I'd even go looser myself.

I'd restrict JohnP's ability to post to the VFP FORUM (read only) but let him into all other forums of his choice with full rights (until less is earned).

cheers


>Ahhh! You bring up a great point! Why not block his ability to POST like many forums do. He can read to his heart's content, but cannot say anything. I can't believe anyone would have a problem with that. Except maybe John.
>
>>Michel Fournier has banned JVP by blocking the IP address of his work.
>>
>>IMO, blocking IP addresses is ridiculous! I have several clients, one of them is the KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines). Suppose the UT wants to block me... are they going to block everyone who works at the KLM, a company with over 20,000 employees???? Although it may be the case that I'm the only person here who visits the Universal Thread, that would really be overkill.
>>
>>Another reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: The to be blocked person can go to his neighbor or an internet cafe and log in with another name. How is the UT gonna tackle that situation???
>>
>>Yet another reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: At home only those who have DSL probably have a permanent IP address. Those who have not, have a temporary IP address for the time of the session. Useless to block such an address, don't you think???
>>
>>Last, but not least, reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: While the UT has the right (and the obligation) to ban certain individuals when they 'misbehave', that does not necessarilly imply that this individual also looses the right to check what others are writing about him/her, after the banishment. In the case of JVP, I think it is his right to still visit the Universal Thread and read what others are (currently) writing about him. For that, he needs access via his IP addresses.