Re: utmt40
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never had a problem with this poster. But he's not a regular on my forum so I don't really care.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be a little more clear; I have seen him around a not-too-insignificant amount of time, and the posts that I have seen I never had a problem with.

But Dynasty reads OOT a lot more than I do, and his post in this thread does not surprise me.

Re: utmt40
 

[ QUOTE ]
I come in here everyday. But I hadn't responded because I've never heard of the guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: utmt40
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen him around a not-too-insignificant amount of time, and the posts that I have seen I never had a problem with.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wouldn't miss them either.

Re: utmt40
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen him around a not-too-insignificant amount of time, and the posts that I have seen I never had a problem with.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wouldn't miss them either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, no.

Re: utmt40
 

I sent him the email.

Re: utmt40
 

He posting under a new name and has PM'd me about it.

He's really apologizing a lot. So, I think it's better to keep him under the utmt account where, hopefully, he'll be better restrained.

I'm reinstating the utmt account and told him it's a last chance. His alternate account has been banned.


This brings up another subject. What good is banning anybody when it's so easy to create a new account with a non-static IP address?

Re: utmt40
 

There's two things. If people don't care about their actual username and are willing to create multiple accounts just to cause trouble, there's not much we can do. This is why there are so many moderators. For people who are attached to their user id, or if they use their own name, a banning is effective in keeping their identity away.