SaidIt Survey: Ban /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot or keep them around?

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Strike 1 for name calling. I'm sorry if you don't understand the rules here, but I'm done trying to explain them to you.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

You know if you give Jason strikes for acting retarded that just places a ticking clock on his time here cause it's not like he is going to suddenly act like a normal human being.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

If him and socks continue to flaunt the rules for forever, then I'm the retard. They can come back under new accounts if they choose to do so.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

That's one way of looking at it. Instead consider you're the primary internet caregiver of a bunch of retarded babies. You can warn us not to be retarded but we can only do so much with all these naked women, piles of cocaine, and boxes of the finest wine in our parent's basement.

I think the only reason to ban someone is that they're a clear and present danger to the well being of the site. Skeeter's insane trolling efforts come to mind, although really, if his goal was to hurt the site, I think he actually brings people in. He may be a train wreck, but people love train wrecks.