NY newspaper/magazine and that article was the topic of another thread. Something like that.

I don't think Luca must be that bothered about it..

He has been heavily promoted on SF by a lot of senior members and that is always bringing some heavy handed reactions from certain people.

I'm surprised by the all Rubinacci saga...

I personally prefer his Dad's style but when you live by the sword , you will die from it...

Exposure has been some shortcomings..

 

[Don Carlos]

Foo has a clique? That is news to me. He's always struck me as something of a lightning rod on SF, who has just as many critics as he has supporters. A typical Foo thread is marked less by fawning consensus over Foo's enlightened contributions to humanity, and more by bitter and extended argument over some triviality or another.

There is groupthink on SF, but any cult of Foo -- if it exists -- is not its greatest example.

Full disclosure: I like Foo, warts and all. In my estimation, he is precisely the right sort of controversial for SF. He has balls, and he takes unique and outlying stands on sartorial matters. He's also a cantankerous little bastard sometimes, and he sweats the small stuff. All of these things make him very human and very interesting, which is a quality I find lacking among many others on SF.