It think it looks like achow is dealing with it.

He made a post today at some point about it.

He has the ability to give franky1 a ban if he deems it necessary. I assume mods consult with each other too (since there are specific boards for them to do so).

SMF software can't block people from posting on particular boards - mods have to manually delete posts whack-a-mole style.

*Unless you make the boards accessible to certain ranks only like how the Donators and Staff boards are hidden, but this only really works if the scenario is to allow some and deny the rest. It's downright cumbersome to enforce if the problem is "allow all but deny some".

In addition, gmaxwell noted that his posts will be deleted and not that he will be banned.
Not endorsing anyone but afaik this can't be considered as a reason for permaban but doesn't make him immune either from a punishment.
I prefer to report such things in details rather than starting a topic that will turn to a fighting zone, we have enough here tho

FWIW,  I wouldn't support banning franky1 globally at least on the basis of his tech subform activity if he agrees to leave the tech sub-forum alone.

When he made a new post again recently I hoped that he'd conduct himself in a way a little more compatible with a tech subforum-- so I didn't immediately start removing them, but let things play out a bit to see if it would be different... but clearly not, and after a few days achow pinged me to ask if I agreed with removing him again.

(And holy hell, I missed that were 49 posts... I guess I wasn't paying enough attention.  As always, I prefer multi-factor administration and unless something is obviously spam or totally offtopic I'll usually wait for at least one other person to complain before acting.--- But this is a bit extreme, sorry DooMAD for being asleep at the switch.)

Perhaps he's a bit prone to jump to adhominem and conspiracy theories in other subforums too, but at least most of the time there aren't people trying to have a more substantive technical discussion that he reliably doesn't contribute to... and he has also made many posts in other subforums that I've enjoyed.

funny part is i was making posts on a topic specifically about the consensus being broke. i explained how blockchain data shows how consensus broke in the past and that tactic should never be used again..(OBVIOUSLY)
it was very much on topic and mentioned technical details about bit flags.

it was other individuals that began the backlash and adhoms (doomad) who's only rebuttalled using social techniques and lies about changing how events occured
no technical data to explain his opinion of his version of events

i even asked him to back up his claims using blockchain data.
so reasonable requests were made about the technicals..
doomad rebuttal's with more social adhoms but no technicals

my claim bit4 contentious hardfork to remove opposition to achieve 100% bit1 consensus activation of new feature
his claim:(over the years and recently)
   flip: bit1 then bit4..  (soft)
   flop: bit4 had nothing to do with anything and only bit1 occurred
   flipflop: those not wanting activation done the bit4 fork
   flopflip: bit4 had no effect

also to note it was doomad that was slinging around the most insults and lies

strangely gmax agreed with doomad to remove me. simply because i bit at doomads pokes.. even though it was doomad that was doing the adhom trolling.

seems doomad/gmax want to pretend they dislike ad-hom stuff. even when they trigger adhom stuff when technical details on the immutable blockchain prove they are wrong about their versions of events

THEY should try to be mature next time and maybe stop trying to delete posts just because it makes them look bad.. WHY?
well its simple. some people actually want to know facts and details even if it makes some individuals look bad.

devs should learn from their mistakes. not hide and repeat their mistakes
devs should not pull favour towards loyal fans. and instead be mature and pull favour to facts and learning oppertunities when mistakes are highlighted

so please learn from your mistakes. otherwise you will always have people reminding you of your mistakes

as for loyceV.
his selection of a particular chart that makes it look like bitcoin is going blow up to 700% of 'early adopters' and then crash down to 60% of early adopters

sory but bitcoin does not follow that chart.
infact that chart is known to be used in many economic circles not to prove longevity/trust/admiration. but to sugdest implosion/near death and to not use an asset as a store of wealth

hense why i called him out.. there are many economic charts and many different models he could have chosen. but that particular selection. while not actually showing bitcoin progress so far. suggests a bitcoin near death and a presumption to not trust bitcoin as a store of value

the "perfectly valid reasons to disconnect those users if they wish to run incompatible software".. those people you speak of were running software that was perfectly compatible with consensus 2009-(july)2017

the rule was to ignore blocks without bit4/1. it was not to ignore blocks with bit6-8... now your getting really flip flopy and not understanding what occured.

bit1 and bit4 were not part of active consensus in 2009-(july)2017
yep you got things wrong again
those without bit1/4 were not incompatible with consensus2009-2017


the disconnect was of those not flagging a NEW temporary thing(flags bit4 and bit1)
it was not to disconnect people running new features consensus has never recognised.. quite the opposite

the disconnect was of those NOT SHOWING new bits
and that disconnecting of nodes relaying non flag 4/1 blocks was done before segwit activation occured

any consensus update if there is going to be a clash of incompatibility means. you cant go back in time and change the network magic of old nodes.. so its the new software that has to change its magic if there was a  fork

or better yet. dont cause a fork before a consensus change. so that there is no fork to cause a clash
........

you would have had a better argument if you didnt flip flop.. and said something like
bit 4 was a mini consensus of july that at 80% for 269+366 blocks would enforce new rules.. not of new transaction formats(segwit) but a new consensus of ignoring oldtimers blocks.
(immoral but consensus defined under the new rule)
and then expressing how your adore consensus because although immoral..  a mini july consensus did activate(but under false pretense)... then allowed august consensus of 2016 blocks for segwit to activate due to lack of opposition blocks being counted

atleast you could then claim something resembling consensus actions
(even when the 'july bit4 consensus' was not segwit but was mandatory fork.. and was not to remove blocks that were incompatible with 2009-17 formats.. but to remove blocks that were compatible with 2009-17)

but hey. instead you flip flop through lots of different versions of events and pretend old timers using code that had not changed were somehow the enemy and they somehow attacked the network.. (weird mindset)

edit to address the comment below
the blockchain data shows the events. as i describe
the bip info shows what the bits actually flag for. as i describe
(heck you couldnt even get the bit4 threshold percentage right let alone the order of events let alone which one activated segwit let alone what the percentages were in july in the leadup to the mandatory fork)

maybe you should read them first

Even if it were possible, it would not change anything of any significance.