As a moderator on another forum i agree that IP bans do not work.
Short term user name bans seem to work which can lead to a permanent ban for repeated infractions. I assume mods have access to IP logs and can see where new members are coming from. (ie banned users trying to return)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(epithet)

Hmmmm... outside of the formal definition, this term may easily be interpreted as an insult...

As it should: Spam, personal attacks, and what have you can and are communicated over PM and this should also not be considered appropriate.

Now before some self appointed forum lawyer starts spouting off about private communications and what not, please understand this: Moderators usually do not have access to others PM's and an administrator will not grant that access unless a member specifically requests them to because they are receiving SPAM, or BS via PM.

A bunch of neo nazi, pro life, bible thumpin'. Pygmy Eskimo members can have all the private conversations they want between themselves. Their plans to rule the world and impromptu circle jerks can go on undisturbed unless someone reports them. Someone else can not report them unless they received an unwanted PM inviting them to participate or attacking them for not.

@ Flandry:

At this time... this is a good thing.

It is a shame that our previous self control is no longer effective and this task must now be undertaken.
Sadly, at this time I believe it is unavoidable.

Ok, fascistoid any better? What is the punishment for posting without searching first?

True, context is important. Moderators will take it into consideration.

Actually, you can find some in the Old Testament. And even harmless phrases can be harmful in certain contexts.

So in the end, sometimes we have to exercise human judgment.

Perhaps (probably?) I am missing something but in what context would there even be some benefit to someone "power posting" on T.M.O.? There aren't any benefits to higher post counts that I can think of.

In response to several comments past and future: obviously these are guidelines and will not be enforced to the letter every moment of everyday. Not only is that not practical but it's not desirable as there will always be some judgement involved and the idea is to promote a constructive environment, not to make everyone move in lockstep (or goose-step as some like to claim any time a hint of order is maintained by "artificial" means).

The point is to clarify what is and isn't appropriate so that the proper response can be determined by any moderator, thus enabling a team of moderators to act more consistently and with less overhead (overhead which you don't see because it is mulled over in the moderator forum). For this, a more detailed policy is needed than has existed, and this is it.

That's covered under "spamming".

I think he thought you were referring to a different clause. Signatures are subject to the same guidelines as forum posts--all communications on t.m.o. are covered--and therefore signatures that are inflammatory or offensive are indeed subject to moderation. The source of a quote doesn't inherently make it anything, however.


Edit: Texrat covered this already.
Regarding post count: it does contribute to "Karma". Never underestimate the ability of people to derive pleasure from the strangest of statistics, either.

I don't know about smileys, but as far as I know t.m.o has a minimum word limit when posting. I think it's ten. I once tried to post "Good luck" in a thread (not to get my post count up..I was just wishing him luck ) and it wouldn't let me. So smileys only shouldn't be possible..I think.

Is the limit restricted to an original post or does the word count include a quote?
I will test it and see.
Personally I'm against minimum word counts precisely for the reason you mention

edit: tested and it does not include the quote.