Banning/Suspending Posters

[Solon]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

I didn't read the real report but saw the summary in Freakonomics.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

That is fascinating. It makes sense.

[beefytee]

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

I had this explained to me my freshman year by Officer Wayne at freshman orientation as rationalization to why the fine is something like $300 for throwing a snowball. They found that students didn't care even if it was a $50 fine. They would do it anyway and pay the fine.

[TripletDaddy]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK lol. All this over four days? Nevermind.

Better yet, it is all over 24 hours. That was the length of his original ban before he started creating dupe accounts.

[jay santos]

Lingo is not permanently banned. He will be back in 4 days now.

OK lol. All this over four days? Nevermind.

p.s. Lingo, I don't sympathize with you anymore. Shut up and take your four days.

[pelagius]

I'm a little behind the times. I'm just now picking up on this and skimmed through this thread.

I actually had a touch of pain reading this thread and especially Lingo's response Babs posted. I was one of the first (maybe THE first) non-troll BYU fan permanently banned from CB. I had invested a lot of time and emotion in that board, even though I wasn't the perfect poster according to Jefe and his mods. I didn't go home and cry and eat a quart of ice cream over it or anything, but it did hurt me and it was actually quite painful reading the message that I was permanently banned and realizing I was cut off forever from a community of BYU fans I had some level of affinity with.

I'm very disengaged from the particulars of this case and have no opinion on whether this banishment was right or wrong, but I'd like to throw it out there generally that I would hope permanent banishment would be a last resort after a well thought through process. I don't think that was the case at CB. I have faith in the board administrators here.

And Lingo, I never knew you that well and I don't know if you deserved it or not, but I sympathize with you. Hang in there.

Lingo is not permanently banned. He will be back in 4 days now.

[jay santos]

I'm a little behind the times. I'm just now picking up on this and skimmed through this thread.

I actually had a touch of pain reading this thread and especially Lingo's response Babs posted. I was one of the first (maybe THE first) non-troll BYU fan permanently banned from CB. I had invested a lot of time and emotion in that board, even though I wasn't the perfect poster according to Jefe and his mods. I didn't go home and cry and eat a quart of ice cream over it or anything, but it did hurt me and it was actually quite painful reading the message that I was permanently banned and realizing I was cut off forever from a community of BYU fans I had some level of affinity with.

I'm very disengaged from the particulars of this case and have no opinion on whether this banishment was right or wrong, but I'd like to throw it out there generally that I would hope permanent banishment would be a last resort after a well thought through process. I don't think that was the case at CB. I have faith in the board administrators here.

And Lingo, I never knew you that well and I don't know if you deserved it or not, but I sympathize with you. Hang in there.

[cougjunkie]

It wasn't my body, but the insult was directed at my sizable body. I was kidding with Mr. Incredible and said I had two guns. Lingo responded, unprovoked, with a moving gif of a very fat man shooting a pistol right in front of his belly (that shook when he shot like a bowl full of jelly). I didn't ask for him to be banned. I didn't say anything to any EC member or admin. They took it upon themselves to act on CUF's and my behalf. While I don't think he should be banned, I'm glad the guy is gone until he grows up.

Lingo, if and when you come back from the precipice of the Judge Dredd Long Walk, I hope you'll learn this lesson: don't take checkers to a chess match.

Or dont bring a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to a gun fight.

[wuapinmon]

Demeaning a person's body is about as low a thing as any of us can do.

It wasn't my body, but the insult was directed at my sizable body. I was kidding with Mr. Incredible and said I had two guns. Lingo responded, unprovoked, with a moving gif of a very fat man shooting a pistol right in front of his belly (that shook when he shot like a bowl full of jelly). I didn't ask for him to be banned. I didn't say anything to any EC member or admin. They took it upon themselves to act on CUF's and my behalf. While I don't think he should be banned, I'm glad the guy is gone until he grows up.

Lingo, if and when you come back from the precipice of the Judge Dredd Long Walk, I hope you'll learn this lesson: don't take checkers to a chess match.

[RobinFinderson]

Just a few overall points:

1. DDD, I agree with you that CUF will be more like a representative republic than a democracy. That is fine with me. I trust our wise Latina overlords, and have found them to be very considerate of those ideas coming up from we lowly peons. I consider a post like my inquiry in this thread to be a 'letter to my representative.' Good citizens write letters to their reps. We complain. We offer ideas. We do this because we care about the community.

2. People may take any form of pleasure they like from my self-portraits from Burning Man. They exist for the sake of hilariousness. Mock away.

3. Making people feel bad about their bodies really bugs me. This is true to the point that I generally don't participate in conversations that size up the relative physical attractiveness of celebrities. The idea that anyone here would try to make a brother or sister of CUF feel bad about their body is despicable. I personally think the EC has been generous with Lingo. I would have given him a much longer ban. Demeaning a person's body is about as low a thing as any of us can do.

4. Since I will probably contradict my point 3 at some point in my life, I will point out that I don't expect to be perfect about this, but I will try.

[Pheidippides]

But shouldn't it be a rule he should generally practice anyways?

Precisely.

[Sizzle]

'Cuz that's when he did the dumb stuff that got him the ban in the first place.

But shouldn't it be a rule he should generally practice anyways?

[Pheidippides]

Does anyone else wonder if Lingo isn't absolutely loving this?

The guy seems to love attention and is getting a good dose of it here.

If that's the case, the logical analysis is that he didn't receive enough of it as a child. So I feel bad for him and am willing to give him attention here, especially as long as it makes me laugh.

[byu71]

Does anyone else wonder if Lingo isn't absolutely loving this?

The guy seems to love attention and is getting a good dose of it here.

I think he is either brilliant beyond ex-ute's capability to frustrate and bug people or board wise he is at the maturity level of a 2 year old. Acting out and expecting no spanking or whatever punishment is politically correct these days.