I agree, BTW.

If you start complaining about comments I made 3 years ago (heck, 3 weeks ago) the committee members should wonder what your motives are. I'm good, but I doubt I'm so good that a comment I made 3 weeks ago could have rendered you incapable of typing an e-mail for 3 weeks. A reasonably intelligent committee member (and if they aren't reasonably intelligent then they aren't trustworthy) would see that you aren't trying to help make AN a better place by calling my questionable comments to task, rather your goal is a nefarious attempt to get me kicked out because you are an evil person bent on vengance.

Good folk don't like to be manipulated by vermin like that. I'm willing to place my faith in the inate goodness of humanity and the kindness of 4 unnamed individuals.

God I'm screwed.

The irrational part, in my opinion, is someone personally believing that on an Internet forum s/he has any rights to exist as a user...that somehow, free speech is being squelched if comments are deleted or bannings happen...that being a member and "having a voice" on a forum that another private citizen owns and operates, for profit, is somehow a priveldge that goes without saying.

This is not a critic of your particular reply; I'm just using your reply as a segue.  I, myself, had earned a CGV in 2007...making mine one of the 19 for the year.  To be honest, what I had written should have earned me a temporary ban instead of a mere CGV.  So what did I do even before getting the violation, I banned myself.

The CGV policy in this forum is very generous.  In my opinion, it can be too generous in some instances.  The comical part of all this is that people still find reason to complain about these policies being too tough and spend way too much time contemplating the "what ifs".  Sal linked to an iteresting user-behavior policy that has some merits.

And each earned many, many "strikes 2.9" before the trigger was pulled. There has literally never been a casual "oops, that's #3" banning. reztips and oaktoon were very controversial and were given multiple private warnings after declining to change their behavior upon being given a second "strike".

The purpose of the CGV system is to say "shape up or ship out" to those who break the rules multiple times. Most choose to "shape up," which is great - they stay and they don't break the rules.

Certainly a lot of hullabaloo for not very many strikes and bannings.

It seems clear (at least to me) that CGV adjudication, however unfair or vendetta-driven, hasn't had much of a dampening effect on the discourse. Maybe there are lots of posters out there who'd contribute more if only they didn't feel so persecuted, but I kinda doubt it.

is the realization that it's OK for other people to be wrong. It's not a depressing conclusion; it's liberating.

If you're like me, you'll find that some time around your mid-30s. I don't know how old you are, but you sound a lot like I did when I was about 24.

for re-posting a comment that was found to be in violation of the CVGs.

Decisions decisions...

Seriously though, what's with the pity party? You feel like every time you do a certain something you get hammered for it. Here's a thought, stop doing that certain something. "Hey, it was meant as a joke!" If no one laughs maybe it's not a very good joke. Eventually, if you keep telling the same joke and no one ever laughs you should probably pull it from your routine.

That's not an issue of violating free speech, its accepting that what you're trying to say isn't carrying to the masses as you wish it would.

I understand that you don't like the idea of looking over your shoulder when you write. Well, maybe your style needs that kind of outside editorial overview to smooth out your message. What's more important to you, getting the point of your message across or saying whatever you want however you want?

I won't go point by point, because I can tell the rabbit hole is not too far away. I'll just say a few quick things:

1] I really enjoy 95% of your posts. I'm glad you write as much as you do.

2] Sometimes you are unnecessarily asshole-ish.

3] It is very difficult to never, ever lapse into unnecessarily asshole-ishness.

4] It is not, however, difficult to keep unnecessarily asshole-ishness to a minimum.

5] Non-asshole-ishness should not impinge upon your ability to effectively counter unsound arguments.

6] You do a much better job of #4 recently. I think probably lots of people appreciate that. And I'll bet it's really not so dramatic and excruciating as you make it out to be.

I know exactly what you mean about not wanting to have to be "looking over your shoulder", and I know what it feels like to have people think you're being obnoxious and attacking them when you really don't feel like you are at all.

I disagree with 74mk when he says it's not that hard to tone it down. No, it is hard, when you're just being yourself, speaking earnestly and in good faith, and when you cause offense it's not only unintentional but you really don't even understand why the other person is upset. I get that. It took me half my life to become comfortable debating in a forum without inadvertently irritating someone (especially a certain sort of someone), and even now I still get in trouble sometimes. So no, I don't think it's an easy lesson to learn. It's a hard lesson, but it's a good one.

One suggestion that I think will help you in the immediate term: I don't know exactly what comments of yours were reported for strikes, but I strongly suspect that the ones that turn people against you -- both reported and unreported -- are the squabbles that go back and forth several times. You know, where someone says something and you respond, then he responds back getting in another little dig, so you feel like you need to set the record straight, and then he does it again, and it goes on and on answering every point until the argument collapses from exhaustion.

Those are the ones you need to let go of. At any given point in the conversation there's going to be something the other guy has said that feels like it shouldn't go unanswered. Maybe he said something about you that's unfair. And maybe it is unfair, but the reality is you're not going to make it any better by correcting the record.

I don't know poker well enough to make the perfect metaphor, but surely there's a situation where at each step you're facing a loss that you don't feel like you should have to concede, since you didn't do anything wrong, but if you stick around it's not going to get any better, so better to just let it go and move on to the next hand. Maybe it'll help if you think of it like that.

you need to be carefull with belittleing people.

For all your hardwork, time and effort in making "us" the number one fan blog on the net. It is always comforting to know that there is a place for us crazy A's fans to congregate and encourage each other on those cold lonely nights when the fog rolls in and obscures the view of bad baseball and to celebrate when our bunch of misfits overperform this season.