I happen to enjoy much of the insight provided by miss_smartpants. Looking over her comment history on google I see that she has provided valuable contributions to a number of threads. I can also see that she can get passionate and longwinded on a topic, but that doesn't make her a troll.

Is there an appeal process to this public execution?

Man, now *I* wanna comment on the immorality of morning deals. Um .... God hates digital camcorders?

hehe, I'm sorry, I couldn't resist:

CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!

wikkit, I'm sure she can earn her way back in if she's as good as you insist.

i think you'll find that banned users just keep coming back. on my blog, i deal with that problem like this - banned people can still comment, but only *they* can see their comments. they don't even KNOW that they're banned. ;-)

I second the motion to unban/appeal miss_smartypants. Her arrogance/trollness was endearing in a sweet sort of Invader Zim sorta way.

Ben, is there a FAQ or list of Consumerist comment no-no's? The light would go out of my weekdays if I were to be banned from here! (Sad, ain't it.)

Hm. About 50% of her comments seem to be calling people, mainly the editor of this blog, out for "misquoting" her.

Anyway, I'm just glad I dodged the axe...

I happen to agree with the bans. Consider yourself applauded, Ben.

Wow! First Awesomist got banned from Gawker, now Ghost_of_Awesomist gets banned here. Cue Ghost_of_Ghost_of_Awesomist to show up on Friday.

Oh, and it is excessively easy to get back into the commenting fray, so no one should feel too bad for these people.

PHEW, survived yet another round of bans. I was very concerned.

That being said, what on Earth was the guy saying about morning deals? What exactly where the moral issues being raised. Can we bring that guy back so I can at least have some understanding of what his issue is? I'm truly intrigued now and I'd like to subscribe to his newsletter.

Oh, morning after pills. Nevermind.

See, on the forum I operate, we have this nifty utility we call the banvil: http://board.acmlm.org/images/banvil.gif

It's pretty useful, since it's big and red and says "BAN" on it.

(also, woot, my horrible pointless comments haven't gotten me the axe yet)

Here's an example of the comments you're missing by not having miss_smartypants around. She emailed this to me after we banned her. Synopsis: she thinks George of VerizonMath did his math wrong....

"have tried to submit a comment to the comments section of this particular article, but I guess not just anyone can do so. So, I thought I'd send you an email with my thoughts as I'm quite disappointed that you'd run with a story like this on your site without having basic math facts down yourself, or making sure posters do as well. So, here was my comment.

I'm shocked at the number of people patting old George on the back. I wonder where he went to school.

Can we acknowledge that .002 cents x 5 = 1 cent?

Perhaps not all of us can?

Assuming I get no argument there, I'm going to use bodhisoma's post above as my guide.

Okay, instead of multiplying the way he did above, we'll divide instead.

Take 5 into the 35,893 and you've got = 7178.6 CENTS Then, to convert that number into a dollar amount, we don't have to pull the 100 out of thin air. We simply can use the 100 to covert cents to dollars (genius huh?).

100 into 7178.6 = $71.786 which has been converted from cents to dollars.

Just because some imbecile decides to redefine basic math principles, doesn't always mean he's right. I too feel really bad about the educational system in this country and any country that has representatives posting to this site because somewhere along the line, basic facts got missed.

Thank GOD for calculators.

To those who run this site, it's very sad that you don't double and triple check that your information is indeed factual before running with it."

Oh my God -- that is just insane.

Perhaps *not* all of us can acknowledge that .002 cents x 5 = 1 cent, because it's INCORRECT!

If I read Miss Smarty Pants' posts correctly, she's a recent law school graduate. Thank GOD she's not an accountant.

I hope her clients check their legal bills carefully.

"Can we acknowledge that .002 cents x 5 = 1 cent?"

I practically choked on my snapple orangeade (mmm) reading that...

"I too feel really bad about the educational system in this country ......Thank GOD for calculators."

oh god, I can't even describe how hard I'm laughing.

Ben,

So you're banning her for bad math? Or insistence that her bad math is correct?

The groups of people I can understand banning are:
1. Shillers
2. People who are disrespectful or rude
3. Trolls, or people who post nothing but mindless verbal-vomit rants (ie "Verizon sux")

I'm not going to fall on my sword over this, but I think you have some of the best commenters of the blogs that I've seen. I hate to see you cut people unless it's necessary.

"thanks god for calculators"?
Wow, maybe you should learn how the basic math behind the use of one before you swear by it. I love irony. I also get a kick out of misinformed know-it-alls.

I guess Miss Smarty Pants name is appropriate, in an ironic sort of way...

I can understand banning smartypants. I recall wishing for a block-comment ala digg for her on a couple of nazi shirt stories.

In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz,

"Ha ha!"

Just because some imbecile decides to redefine basic math principles, doesn't always mean he's right.

Wow. You know, you should probably make sure you're absolutely right about something before calling someone an imbecile. Or better yet, don't call them an imbecile.

Can we acknowledge that .002 cents x 5 = 1 cent?

.002 of a cent X 5 = .01 of a cent (not .01 of a dollar, which would be a penny)

miss_smartypants should see if Verizon is hiring. She's a shoo-in.

I hope she's reading this right now. Ben, will you let us know if she sends you another silly e-mail?

Wow, its an ol' fashioned commenter slaying! Ahh, that brings me back.

Now, I would have let them comment on just this one post, just to see how combative and arguementative they get about losing their rights. :)

the important thing everyone is missing here is that it is illegal to melt down your .002 cents to sell the metal (which is worth .003 cents (thank god for calculators!!!))

Not sure exactly what a "rube" is (Dictionary.com says it's "an unsophisticated person from a rural area"), but I agree that the guy who ordered the $55 mac and cheese got what he deserved. Who buys something from a menu with no prices??????? Answer: someone who gets what he deserves.

Is this a comment worthy of being banned? Yikes!

It's just another step in keeping this The Consumerist instead of The Consumers (And Most Other People) Are Usually Wrong And I Can Prove It.

FMF: His exact words were "If you didn't realize it was truffle, then you're a moron."

and in a separate post "This guy was at the Waverly. Buy a Zagat, douchebag."

Oh, and "rube" is an insult as well; it's usually used to call someone an idiot not just unsophisticated.

I take the position that people don't deserve to be ripped off unless they were doing or trying to do something illegal or unethical in the first place. However, there's a difference between not agreeing with someone's position and flinging insults all over the place.

I guess Smarty Pants can't put her .002 cents worth in anymore.

Be nice! It's Christmas time!
lol......

I, for one, applaud you Ben. Forces the rest of us to remember to watch our mouths and be respectful. In the anonymity of cyberspace, many of us forget our manners. Thanks for the reminder.

I'm not religious, but I don't think Jesus would approve of Ghost-of-Awesomist calling people "moron" and "douchebag."

it's kind of crappy to post an email of a person you've banned, have everyone make fun of it here, and then not allow that person to reply and/or defend herself.

:-(

I'll always remember Miss_smartypants as the girl who finds it impossible to avoid the sight of exposed breasts of a breastfeeding mother (some peripheral vision, that), and insisted that babies be fed on the shitter.

R.I.P.

And Awesomist will be back. Gawker Media sites aren't the same without our favorite Columbia co-ed tagging, angry Republican, elitist New Yorker.

The meta-reality of blogging: a blog post about comments on blog posts leads to commenters commenting on comments and commenters.

Can someone tell me how to google to see their past comments? Thaaaaanks.

You can see their comments at consumerist.com/commenter/*commentername*

FMF: Rube is generally used in the same sense as the word 'hick'.

i have enjoyed these comments.
A+++ would read again!!

Thanks spinach.
I think Ben shows great restraint by not banning the multitude of commenters who personally attack him when they disagree with a post. It is his blog, after all.

LOL, ikes...cute.

On the subject of commenters, though, I'm not sdure it's faiur to ban anyone over contentiousness or pov- namecalling, tro9lling, etc., yes- but just for being snotty or argumentative? Seems kinda biozarre for a blog that's about swimming upstream, that's all. IOW, I thyin miss Smartypants was obnoxious, but you need a little obnoxious- kieeps thingsa interesting. A chorus of 'right on' is boring....

"Rube" has a less negative connotation in Minnesota--it is used in a more friendly sense to refer to a big sports fan. I think the evolution goes that the person is so devoted to the particular team that he/she becomes a "sucker" for the team, naively devoting a great deal of time and effort to supporting the team. The term is used a lot on the radio station KFAN: their message board is even called "rube chat."

A lot of words with negative connotations shift to a more positive meaning over time as some groups empower themselves by "owning" the word. That said, I don't think even a Viking fan wants to get called a rube by strangers. Not even if called, as Hannibal Lector calls Clarice Starling, "a well-scrubbed rube." It's still an insult.

Also, the word "rube" applies in a consumerist sense because it applies to "suckers" who can easily be hustled because of their unsophisticated nature: like when Bart Simpson was working at a carnival and talked about hustling rubes.

What's the ideological difference--internet logic-wise--between banning and censorship? Just curious from a free speech, internet-as-the-last-bastion-of-truly-free-expression kind of way.

The meta-reality of blogging: a blog post about comments on blog posts leads to commenters commenting on comments and commenters.
Oh god, my eyes are spinning...too funny!

The insults usually bother me on this site, not for the language itself but for that fact that those who most frequently use them can't come up with other words to use. Can we Woot! a thesaurus?

wikkit, that's so noble of you to go to bat for smartypants like that. I bet she'll totally go out with you now. ^5!

acutusnothus, I understand your point, but keep in mind that a blog (especially any Gawker media blog) is not a democracy. Commenters are invited in one form or another, and they are asked to abide by certain rules. A newspaper doesn't HAVE to publish every letter to the editor it gets. It chooses to, and it's not censoring you if it does not choose your missive. Same thing with blog comments.

acutusnothus: the internet is still a bastion of free expression: anybody can start a blog and write anything he/she wants. Once you start that blog, you are not obligated to let anybody say whatever they want on your blog. If the Consumerist wants to ban a commenter from its site, that commenter hasn't been censored; that commenter has every right to start up his/her own blog.

The parallel is the First Amendment: it guarantees the right to free expression, but it does not come with an obligation or right of publication, an audience, or any media or forum.

One can support another's right to free expression without allowing that free expression on one's own website.

acutusnothus, "censorship" is generally considered the official public repression of free speech. Free speech is a guaranteed public right, not a private right. Consumerist is a private blog owned by a corporation (sorry Gawker!). Just as Starbucks can forcibly remove a patron who comes into the store and starts yelling about how Starbucks enslaves coffee growers and baristas are robots and customers are rubes, Consumerist can forcibly remove offensive commenters.

The angry Starbucks patron, just as the angry Consumerist commenter, is entitled to voice their opinions, just not inside Starbucks/Consumerist.

Personally, I disagree with the internet being the last bastion of free speech, considering the vast majority of the internet is privately owned and operated. The real home of free speech is your apartment, your own blog, the street corner, the park, or the local college quad. Raise your voice, make it heard, it's your fundamental right--just not in someone else's private space.