What just happened here?

[N C More]

I posted a link to an article at Space.com, about the abundance of water in space. Here's what happened. Perhaps I'm obtuse... what just happened here?

[xbck1]

Looks like they just went to the site at a bad time; the article is accessible for me. Perhaps somebody was doing some sort of server maintainance or something and fudged something briefly. I see stuff like that a lot.

[N C More]

Looks like they just went to the site at a bad time; the article is accessible for me. Perhaps somebody was doing some sort of server maintainance or something and fudged something briefly. I see stuff like that a lot.

No, I meant, how did Zarkov end up banned all of a sudden...it sure wasn't over an article about water in space!

[xbck1]

No, I meant, how did Zarkov end up banned all of a sudden...it sure wasn't over an article about water in space!

Oh, well then I have no idea!

[N C More]

I mean, as regards this on Zarkov's final post:

Last edited by Josh : Yesterday at 11:56 PM. Reason: still not being nice. you were warned both publically and privately.

[Van Rijn]

I mean, as regards this on Zarkov's final post:

[/i]

You can ask Josh, but it looks like Zarkov had made an unfriendly comment on your helpful response. Zarkov has also been on another thread here where you can get some idea of his personality:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=29190

Back on the BABB he promoted the idea that there is no water in space, but only hydrogen peroxide. We had a veerrrrrrrrrrrrry long discussion over this, and it wasn't the first or last forum where he took this idea. I don't think he would find any answer suitable unless it said there wasn't any water in space.

[Sleepy]

No, I meant, how did Zarkov end up banned all of a sudden...it sure wasn't over an article about water in space!

He was previously banned from the BABB. See here for some background.

[N C More]

Oh! Ok, I get it now. Zarkov didn't *like* the content of the Space.com article so he told me to ....*beep* .... and that, along with his behavior in other threads, resulted in his banning. I understand it now. Oddly enough, I really was trying to be helpful, he seems to be so misinformed about a variety of things.

[Josh]

Sorry for the confusion N C More. But yes, Zarkov wasn't abiding by the one rule we presently have here on BAUT - Be Nice. I could see you were trying to be helpful but his response wasn't in kind. As these guys have pointed out he's been playing up in a number of threads and ways and he'd been warned.

Cheers,

Josh

[collegeguy]

Hadn't Zarkov been banned in the BABB after an unkind argument alleging that Deep Impact would divide the comet Tempel 1 into several parts that could probably crash with earth?

[Wolverine]

Yes.

[peter eldergill]

I don't understand...the previous board would automatically say "banned" for all of the posts of the banned poster. This hasn't happened to Zarkov, unless I'm totally missing something here. The given link shows he's banned but not others..

Pete

[peter eldergill]

Oops. Sorry

Got some posters mixed up.....

Never mind!

[Fram]

I do prefer to see the comment he made that lead to him being banned, instead of an edited version. It's easier to trust the moderators that way. The BA worked that way on the BA forum, and that didn't give any problems I recall.

Spam and so on is a different thing, I have no problem that the Estonian version of the Nigerian scam that turned up yesterday has been deleted. But with posters involved in a discussion, I prefer seeing it all and being able to judge for myself.
It also helps me to learn what is deemed appropriate and what inappropriate in a discussion. Is calling someone else's theory 'hogwash' or 'crap' acceptable? Is telling them to go and study before discussing something appropriate? Is telling someone to keep his fundamentalist ideas to himself acceptable? Patience is a virtue, but sometimes you have to be realistic with people as well and tell them e.g. that they don't have a theory but a wild guess at best.

[Archer17]

I do prefer to see the comment he made that lead to him being banned, instead of an edited version. It's easier to trust the moderators that way. The BA worked that way on the BA forum, and that didn't give any problems I recall..

That depends on what was deleted Fram. If I suddenly went nuts and did a *#$@&!!! number on you I wouldn't expect my post to be preserved in it's entirety for posterity. While there's a natural curiosity as what was posted to result in the partial deletion of Zarkov's post and his subsequent banning, I think Josh's explanation in the edit sufficed. If you are even remotely familiar with Zarkov, this wasn't exactly unexpected.

Regarding "trusting" the moderators, I don't think the BA could've done any better with his selections and from what I've seen from the mods Mr. Cain selected from the former UT board, they measure up as well. I don't think any of them would act unilaterally out of spite.

[Josh]

No, we wouldn't. and if we were to, the decision would be reversed by the other mods and admin and our mod status would be revoked ...

[Eroica]

I do prefer to see the comment he made that lead to him being banned, instead of an edited version. It's easier to trust the moderators that way. The BA worked that way on the BA forum, and that didn't give any problems I recall.

But if you could see it, then so could anyone visiting this site - and that includes children. If the moderators or administrators deem the content unsuitable for tender eyes, they're quite right to delete it.

On the BABB "bad words" were automatically deleted.

(I do agree with you, however, that insulting remarks, ad hominems, etc, should not be deleted.)

[Fram]

I didn't intend this to be a insult against the mod in case, or a suggestion that he was acting unreasonablt or so. It's just that it's very easy for people to say "I was banned for nothing", and an outsider (or a newbie) will have no means to see that that isn't true. I have no problems with Zarkov being banned, BTW.