See, I’ve got an interesting conflict here.
Several years ago, I did a store appearance in England, and this guy showed up. He did so solely and specifically to berate me and my work, informing me loudly and repeatedly that everything I wrote sucked. He then proceeded to stand there and berate people standing on line, challenging their intelligence and taste because they were fans of my work. This went on for about twenty minutes, with the store clerks being either too polite or too afraid of the guy to do anything, until I personally threw the guy out because he was bothering the hëll out of people.
I find myself in a similar situation now. On the one hand, I am a firm believer in free speech. On the other hand, some folks have been e-mailing me privately and asking me to make certain individuals on this board go away, arguing that having them around is akin to having a guy walk into the middle of your living room and lighting his own farts.
So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they’re obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don’t like the opinions of the vast majority of posters) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?
If you vote “yes,” I’ll let them stay. If you vote “no,” we’ll try to find a way to boot them permanently. Not quite sure how, but it’ll be interesting to try and find a way…and I bet we’d have *lots* of people volunteering to help find it.
You guys decide if I should vote people off the island.
PAD
• 
The idealistic part of me wants to say “no.”
But after seeing the same type of people do the same thing on your AOL board, I’m just so tired of it that I really feel like I should say “yes.”
But with a “who has time for this crap anymore?” qualifier.
Uh…sorry, tired….reverse that “yes” and “no.”
clearly don’t like the opinions of the vast majority of posters
Wow, I didn’t realize that only people who like the opinions of the vast majority of posters should post here. I would say “Yes”, that does contradict your commitment to irresponsible, oops I mean free speech.
Geez…now we’ll all get paranoid that someone is targeting us specifically! =)
I don’t know what level of annoyance qualifies for ejection. If someone comes here just to call us all idiots and use potty-talk, then they obviously should go. But I remember getting seriously dissed by some people on the newsgroup when I asked about a starship class in the Captain’s Table NF book.
There are those of us who hold PAD-works to a higher standard because he’s among our favorite writers. There are also those who think PAD should never EVER be questioned and anyone who does so is a fool, bordering on an infidel.
So what’s the level of annoyance we’re examining? And how can such a diverse group of fans be the final arbiter when we can’t agree as to what makes a good fan?
Wow, I didn’t realize that only people who like the opinions of the vast majority of posters should post here.
Okay…you DO realize that what you just wrote is wholly unrelated to what I just said, right? I mean, zero relevance? You sliced one part of the sentence out and focused on that while ignoring the context and produced an entirely new sentiment that not only doesn’t represent what I said, but with which I completely disagree.
Over time, any number of people have posted refuting opinions and they have been well phrased, intelligent, and stimulating.
Vote “yes” if you wish, but please understand that you completely misrepresented what I said. Whether you did it inadvertently or maliciously, I don’t know, but you did it.
PAD
So what’s the level of annoyance we’re examining? And how can such a diverse group of fans be the final arbiter when we can’t agree as to what makes a good fan?
They’re not, Matt. It’s my name on the board. I’m the final arbiter. Buck stops here and all that.
What I’m looking for are simple, intelligent thoughts as to whether it would be hypocritical to boot people I feel are simply showing up, not to contribute, but to be destructive.
PAD
No. He’s free to find another forum to speak (where, admittedly, he’ll probably rant about what a jerk you are for kicking him off), or create his own forum for his many fans. Just as DC or Marvel don’t have to publish everything you write, you don’t have to continually give him a platform just so he can insult you.
(And considering he’s pretty much lighting his own farts, as you say, those fans may come in handy.)
And since by the way you phrased things it seems you don’t want this to become a referendum on any one person, I’ll refrain from saying how happy I’ll be when the little nitwit is gone.
Rob
Well, that depends on your committment to free speech. If you are taking a Supreme-Court-like stance, then yes, they should stay. The Supreme Court holds that almost all speech is protected to some degree or another.
What is NOT protected whatsoever is false/illegal/misleading commercial speech (no application here), obscenity (not to be confused with pornography) (also no application here because words CANNOT be obscene), libel (possibly depending on who is being berated… PAD = public figure and that is ok, other posters, no), Fighting Words (must be face-to-face so not here), and clear and present danger (again, not here).
So, where does that leave us? Back to the start actually. Ultimately this is YOUR board PAD and you can make up whatever standards you wish (be it strict scrutiny = highest form of protection, intermediate scrutiny = substantially related to an important government (in this case PAD website) interest, or a merely rationality (speech related to a legitimate purpose).
If it were my site and people were intentionally disparaging and harassing other posters, attacking them personally rather than their views and opinions they are basically committing libel and get the boot. If there are merely pestering and annoying in general, there is little question they have a “first amendment” right to do so. This is basically an electronic public forum (as opposed to private or quasi-private) forum which also, by Supreme Court standards, most all speech is protected and allowed.
In short, your site and your call. If some jerks are causing real fans and serious debaters from returning, you should probably boot them since they are interfering with your (and other) personal enjoyment and potentially revenue enhancing properties. However the moral conundrum, in my opinion should be decided as stated above: annoying and rude = let them stay
personally derisive to Joe Public = boot them
Vote “yes” if you wish, but please understand that you completely misrepresented what I said. Whether you did it inadvertently or maliciously, I don’t know, but you did it.
No malice on my part(well except for my dig on your free speech stance). With you adding that qualifier in parenthesis it honestly seems like you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the majority must only be here to iritate others.
PAD, your board, your call. It is humorous in the short term to see someone jump up and make a fool of themselves, but only for the short term. Then it just becomes sad.
Maybe some of these people will eventually grow up? Small chance, but there’s always hope. : )
I vote Yes, but with conditions. Perhaps a couple of public warnings(and private if they’re brave enough to sign their posts with their e-mail link). Then, if that doesn’t work, it’s time for the big ol’ boot.
As one of my former bosses once said, “This is not a democracy…”
The sad truth is the easiest, and usually the only permanent way to get people like that to leave and stay gone is to ignore their posts. Asine comments are DESIGNED to merit a response, just like trash-talk is designed to distract in sports.
Be a champion, rise above and ignore, but dont bother banning….you only give them more fuel for the fire.
so i guess i vote: yes.
A lurker has decided to chime in. Peter, I’m a huge beleiver in free speech, but this is your website… your property and we are your guests. If you feel like you have no choice but to throw out some people who are not behaving and came here soley for the purpose of annoying you and the other people who come here, they have the freedom to set up a website somewhere else. You’re not taking a freedom of speech away from anyone.
Just the way I feel.
No malice on my part(well except for my dig on your free speech stance). With you adding that qualifier in parenthesis it honestly seems like you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the majority must only be here to iritate others.
Only under the most strained of readings, particularly since the section you quoted was *from* the parenthetical. The sentence spoke of people who were “obnoxious and insulting” and then mentioned as an aside that it seemed they only came here because they disagreed with the liberal opinions expressed here. To read it as a blanket condemnation of anyone with more conservative leanings, you’d have to flipflop the whole sentence. To read it, literally, as “People come here who have other opinions, and they’re obnoxious and insulting.” Which isn’t what I said. At all.
PAD
Yes. Maybe that’s because I’ve yet to read entries that are nothing but obnoxious and insulting. In all cases I’ve observed I think people do try to make a point.
Looking at some recent postings, I disagree with the ideas behind some of them, and even more so with faulty logic, name-calling, non-sequiturs, obnoxiousness and insults.
But people have a point to make, however clumsily they go at it.
Occasionally, things will get out of hand. Just as public figure Bush must put up with more insults than a private person could be expected to, PAD should be willing to put up with a lot. (Which he has been doing.)
For all sides, I think it would make it easier to convince others if people didn’t antagonize each other too much.
BTW: PAD, I’m entirely happy with your entries and enjoy them a lot. This includes the responses they provoke.
Thomas
Have to concur with Donner. Sure, the First Amendment guarantees that THE GOVERNMENT cannot abridge our right to speak freely. PAD isn’t the government. He’s not even abridging anyone’s right to speak freely if he removes them from the board. As I have to remind my debaters on occasion, the First Amendment guarantees your right to speak; it makes no guarantees of an audience or a forum.
I don’t think it compromises your position at all, PAD. You can be pro-free speech and anti-@$$hole. So drop ’em from the board if they can’t behave (whoever the nebulous “they” are).
Dave
People abuse their free speech rights on the internet all the time. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and to express it freely as they wish. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand that free speech also carries a responsibility. That responsibility, while not expressly stated, is to be polite and courteous to others.
To be rude, impolite, and insulting is usually a sign of thoughtlessness on the part of the speaker.
Ultimately, it’s your site, PAD. I’ll support whatever decision you make – but I do vote ‘no’.
I may be new here, but I haven’t noticed all that many obnoxious troll types. In fact, this is the most consistently polite message board I visit. But, I’ve never let being uninformed stop me from rendering an opinion…
Maybe I’ve got an unusually broad interpretation of free speech, but I don’t see a conflict. People have the right to say, think, and write anything they want, but there’s no inherent, absolute right to have THEIR comments posted on YOUR site. “Entertainment Weekly” doesn’t print letters that are poorly written or completely nonsensical, and Howard Stern hangs up on callers who are boorish and off-topic. They’re not infringing on anybody’s rights, and neither, I think, would you be.
SEAN
A belief in free speech does not mean a responsibility to offer a forum for every speaker. They have access to the web. No doubt there are “we hate PAD” boards out there where the particularly vitriolic will find many ardent admirers for their spew.
Does every fan letter Marvel receives for a letter page see print? No. Is that censorship? No. Because while the person has the right to write the letter in the first place Marvel is under no obligation to print every one.
Are book publishers indulging in censorship because they turn down manuscripts? No.
And you have that same right.
There are two basic questions that you have to ask yourself when considering this concern “what is the purpose of this board?” and “who is the board for?”
I don’t think it is hypocritical for you to ban/boot/kick/heavily ridicule people that you personally find offensive. I think the slope becomes a little slipperier if you are banning people on someone elses recomendation. Because then you can get into issues of who you choose to listen to or don’t listen to…
Of course you could just —REST OF MESSAGE ERASED BY MODERATOR—
(just kidding)
Mike.
A lot of people watched the Super Bowl half-time show and complained about the content.
My question to them is: Why didn’t you change the channel?
My question to those posters who come here to cause trouble is: Why do you bother to come here? Do you value your own time so little that you are willing to spend it here arguing? You aren’t going to change Peter’s opinion on very many subjects. Attacking him is such a waste of your time. Wouldn’t you rather spend that time doing something constructive?
I am now 50 years old. I am definitely closer to the end than the beginning. My only regret in life is the time that I wasted that could have been used for better things. I mourn for that lost time.
Peter, as for banning posters, that’s a tough call. If it were my site, I would have booted a couple people because of their un-civil attitudes toward the host and other posters. If it were my site, the rule would be that you can call yourself an idiot, but not the other posters.
Kicking a poster off the site is not in conflict with free speech. Sane, rational comments should be welcomed. Flamers may need to be extinguished.
It’s the hight of rudeness to walk into someone’s living room and take a dump in the comfy chair.
It’s a slippery slope of course, but it’s the Mount PAD and you get to decide who climbs it.
As for the HOW question, I recommend you talk with David Henderson from Psiphi.org about the Irelan Solution.
I moderate a message board myself and I am of the opinion that if someone comes to the message board and continually posts statements and thoughts that are insulting to the hosts, their beliefs or their ideas then they get reprimanded. If they continue then they are banned. My message board is not where I want to go to be insulted…I will see my friends personally and let them have that honor.
Ban them is my vote.
As someone who can be and often is a jerk, I’d vote no.
We all have our moments, some more than others.
I don’t like being judged as a person because of those moments and I’ve read enough internet message-board/blog-comment crap to know that it’s not good policy to do so. Oftentimes it just ends up being an inacurrate judgement of who people are and what exactly they stand for.
I know that I know exactly none of you. I’ve read some of Luigi Novi’s stuff in a faux-plethora of periodicals. I like PAD’s comics and most of his tastes.
No matter what happens, we should all remember that there is no free speech whatsoever here. This speech is paid for by PAD and allowed to temporously exist because of PAD. It’s not free.
I believe that people whom would post calm, rational stuff but slip shouldn’t be branded for their slip.
I also don’t want to PAD to invoke his right to delete anyone whom he disagrees with. I don’t know if he would or not. I can read every entry here, but I don’t know the guy.
CJA
I’ll vote that it’s completely Peter’s call, under the theory that someone’s right to swing their fist ends when it hits my nose. It’s his site and board, and whatever rules he cares to make are appropriate for his site.
[But as a long Usenet veteran who’s wished for the ability to do it, I’d personally boot the trolls, since it’s under no stretch of the imagination a free speech issue]
Peter,
You have every right to ban posters if all they do is insult and curse and so forth. Obviously, I’ve never noticed in your writings the impulse to censor people merely for disagreeing with you, even when they used the most threadbare fallacies and inconsistencies in doing so. When the worst a poster does is make a poorly argued statement, it’s easy to simply show where their logic doesn’t hold up, as you, I, and others have done many times here, such as with Kenwise on this board. Censorship isn’t necessary.
What confuses me, on the other hand, is that aside from that thread a month or so ago in which one poster deliberately misinterpreted comments by myself, Tim Lynch, and others in order to accuse us of anti-Semitism, and tried to position himself as your personal representative in order to accuse us of insulting you and your God, I haven’t really noticed any trolls or lurkers here. Even in that case, when I asked you to make a statement to let that person know that he was not your personal mouthpiece, and that his position was not necessarily yours, you decided to handle it quietly with him, and that’s fine.
So which posters are you talking about? I don’t want it to look like I’m trying to get you to name names or anything, but are there any posters in particular you’re thinking of? I mean, yes, some people have been insulting when disagreeing with you or the other posters here, but I haven’t noticed anyone who comes here solely to do so. I could be wrong, though.
Peter David: So the question is: Does throwing people out of this website because they’re obnoxious and insulting (and apparently come here solely to irritate people since they clearly don’t like the opinions of the vast majority of posters) present a conflict with my commitment to free speech?
Kenwise: With you adding that qualifier in parenthesis it honestly seems like you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the majority must only be here to iritate others.
Luigi Novi: Only because you seem to have a problem comprehending what you’re reading, Ken.
The only people he is referring to in that statement is people who are obnoxious and insulting because they don’t like the opinions of the majority of posters. He made no statement on whether people who don’t like the opinions of the majority of posters act that way. He’s talking about people who exhibit a behavior because of a feeling they have, and you’re essentially accusing him of saying that all who have the feeling exhibit the behavior.
I vote yes, because this is not a public space, and the only good online communities are the ones that self-police and aren’t afraid to offend people they don’t want around anyway.
That said, I find it very easy to ignore the trolls in the format this is in. They aren’t as visible as, say, on Usenet. Or as they think they are. Most times, I read the main post, and maybe skim the comments. And I rarely come back to a post after I’ve first read it, so any trollage after that isn’t even seen. I imagine I’m not unusual in this respect.
Admittedly, I’m a relative newcomer to this space, but I vote “no” — you’re entirely within your rights to establish and enforce minimum standards of courtesy in the comment-stream.
I’ll echo and amplify Scavenger’s comment upthread. There’s a long-standing tradition in cyberspace that defines author-hosted conversation spaces — CompuServe forums, GEnie author topics, SFF Net newsgroups, personal-domain blogs — as “virtual living rooms” wherein the host author has the final say on what’s kosher and what isn’t.
For the most part, it’s a power and privilege that gets wielded with a very light hand — and it’s my experience that political discussions in author-hosted fora have been more civilized, on average, than those in general-issue newsgroups and Web-forums.
But there’ve been exceptions, and I think it’s only right and proper to hold visitors to a hosted forum to a basic level of politeness. Just as one occasionally needs to take a party guest’s car keys and call him a taxi, one occasionally needs to show a sufficiently discourteous poster the virtual door.
well, this is your “place” and we are all your guests. to that extent, a general warning should go out, then you are free to give them the boot.
Er, correction to my last vote – that’s a NO. (Misread it briefly as yes, kick them out. But it’s No, don’t ignore them.) Sorry about that.
I am of the opinion that the BanHammer should be a potential method to resort to, but it should be the last resort, and should not be undertaken lightly.
We all hear about ban-happy boards where the moderators run around altering posts and banning people who chat and then there’s no real discussion since everyone’s afraid to speak their mind.
And there’s the other side of the spectrum which is boards where people run rampant, post flamebait, get in long-tireless arguments about brain-draining stupid banalities and no one feels they can have a conversation without it being interrupted by someone beating his own personal drum.
I’ve been on tons of boards, some of which have slid between these two extremes over a matter of months, and neither extreme’s palatable. I like the notion of a board where someone who steps over the line will be spoken to, kindly at first and then not-so-kindly, and that the option of removing a really, really over-the-line individual is there. It’s like a cop’s gun or club – it does most of its work when it’s in the holster.
So I vote “yes, PAD, you can boot people off the board” – but I strongly, strongly recommend you be careful about it, since it can turn into a real slippery slope. Just let folks know that the possibility of it is there.
I think it is important to remember that this is NOT a public forum. It is a private forum–Peter’s, to be specific–that the public has been invited to. No one (save Peter) has the right to post here. We have the privelage to do so.
It doesn’t conflict a commitment to free speech to ask someone unwelcome to leave your home. The same applies here for Peter. I think that someone would have to be very, very bad for it to even come to such a drastic measure but Peter should not feel guilty about taking that step if it is needed.
–Jeff
My father once told me that you can’t argue with an idiot, or the closed minded. and clearly that’s what your dealing with here but the web is supposed to be free and for everyone, learn to tune them out and forget them…
But then you mention that it’s akin to lighting farts in your livingroom, if I was a part of the fun and merryment that would be one thing but if there as bad as you say they are then they wouldn’t have been invited to begin with…
“I don’t evy your position Captain”
Ernie
Kick them off. This is your site, and you should have the right to kick them out if they step over the line and insult your other guests. Show them the door, Bounce ’em.
I vote yes, let the poorly behaved stay.
But. I have to agree, I don’t think that it is a free speech issue. No one has a right to be provided a venue for their free speech. It isn’t about disagreeing with what may be the majority of the posters here. It is about how people are treated and how people conduct themselves.
A well-reasoned and well-argued opposing point of view is of greater value than a series of agreements. I could be mistaken but I didn’t have the impression that PAD’s ego was so stricken as to want nothing but sycophantic praise in the postings here.
Have you considered a system of warnings and eventual suspension for a few days or a week when they can’t resist the urge to be excessively and repeatedly obnoxious?
cal
I’ll go with whatever your decision is, though I should point out that usual arguement is that you should traet the board you’re on as if it was the host’s home.
Likewise if someone is coming on heer just to insult and berate people who disagree with him, then that person is making it that much harder to seperate the signal from the noise, and problem almost out of control online anyway.
No, it doesn’t conflict.
I run a website and game (read PBEM RPG writing platform) myself, PAD. I have banned people from my website before, but do I feel bad about it because of the first amendment? Again, no.
The reason is: We’ll all get along fine and their rights will be observed and honored, AS LONG AS, they don’t interfere with OTHERS’ rights. If someone wants to be a disruptive jáçkášš, then they can find somewhere else to do it and not interfere with my game’s players’ rights.
It may sound harsh and cold, but in the end, the people who depend on me for keeping our game website and forum updated, do NOT have to put up with people who’s only interest is being a pain in the nether regions.
To echo most sentiments, it’s your call. Sad as it is, virtually any political discussion these days (online or otherwise) is simply a pìššìņg match. Minds don’t change, people just shout whichever party line they’ve chosen to follow. Sooner or later the áššhølëš show up and ruin the fun for everybody. I don’t think there’s any conflict in booting the assclowns, though ignoring them is usually the best way to go.
Based on the way you’ve defined free speech in the past, it could pose a conflict…
But as for me, I would’ve thrown those guys out a long time ago and not felt a twinge of conscience.
People’s rights to swing their fists stop at the ends of other people’s noses. If you can’t comport yourself like a reasonable person in someone else’s weblog, there’s no reason the other person has to put up with it.
(I find the Reasonable Person Principle fairly useful as a benchmark for things like posting commentary. “Would a reasonable person do this? No? Then why the heck am I doing it?” 😉
I vote “No”.
Free speech doesn’t mean you can be disrespectful to anyone you want, but some people have yet to understand this.
One: A free forum like this one should be treated as being a guest in someone’s house (in this case, PAD’s) and decorum and a fair amount of politeness to differing opinions should follow. Two: Outright rudeness, personal attacks/threats shouldn’t be tolerated. I can understand if, in the heat of debate, one slips and writes something out of turn. However, if this behavior is repeated frequently, and the offending person neglects to apologize for their mistake, then something should be done about it.
I think that (unless it’s costly and too much trouble) PAD should have the power to oust in extreme cases. But it should be used sparingly.
Nuke ’em — that did start as a fairly reasoned arguement about the nature of free speech versus responsiblity for ones statements, but its too late and my brain isn’t working. If them can’t play well with the other children then send them home.
I vote “no”, as in, ethics are not violated by bouncing the offender on his/her electronic keister.
I had this long rant written out on the topic, but a large number of more eloquent folks (such as Donner, Alan Coil, and Tom Galloway, just to name a very few) have beaten me to all the decent points I could have made. This is Peter David’s website, not Joe Nitwit’s site, and not the government’s site. Peter David is paying the bills here, and — just like on his private phone line, where a telemarketer’s right to speak about this handsome vacuum cleaner cannot be infringed by Mr. David’s right to not have him calling his phone against his wishes; just like in his mailbox, where a mass-mailer’s right to advertise her questionable organ enhancement treatment cannot be infringed by Mr. David’s right to not pay his ISP for bandwidth and storage of unwanted spam — only one party gets to decide what ought and oughtn’t appear on these pages. (Glenn Hauman, you’re included in that party, naturally.)
Heck, you don’t even need a reason to ban someone. Tired of all those esses which appear in Jarissa’s name? Feel like getting rid of everybody whose posting identity starts with the letter J on a Tuesday, as said persons might be the Gotham City weather reporters? Go for it. It’s your web site.
I do think that the reason so very many people continue to behave poorly online is because they “know” they won’t bring upon themselves any serious consequences. Forget banning, says I; track down their IP addresses, add in the timestamps of the naughtiness, and contact Joe Nitwit’s service provider with the rather vexed news regarding this violation of Terms Of Use. (Yes, Joe Nitwit, being — in technical terms — a jerk online is one of those things that lets the ISP take your money but deny you service anyway, legally. Sometimes, depending on the detail of the legalese, a TOU violator can even be charged for time and resources on the ISP’s server that were wasted in misbehavior.)
Any lawyer-types want to volunteer their services to Mr. David for the actual detail work with the ISP in question?
I also want to thank you for caring so strongly what we may think of you. You’re a good man. Now go forth, and put up with excessive crap no more.
Sheepish P.S.: Yeah, that’s the “short” rant. Sorry.
I’ve never regarded restriction of venue to be a restriction on freedom of speech. Anyone on this board is free to say whatever the hëll they want, just not necessarily here.
Oops – sorry, forgot to actually ‘vote’. I vote no.
It’s the hight of rudeness to walk into someone’s living room and take a dump in the comfy chair.
I recall, on another comics Forum, there was a ‘no handles’ rule. Someone came in with the handle “Remy Lebeaux” and said he had some concerns about the rule.
It was pointed out to him that this was like someone walking into your living room, seeing the No Smoking sign, lighting up, and then saying “you know, I’ve some concerns about this No Smoking thing.”
At the end of the day, this is surely Peter’s board, and we are guests. An element of courtesy to your host surely goes along with that.
Yes, they should be booted.
No. Absolutely, unequivocally, no.
Freedom of speech, to be sure, is a good and noble ideal, and I applaud your support for it. You have no obligation, however, to provide a venue for said speech.
You have every right, (and I would argue a responsibility) to exclude those whose apparent intention is to annoy, irritate, and disrupt rather than provide a meaningful contribution to what is, essentially, a specific-purpose private venue.
>My father once told me that you can’t argue with an idiot, or the closed minded. and clearly that’s what your dealing with here but the web is supposed to be free and for everyone, learn to tune them out and forget them…
Oh I dunno. One can cetainly argue with them, but all that really results in that is becoming winded for no good purpose. 😉
Do these insults, slams, etc serve any purpose. Is the poster’s intent to simply antagonize or to present his/her point of view which others may be missing due to his words. That’s the real difference between a flamer and a poor communicator attempting to talk, IMO.
As a counselor, I find it facinating to watch some people online act out in ways that their passive aggressive personalities will never allow them to do when face to face.
Short answer…. I’d look at the intent. (Has said perpetrator been informed or warned about his unwelcome behavior?)
I vote yes.
It’s your board and you have every right to ban anyone for any reason you wish. Doing so will, however, look hypocritical given your previous stances and give easy fodder to those who will the attack you for this inconsistancy.
Since the people in question are, at best, semi coherent in their arguments and succeeding only in making those opposed to some of your opinions look bad, I see no upside for you in banning them, as opposed to the obvious downside.
Anyway, what the hëll? Some goofy nerd who hides behind a made up name calls names and we can’t take it??? Why should anyone spend a minute worrying about what someone you don’t even know thinks? It’s not like you even respect the guy. Hëll, I love PAD’s writing and I suspect we’d have a great time throwing back a few brews at the loacl pub (if he’s into that sort of thing) but the fact that he disagrees with 9/10 of my political beliefs keeps me awake at night NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT. So why should anyone bother with what mommasboy@hotmail.com thinks?
Take a couple of toughenups and call me in the morning, as my granpappy would say when we came running into the house with broken bones and retinal detachments.