Q.E.D. please be nicer [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

zuma

03-09-2008, 09:32 AM

In this ATMB thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=458331), a question is asked about whether or not this board is going free to post. Now I am interested too, as it was brought up, and April is approacheing.

Q.E.D. seems fit to be a snarky ass with
Gee, you don't think they'll post a huge honking announcement when they make a decision and are ready to let us know, do you? Until then, I suspect you've gotten all the answer you're going to get.
I try not to be a snarky shithead, and succeed most of the time, but Q.E.D., really, that was uncalled for. Can we please not chase subscribers away, Q.E.D.?

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 09:41 AM

It was a pointless question with a self-evident answer. And guess what? An admin showed up and responded with exactly that. Sue me.

Really Not All That Bright

03-09-2008, 09:57 AM

It was a pointless question with a self-evident answer. And guess what? An admin showed up and responded with exactly that. Sue me.
It wasn't a particularly stupid question, and your answer was snark for snark's sake.

Probably not worth a Pit thread, but there you go.

John Carter of Mars

03-09-2008, 09:57 AM

It was a pointless question with a self-evident answer. And guess what? An admin showed up and responded with exactly that. Sue me. (Bolding mine.)

No, an admin showed up with a courteous answer. You, however, once again played the snarky "I'm so fuckin' smart" card. You need to get over yourself.

zuma

03-09-2008, 09:58 AM

It was not a pointless question and some of us are waiting for the answer. You jump in and decide be be a dick. Jesus QED, someone asked if the board would go free, after an administrator said it might. You got on your big dumb high horse and snarked away and told everyone to shut the fuck up and the answer might rain down from the sky above. Don't be a dick, QED.

Koxinga

03-09-2008, 10:10 AM

That wasn't how I read Dexter's response, and I think you're persisting in being very impolite in a very uncalled-for manner. Are you feeling all right?

Squink

03-09-2008, 10:20 AM

You jump in and decide be be a dick.How do you know he hadn't pre-decided?

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 10:35 AM

You got on your big dumb high horse and snarked away and told everyone to shut the fuck up and the answer might rain down from the sky above.
Your interpretation seems a little...loose. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. It was, perhaps a tad on the snarky side, but anyone who sees it as outrage-inducing rudeness needs, frankly, to grow a skin. Sheesh, if I'd posted your reading of it, I'd have pitted myself.

FarmerChick

03-09-2008, 10:56 AM

It was a pointless question with a self-evident answer. And guess what? An admin showed up and responded with exactly that. Sue me.

This is the very reason that I don't post too much here. Pompous assholes that think they can talk down to anyone just because they have been around longer or have posted alot.

It WAS a valid question, and it was a RUDE answer. If I had any say in the matter, I would remove the tag under your name because I thought for the longest time you actually were someone with a position in SDMB. Thank God you don't.

Key Lime Guy

03-09-2008, 11:04 AM

Nobody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D.

Richard Parker

03-09-2008, 11:06 AM

Nobody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D.

Wow, what forum do you hang out in?

Alice The Goon

03-09-2008, 11:08 AM

Nobody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D.

That's for sure. I have a sneaking suspicion Q.E.D. is the love child of Cajunman and Tubadiva- he gets away with insulting people no matter what the forum, on a regular basis.

LurkMeister

03-09-2008, 11:15 AM

Nobody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D.
I've noticed this myself, but thought maybe it was just me. Obviously, it isn't.

What Exit?

03-09-2008, 11:28 AM

Your interpretation seems a little...loose. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. It was, perhaps a tad on the snarky side, but anyone who sees it as outrage-inducing rudeness needs, frankly, to grow a skin. Sheesh, if I'd posted your reading of it, I'd have pitted myself.
It came off pretty snarky in my eyes and I never noticed you being this snarky before unless it was in the pit. If Tuba had answered like you did the pitting would already be 200 posts long.

C.K. Dexter answered politely and I believe sent you a not so subtle message.

That said, I don't get the Nobody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D.
Maybe I am blind to it usually, but I can't recall Q.E.D. doing this outside of the pit or maybe GD. In those forums it is expected.

Cat Whisperer

03-09-2008, 11:42 AM

This is the very reason that I don't post too much here. Pompous assholes that think they can talk down to anyone just because they have been around longer or have posted alot. <snip>
See, the way I look at it, us regular folk who don't feel the need to jump down other people's throats and can have rational, adult conversations need to post here MORE frequently to drown out the Q.E.D.'s of the Dope.

Left Hand of Dorkness

03-09-2008, 12:00 PM

Even if the question had an obvious answer, sometimes asking a question is helpful: it keeps the issue in the forefront. Dex can pass along word to the higher-ups that the rabble are getting restless, and that might in some small way help them come to a decision.

Daniel

Frylock

03-09-2008, 12:18 PM

QED, the response was overly snarky. But I have not ever thought of you as habitually snarky, don't know where that's coming from.

-FrL-

Giraffe

03-09-2008, 12:18 PM

If I had any say in the matter, I would remove the tag under your name because I thought for the longest time you actually were someone with a position in SDMB. Thank God you don't.Yeah, this has been a common misunderstanding about the SDSAB title, and I'm not really sure what to do about it. I can see why the SDMB administration wants to give some public recognition and incentive for those who research and write staff reports, as it is an important contribution. At the same time, when Q.E.D. acts like a douchebag in response to administrative questions it does a lot more damage than it would if he were a regular member. I'm not sure what the best solution would be, though. Changing the SDSAB title to something like "SDSAB Member" to emphasize the regular member status? Forbidding Q.E.D. from posting in non-Pit administrative threads? (Note that I have absolutely no say in any of this, but am just throwing ideas out there.)

SmartAleq

03-09-2008, 12:25 PM

How about giving QED a special tag that says "NOTAMOD?" That oughta work...

SmackFu

03-09-2008, 12:46 PM

How about "Straight Dope Staff Writer"? "Advisory Board" doesn't work quite right since it sounds like it has something to do with the message board.

bbs2k

03-09-2008, 12:52 PM

Please give QED a pass.

I believe he's an ass, and he believes I'm an imbecile.

Our love battles on.

bbs2k

03-09-2008, 12:55 PM

PS: we're both probably right.

Absolute

03-09-2008, 12:55 PM

I've noticed this myself, but thought maybe it was just me. Obviously, it isn't.
Ditto.

El Cid Viscoso

03-09-2008, 01:23 PM

I'm not sure what the best solution would be, though. Changing the SDSAB title to something like "SDSAB Member" to emphasize the regular member status? Forbidding Q.E.D. from posting in non-Pit administrative threads? (Note that I have absolutely no say in any of this, but am just throwing ideas out there.)Yeah, give him the handy treatment!

DudleyGarrett

03-09-2008, 01:54 PM

How about "Chief Googler" -- can you put that under his name?

Rick

03-09-2008, 02:06 PM

He posted a completely accurate answer to a question. I think some people here have way to thin a skin, and a hair trigger on the offended button.
You guys would have never survived in my department at my last job. :D

Musicat

03-09-2008, 02:13 PM

It was not a pointless question and some of us are waiting for the answer. You jump in and decide be be a dick. Maybe, but he's OUR dick.I believe he's an ass...And OUR ass.

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 02:15 PM

Maybe, but he's OUR dick.
I'm not gonna touch that. :p

twickster

03-09-2008, 02:16 PM

Yeah, this has been a common misunderstanding about the SDSAB title, and I'm not really sure what to do about it. I can see why the SDMB administration wants to give some public recognition and incentive for those who research and write staff reports, as it is an important contribution. At the same time, when Q.E.D. acts like a douchebag in response to administrative questions it does a lot more damage than it would if he were a regular member. I'm not sure what the best solution would be, though. Changing the SDSAB title to something like "SDSAB Member" to emphasize the regular member status? Forbidding Q.E.D. from posting in non-Pit administrative threads? (Note that I have absolutely no say in any of this, but am just throwing ideas out there.)
It does seem as though 9 times out of 10 when someone assumes "SDSAB" means more than it does, it's because QED is acting like an asshole. Others may junior-mod as much as he does, but since they are more apt to be Members or Charter Members, it's usually way more obvious that they're not speaking ex cathedra.

I'd support a change to SDSAB Member as a good compromise between acknowledging someone's contributions yet making is clear that he or she is a member, not a mod.

Kneepants Erasmus, the Humanist

03-09-2008, 02:30 PM

I can't believe that this thread was started! I was looking at the response the OP referred to and got ready to post something saying, basically, the exact same thing. Mine, though, would have had about 1000 cites, because I have noticed that almost every post I read of QED's is of that same smarmy tone.

I then realized that the asshole isn't worth that much time/effort.

So, I will echo the person who said this earlier: QED, get over yourself. You aren't (and I don't think it is possible for anyone to be) nearly as smart as you think you are.

-- a concerned citizen

Cat Whisperer

03-09-2008, 03:11 PM

Your interpretation seems a little...loose. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. It was, perhaps a tad on the snarky side, but anyone who sees it as outrage-inducing rudeness needs, frankly, to grow a skin. <snip>
I was thinking about this as I was cleaning my house (there you have it - proof that I actually do clean occasionally), and I've come to the conclusion that I don't agree with this attitude. It isn't the responsibility of everyone else to have thicker skins; it's the responsibility of the person being a jerk to quit being a jerk.

Hostile Dialect

03-09-2008, 03:12 PM

Forbidding Q.E.D. from posting in non-Pit administrative threads? (Note that I have absolutely no say in any of this, but am just throwing ideas out there.)

How about we start by forbidding him to post, in general? No other member of the SDMB would get away with so much trollery and so many pointless FPBs--especially when most of them are masquerading as factual answers to questions in GQ. Seriously, who did Q.E.D. suck off to get the immunity he has?

Billdo

03-09-2008, 03:13 PM

It does seem as though 9 times out of 10 when someone assumes "SDSAB" means more than it does, it's because QED is acting like an asshole. Others may junior-mod as much as he does, but since they are more apt to be Members or Charter Members, it's usually way more obvious that they're not speaking ex cathedra.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Q.E.D. is acting like an asshole when he junior mods, but he certainly doesn't have the good sense to use a warm and friendly tone with people asking good-faith questions, which is pretty broadly what I see the real-life mods do. Of course, our mods and members can be pretty snarky or worse when they believe that questions are out of line, most of us cut people a break when they see that a question is being asked out of ignorance (which we're all supposed to be fighting here), and our actual mods are pretty relaxed about dealing with these.

Q.E.D., on the other hand, is both quick to be dismissive of other posters and quick to junior mod. Were he just an ordinary member, that would be merely irritating, and I suspect that even those posting ignorant questions would think a non-SDSAB Q.E.D. response was just the braying of an officious ass and move on. The problem is that he has this shiny badge of "SDSAB" under his name. Now, those of us who've been around a while realize that his "SDSAB" badge gives him all of the authority of a shopping mall rent-a-cop, but many less-experienced posters (the type that would tend to post the ignorant questions about board procedures) don't realize that he has no more enforcement authority than any other ordinary poster.

As a result, I would recommend that the Board Administration try to keep junior modding by SDSAB members on a much tighter rope than they do for regular members. I suggest they act (presumably behind the scenes) to make sure that the SDSAB members clearly identify that they actually have the just the knowledge and authority of just an ordinary member when discussing matters of board administration and procedure. That would minimize the need for Dex and the others to make notes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9557486&postcount=9) pointing out that Q.E.D. is just talking out of his ass when he shows up all pompous.

The alternative is to allow Q.E.D. to strut around like a rent-a-cop determined to assert the meager authority he has, and that is just pathetic.

Sleeps With Butterflies

03-09-2008, 03:21 PM

(Bolding mine.)

No, an admin showed up with a courteous answer. You, however, once again played the snarky "I'm so fuckin' smart" card. You need to get over yourself.

Aww, give him a break. It was just excited to have an answer to something where he didn't have to use Google.

Frylock

03-09-2008, 03:44 PM

How about we start by forbidding him to post, in general? No other member of the SDMB would get away with so much trollery and so many pointless FPBs--especially when most of them are masquerading as factual answers to questions in GQ. Seriously, who did Q.E.D. suck off to get the immunity he has?

Links to substantiate these kinds of claims would be nice.

-FrL-

Hostile Dialect

03-09-2008, 03:48 PM

Frylock, just cruise GQ one of these days. I don't spend much time there anymore, but when I do, it seems like every (or nearly every) thread has an FPB by our hero, Google Man. Its tone is generally somewhere between "You're so lucky that I, God's gift to ignorance, am here to save the day" and "Wow, you're fucking stupid. How come you couldn't figure that out on your own?"

Like the poster upthread who started to write this very same pitting with cites and then stopped when he realized he was wasting time on QED, I care too little about Google Man to compile a list of offenses with links.

Contrapuntal

03-09-2008, 04:03 PM

Frylock, just cruise GQ one of these days. I don't spend much time there anymore, but when I do, it seems like every (or nearly every) thread has an FPB by our hero, Google Man. Its tone is generally somewhere between "You're so lucky that I, God's gift to ignorance, am here to save the day" and "Wow, you're fucking stupid. How come you couldn't figure that out on your own?"I've just scanned through the first forty or so threads in GC. He has posted in three, for a total of eight posts or so. None of which are remotely as you have characterized them to be. Perhaps something is coloring your perception?

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 04:05 PM

Perhaps something is coloring your perception?
You know that expression, "you're so full of shit, your eyes are brown?" I should think that condition would color one's vision, as well.

Omegaman

03-09-2008, 04:24 PM

Maybe, but he's OUR dick.And OUR ass.

If he could also be a vagina everyone would be happy.

choie

03-09-2008, 04:28 PM

You know that expression, "you're so full of shit, your eyes are brown?" I should think that condition would color one's vision, as well.

Hmm, apparently that's true of 90% of the others posting in this thread. Strange, that. If it were me, and one of the people saying I'm obnoxious is actually a mod (especially a sensible one like Giraffe), I'd buck my ideas up, mate.

Hostile Dialect, what's an FPB? I'm thinking "First post, bitch!" ... is that right?

If he could also be a vagina everyone would be happy.

He clearly has sand somewhere.

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 04:32 PM

If it were me, and one of the people saying I'm obnoxious is actually a mod (especially a sensible one like Giraffe), I'd buck my ideas up, mate.
Why? I already know I can be obnoxious. But, that's not the point I was addressing in the post you quoted, dear. It was Hostile fetus' unfounded characterizatio0n of my GQ posts, y'see.

Guinastasia

03-09-2008, 04:32 PM

If he could also be a vagina everyone would be happy.

A pengina? A vagnis?

descamisado

03-09-2008, 04:35 PM

Hmm, apparently that's true of 90% of the others posting in this thread. Strange, that. If it were me, and one of the people saying I'm obnoxious is actually a mod (especially a sensible one like Giraffe), I'd buck my ideas up, mate.

Hostile Dialect, what's an FPB? I'm thinking "First post, bitch!" ... is that right?

He clearly has sand somewhere.I get this from Urbandictionary:

FPB: A fake pants boner. When your slacks hitch up around your groin and it looks like you have a boner when you don't."

How well this fits in HD's description, you decide.

El Cid Viscoso

03-09-2008, 04:39 PM

It was Hostile fetus' unfounded characterizatio0n of my GQ posts, y'see.No you di'int.

Inner Stickler

03-09-2008, 04:44 PM

Why? I already know I can be obnoxious. But, that's not the point I was addressing in the post you quoted, dear. (Bolding mine) :dubious:

choie

03-09-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q.E.D.
Why? I already know I can be obnoxious. But, that's not the point I was addressing in the post you quoted, dear.

(Bolding mine)

In fairness, I am pretty dear. Way out of his price range.

The Them

03-09-2008, 04:53 PM

I like giraffe's" idea. In fact, up until that moment, I'd assumed SDSAB was some type of rank. Now I know better.

Everybody in SDMB should hope I'm never allowed to become a mod. With my unbalanced nature...

Malacandra

03-09-2008, 05:29 PM

Why? I already know I can be obnoxious. But, that's not the point I was addressing in the post you quoted, dear. It was Hostile fetus' unfounded characterizatio0n of my GQ posts, y'see.

That's not his name on this board. :dubious: geddit?

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 05:31 PM

That's not his name on this board. :dubious: geddit?
Yes, duh. It was a response to his use of a term which is also not used on this board. Geddit? :rolleyes:

Giraffe

03-09-2008, 05:32 PM

Yes, duh. It was a response to his use of a term which is also not used on this board. Geddit? :rolleyes:How about you both leave off-board stuff off-board, where it belongs?

Starving Artist

03-09-2008, 05:55 PM

I have no particular dog in this fight myself, but I'd also support the idea of"SDSAB Member" as the title. Pretty much says everything that needs to be said, in my opinion.

wring

03-09-2008, 05:58 PM

I understand folks who support changing the title. But isn't it only an issue with this poster? or am I missing tons of misunderstandings w/the others?

Sierra Indigo

03-09-2008, 06:02 PM

I understand folks who support changing the title. But isn't it only an issue with this poster? or am I missing tons of misunderstandings w/the others?

It's primarily an issue with Q.E.D because he likes to junior mod, and the "non member" title leads people to think he's in a position of power or knowledge when he's not. But I have seen other situations where an SDSAB member has answered a question related to modding/running of the board and people have taken it as an official answer because of the funky title.

bbs2k

03-09-2008, 06:08 PM

Bryan Ekers

03-09-2008, 06:16 PM

Yes, duh.

Y'see, if you were as smart as you imply, you'd come up with wittier responses instead of just this reflexive crap.

Starving Artist

03-09-2008, 06:17 PM

I have no particular dog in this fight myself, but I'd also support the idea of"SDSAB Member" as the title. Pretty much says everything that needs to be said, in my opinion.On second thought - and with the objectivity of not having seen it for a few minutes - "SDSAB Member" still looks somewhat official.

How about "SDSAB Contributor" as an alternative?

Malacandra

03-09-2008, 06:20 PM

How about you both leave off-board stuff off-board, where it belongs?

A just rebuke. So noted. :cool:

padabe

03-09-2008, 06:25 PM

I understand folks who support changing the title. But isn't it only an issue with this poster? or am I missing tons of misunderstandings w/the others?
This is a good point. Rather than changing the title, perhaps QED should have to include a signature in every thread. Something to the effect of, "I have no authority whatsoever on this message board, and I tend to be obnoxious by my own admission. Feel free to ignore me."

fisha

03-09-2008, 06:41 PM

SDSAB has always been a little unwieldy.

SD columnist?

Staff reporter?

Staff advisor?

Researcher?

As to the OP, I know I've called QED a prick at least once as a subtle insult, but there's more good than bad, no question.

Pretty petty pitting.

C K Dexter Haven

03-09-2008, 06:50 PM

Heffalump and Roo

03-09-2008, 08:19 PM

Whoa, maybe my snark-o-meter is broken. It barely registered here. Not saying it wasn't a little snide, but. . .

Here's how I saw it. An analogy:

bbs2k: :asks dad: Are we getting a pony for Christmas?

QED (bbs2k's older brother): (to bbs2k) You think dad is going to tell us that now? And if he does do it on Christmas, you don't think he'll tell us?

zuma: (to dad) But if you decide to get us a pony at Christmas, let us know in July so we don't have to behave between July and Christmas, OK?

End of play.

Essentially, no corporation is going to tell you about a pricing policy change before it happens because then people will change their behavior which is exactly what the corporation doesn't want to have happen, and why they'd wait to announce it. So asking the corporation to announce their pricing plans early seems a little pointless. And when they do announce it, it will probably be loud and clear. . . and immediate. I guess there could be exceptions, but it would seem illogical to me.

It seems to me that QED was just pointing out that fact, albeit a little snidely.

Billdo

03-09-2008, 08:44 PM

Just for the record: members of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board (SDSAB) do not hvae any immunity from Message Board rules. In theory, they are held to a higher standard. "Being snarky" is not a Rules violation -- there is a difference between "being snarky", which may be rude but is not a rules violation, and insulting another poster which is.

Dex, the problem, as I see it, is that the real mods are by and large quite good at explaining the actual rules and customs of the board, and doing so in an appropriate tone. I would imagine that there is some behind the scenes work taking place to keep this so. Ordinary members sometime get snarky or worse when they junior mod, but that is largely out of your control, and as you note, not a board rule violation.

SDSAB members, like it or not, reflect on the board administration because by virtue of their title they are cloaked with additional status. And similarly, many see them as junior members of the administration. This is no problem if their actions reflect credit upon the administration and they do not presume to opine on board administrative actions beyond their station. For the most part, this is what happens.

But then there's Q.E.D. All too often he is not careful to make clear that he is merely speaking as an ordinary poster when he is speaking on board administrative matters, but presumes to speak as though he has some real authority. When a regular member does this, it is a venial sin, but when someone clothed with authority by the administration (limited though that may be), the sin becomes much more serious (requiring cautions like you have previously posted, cautions which should not be necessary if he had stated his limited authority himself). The problem multiplies when he speaks in an unnecessarily snarky manner.

I don't suggest that an SDSAB member violates the rules when he answers questions about board administration without a disclaimer, but I think that the actual administration should act (behind the scenes) to make sure that SDSAB members don't themselves cause unnecessary confusion about their status, particularly when doing so in a snarky manner.

dnooman

03-09-2008, 11:26 PM

Cat Whisperer

03-09-2008, 11:27 PM

I see that Q.E.D.'s title has changed to "Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" (it used to be SDSAB, didn't it? Or am I mis-remembering?) I don't think that will fix the problem of people seeing authority where there is none, if that's what prompted the change (I'm one of those people - I've always assumed that the SDSAB members were part of the ruling class). It still looks awfully official.

Joey P

03-09-2008, 11:34 PM

Wow, what forum do you hang out in?
GQ

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 11:38 PM

GQ
Wanna point out where I've violated the "don't be a jerk" rule in GQ? And as already explained by Dex, snark doesn't count.

Alice The Goon

03-09-2008, 11:39 PM

I can go along with the negative ambiguity of the SDSAB title, and maybe Q.E.D. acted like a dick a few times.

On the whole though, I find Q.E.D. 's contributions to this site to be invaluable. Any rational person would put him in the positive column rather than the negative one.

There are several others here that deserve/and/or need a pitting. Focus on them, not the people that actually help once in a while.

As far as Q.E.D. being a Googler, he gives concise answers quickly, and he's seldom corrected. That seems to me to be a source of accurate information. If he were proven wrong more often, one could build a case that he's not as smart as he says he is. That has yet to happen though.

There are numerous posters here that need an admonishing much more than Q.E.D. .

Oust the real dicks first, then target the productive resources that don't play nice.

And change the rule from "don't be a jerk" to "don't be a jerk, unless you're way smart".

I do believe that he is as smart as he thinks he is- I have no problem with his answers. The problem is that he can hardly give an answer without being a smug prick about it, and never gets called on it. I too, have wondered who he is blowing around here to get away with what he does.

Richard Parker

03-09-2008, 11:42 PM

GQ

Well, assuming you're speaking on behalf of the poster I was questioning, you'll need to amend "[n]obody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D." to "[n]obody violates the "don't be a jerk" rule more frequently in GQ, and with fewer consequences, than Q.E.D." Its still an entirely unwarranted statement, for which no evidence has yet been offered in this thread, but it would at least be an opinion expressed on the basis of experience.

For my two cents, and with genuine respect to Billdo and others, this is much ado about nothing. If people cannot point to multiple examples of rudeness within a short period then it is probably more a case of confirmation bias than anything else. This is the Pit; you all should put up or shut up.

TubaDiva

03-09-2008, 11:50 PM

It's primarily an issue with Q.E.D because he likes to junior mod, and the "non member" title leads people to think he's in a position of power or knowledge when he's not. But I have seen other situations where an SDSAB member has answered a question related to modding/running of the board and people have taken it as an official answer because of the funky title.Well, sometimes they do know the answer, as quite a few of our former Moderators and Administrators are Straight Dope Science Advisory Board members.

As staffers retire from working on the board we grant them Straight Dope Science Advisory Board status. Some of them write Staff Reports. Some simply advise as needed. We appreciate all of them.

But no, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board members are not currently Administrators or Moderators and serve in no management capacity on the Straight Dope Message Board.

Q.E.D.

03-09-2008, 11:50 PM

The problem is that he can hardly give an answer without being a smug prick about it, and never gets called on it.
With all due respect, don't you perhaps think that your latter observation is a pretty fair indicator that your former is likely colored by some preconceived notions on your part?

Alice The Goon

03-09-2008, 11:57 PM

With all due respect, don't you perhaps think that your latter observation is a pretty fair indicator that your former is likely colored by some preconceived notions on your part?

I suppose the source of my (pre?)conceived notions about you would be all the times I've seen you be a jerk. It's not like I came onto the board with a prejudice against you- it's your own behavior that has led me to my opinion.

I do respect you, you know everything and I don't begrudge you that, but I do think that you could just be a bit nicer, especially seeing as how you're so ubiquitous. A grating personality is just that much harder to take when it's everywhere all the time (and knows everything). Would observing that some think that sometimes you can be a jerk, especially considering you admitted it yourself, and that maybe you could be a bit gentler, really be such a bad thing?

dnooman

03-10-2008, 12:05 AM

And change the rule from "don't be a jerk" to "don't be a jerk, unless you're way smart".

I do believe that he is as smart as he thinks he is- I have no problem with his answers. The problem is that he can hardly give an answer without being a smug prick about it, and never gets called on it. I too, have wondered who he is blowing around here to get away with what he does.

We've all seen many a pompous ass ousted from this place, many of them were booted for sensible reasons.

I fail to see any reason to boot Q.E.D.. If booting him isn't the issue, and if character reform is, then I submit that this is a very mild "pitting" and is subject to taste and the thickness of one's skin.

Revenant Threshold

03-10-2008, 12:17 AM

I renew my plea to change the regular "member" title to "peon".

Rick

03-10-2008, 12:35 AM

Wanna point out where I've violated the "don't be a jerk" rule in GQ? And as already explained by Dex, snark doesn't count.
I would second this. I have disagreed with Q.E.D. a time or three. Sometimes he has been right, sometimes I have been. However, he has never been anything but a gentleman about it.
So cite up or shut up. :D

SmackFu

03-10-2008, 12:36 AM

Nevermind.

lissener

03-10-2008, 01:13 AM

I know I'm asking for it, since I have at least as much reputation for prickly behavior as QED does. But I don't have a badge under my name that implies, to most people, that I have special standing as a Doper representative. For what it's worth (not much, I know) I long ago lost any shred of respect for QED as a poster here. He's so often more interested in being first with an answer than he is in being correct. And his nasty little barbs, in wildly inappropriate places, are more characteristic of his posting style than anything he's ever done to earn his badge. I certainly don't vote for his banning, but I do vote for his being held to a HIGHER standard, sporting the SDSAB badge as he does, than the lower standard he so cavalierly lays claim to. As an ordinary member of this community, he falls well below my radar. (But well below; he has negative credibility.) But as a representative of this board and what it purports to stand for, he's a shocking embarrassment.

Heffalump and Roo

03-10-2008, 01:14 AM

maybe you could be a bit gentler, really be such a bad thing?
I think we could apply this to just about anyone, myself included, I suspect. Because there will always be a post that someone will take issue with. And it's great as a suggestion, but it's pretty hard to only call it on one person, without applying the same rule to lots of others, er. . .without naming any names. *cough*^*cough*

Bryan Ekers

03-10-2008, 01:36 AM

I think we could apply this to just about anyone, myself included, I suspect. Because there will always be a post that someone will take issue with. And it's great as a suggestion, but it's pretty hard to only call it on one person, without applying the same rule to lots of others, er. . .without naming any names. *cough*^*cough*

It's the Pit; name them, ya cowardly jerk. I dares ya. I double-dares ya.

wolf_meister

03-10-2008, 02:32 AM

As others have said, Q.E.D. is one of the least pitworthy folks at the SDMB. In the years that I've been hanging around here, Q.E.D. has always been very helpful and courteous (and it goes without saying extremely knowledgeable).

Maybe Q.E.D.'s answer appearing snippy is due to the nature of the "About This Message Board" forum. The majority of the questions are pretty limited in scope and many questions have been previously asked and answered. On top of that, the SDMB will pretty much run things the way they want to and I don't think that posting anything there is going to have a major paradigm shift in message board policy, procedure, etc.

Cheesesteak

03-10-2008, 06:41 AM

Maybe Q.E.D.'s answer appearing snippy is due to the nature of the "About This Message Board" forum. The majority of the questions are pretty limited in scope and many questions have been previously asked and answered.No, it appeared snippy because it WAS snippy. Unfortunately, we're so accustomed to rudeness on the internet, that a person can be unjustifiably rude and not be considered a jerk. In real life, this behavior would be met with a whispered "what a fucking jerk that guy is", on the internet, he's being "snarky".

As for questions being asked and answered multiple times, QED isn't the forum's moderator. He's not an admin who will be called upon to give official answers over and over again. He doesn't even have to read the goddamn thing, much less type out a snarky, non-responsive answer.

TheLoadedDog

03-10-2008, 06:48 AM

I don't know why consistently approaching - but not crossing - the line here is lauded by some. I can see why it's technically within the rules, but I can't fathom why it is often accepted, yet some poor sap with a clean record who crosses the line once is run out of town on a rail.

It's jerkery, plain and simple. QED, you can be funny and quick with a sharp answer, but you do make it hard for us to like you sometimes.

Mangetout

03-10-2008, 06:51 AM

As for questions being asked and answered multiple times, QED isn't the forum's moderator. He's not an admin who will be called upon to give official answers over and over again. He doesn't even have to read the goddamn thing, much less type out a snarky, non-responsive answer.
Also, the fact that something has been asked and answered many times simply isn't likely to be known by a new guest - neither can they discover it by searching.

Contrapuntal

03-10-2008, 07:15 AM

I don't know why consistently approaching - but not crossing - the line here is lauded by some. I can see why it's technically within the rules, but I can't fathom why it is often accepted, yet some poor sap with a clean record who crosses the line once is run out of town on a rail.A) Despite repeated requests, no one has substantiated that Q.E.D. behaves in a bad manner "often." As Richard Parker suggested, perhaps confirmation bias is at play.

B) Cite for some poor sap with a clean record being run out of town on a rail for crossing the line once, please.

Liberal

03-10-2008, 07:56 AM

A) Despite repeated requests, no one has substantiated that Q.E.D. behaves in a bad manner "often."That's a pretty movable goalpost, isn't it? Your often might be another man's seldom, and vice versa. How many times in a week would qualify for often, in your view? And while you're at it, clear up what a bad manner is as well. That's another thing that can shift all over the place. If you can't pin it down in a manner acceptable to all, then why can't you just settle for the fact that some people perceive him as often being ill-mannered without having to satisfy a nonexistent standard?

Cat Whisperer

03-10-2008, 08:40 AM

Since I'm kind of busy these days and have no intention whatsoever of looking up past posts, I'll just tell you my experience with Q.E.D. - I didn't notice him at all until he was unnecessarily snarky to me once or twice, then I started noticing that if there was unwarranted snark around here, he was likely to be the source of it. I hang around in the Pit, MPSIMS, IMHO, and Cafe Society - these are the places that I've seen his over-the-top snark. I don't think it was all in the Pit, but it could have been. After seeing this a few times, I have come to the conclusion that he's nastier than he needs to be, just like I've come to conclusion on other posters that they're generally funny or give good, level-headed answers. When he's snarked at me in the past, I thought it was jerky (but not a huge deal, because this is the internet were people can be bad-mannered and get away with it).

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 08:54 AM

I don't know why consistently approaching - but not crossing - the line here is lauded by some. I can see why it's technically within the rules, but I can't fathom why it is often accepted...
Have you read any of Cecil's columns? Snark is the man's stock-in-trade; it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that a website which exists solely because of him tends to attract snarky people.

Colibri

03-10-2008, 08:56 AM

yet some poor sap with a clean record who crosses the line once is run out of town on a rail.

Who would that be? Link please.

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 08:58 AM

Also, the fact that something has been asked and answered many times simply isn't likely to be known by a new guest - neither can they discover it by searching.
A fact I always take into account. I've never been rude to a newbie who asked a legitimate question in ATMB.

Liberal

03-10-2008, 09:36 AM

Have you read any of Cecil's columns? Snark is the man's stock-in-trade; it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that a website which exists solely because of him tends to attract snarky people.A fact I always take into account. I've never been rude to a newbie who asked a legitimate question in ATMB.I don't understand how you can call yourself a snarky person, but then admit that you can turn it on and off at will.

Mangetout

03-10-2008, 09:45 AM

A fact I always take into account. I've never been rude to a newbie who asked a legitimate question in ATMB.
Fair enough then.

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 11:23 AM

I don't understand how you can call yourself a snarky person, but then admit that you can turn it on and off at will.
Well. I don't understand how you can claim to be an educated and intelligent person while failing to grasp such a simple concept. But, there you have it.

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 12:06 PM

I don't understand how you can call yourself a snarky person, but then admit that you can turn it on and off at will.
You don't find yourself being snarkier or curter or politer in different situations?

I think that is what Q.E.D. meant. Where he or any of us might be polite to a new poster asking a serious but easily answered questions, he might have a short fuse with a longer-term poster that he already has history.

In fact BBS2K already indicated as much in one of his posts, that there appears to be some prior bad blood between them.

I can think of a few posters where I see a post and just blow past it, as the poster isn't worth the effort. I had no clue of the bad blood between BBS2K and Q.E.D. and I was surprised and annoyed to see such a dismissive post to a fair question. In this case, I like both posters, so I budded in, as I am wont to.

Contrapuntal

03-10-2008, 12:22 PM

That's a pretty movable goalpost, isn't it? Your often might be another man's seldom, and vice versa. How many times in a week would qualify for often, in your view? And while you're at it, clear up what a bad manner is as well. That's another thing that can shift all over the place. If you can't pin it down in a manner acceptable to all, then why can't you just settle for the fact that some people perceive him as often being ill-mannered without having to satisfy a nonexistent standard?They are his words, not mine Lib. He can provide the cites, and we can discuss the definitions later. (Instead of "bad manner" he said "approaching but not crossing the line." I am content with that. The onus is still on him to provide instances.)

Frylock

03-10-2008, 12:32 PM

A fact I always take into account. I've never been rude to a newbie who asked a legitimate question in ATMB.

At one point, you guys said you might take away the fee for use of the SDMB. Do you have, or has there already been posted, any further information about that?.

I can't understand why this is not a legitimate question. You seem to be saying that, obviously, once they make the change, it will be announced to great fanfare. That's certainly true. But you seem to be arguing that makes it pointless to ask the question. But that does not follow. For it might be that the staff decide not to make the change. It is not so clear that this would be announced with any fanfare, and this in turn makes it reasonable for a person to wonder whether either:

--some info has been posted and he missed it, or
--info is known to the admins, but they are not being proactive about producing the information (but might produce it if prompted)

Reasonable possibilities both, rendering the question a "legitimate" one to use your term.

Slightly less reasonable, but nonetheless not completely stupid, is the fact that I myself have on more than one occasion discovered that I have missed something that was quite clearly and largely announced and missed by no one else. It would place a bit of an undue burden on others to ask whether I've missed something like this about a particular issue, but the favor asked in such a case would hardly be a huge one. Perhaps bb2k thought such a thing might have happened to him as well. That would not be completely unreasonable.

-FrL-

Wee Bairn

03-10-2008, 12:39 PM

Have you read any of Cecil's columns? Snark is the man's stock-in-trade; it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that a website which exists solely because of him tends to attract snarky people.

I don't have any opinion here, but this is like saying you should expect people on a Family Guy message board to be smarmy because Seth McFarlane is.

Liberal

03-10-2008, 01:11 PM

You don't find yourself being snarkier or curter or politer in different situations? Yes, but I don't claim to be generally one or the other. Once again, I find myself asking someone else a question only to find you explaining to me what you think they meant and how I should look at things. In fact, you didn't post until after he answered. Did someone hire you to look after me? Because if they did, I might entertain paying you twice as much to leave me alone.

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Yes, but I don't claim to be generally one or the other. Once again, I find myself asking someone else a question only to find you explaining to me what you think they meant and how I should look at things. In fact, you didn't post until after he answered. Did someone hire you to look after me? Because if they did, I might entertain paying you twice as much to leave me alone.
Actually, I was post #14 and I was the poster that lightly challenged Q.E.D. in the other thread. I am surprised by the apparent strong dislike that many have for Q.E.D..

I also think you just illustrated my point that people do react to different posters differently. I answered you very politely and honestly. You got defensive immediately. I am mostly a polite poster, there are a few I react to in a snarky or hostile manner based on my feelings about them.

By the way, just to answer snark with snark, I can't be bought for your rates.

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 01:49 PM

I had no clue of the bad blood between BBS2K and Q.E.D.
There's a very good and logical reason for that, which is that there isn't any.

Liberal

03-10-2008, 01:49 PM

Actually, I was post #14 and I was the poster that lightly challenged Q.E.D. in the other thread. I am surprised by the apparent strong dislike that many have for Q.E.D.. What are you talking about? I asked QED a question in post #89 of this thread. He answered me in post #91 of this thread. You then answered, in this thread, in #92, the post I addressed to him. And you do this with some frequency, and not just with me. It's as if you're sitting there going, "Ah, I must step in now lest everyone become confused." I realize you've had a boner for me ever since the PRR thing, but that's settled now. In fact, he has his money and I've released him from any further obligation. He may post at will. I understand that you mean well, but your butt isn't needed in every little skirmish or interaction between two other posters. Your politeness about it doesn't help. It's like Thoreau said, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Why can't you just wait until I address YOU and then respond?

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 02:16 PM

There's a very good and logical reason for that, which is that there isn't any.
Sorry, I misunderstood BBS2K earlier post then. So that was just you being snarky for the sake of it then? ;)

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 02:22 PM

What are you talking about? I asked QED a question in post #89 of this thread. He answered me in post #91 of this thread. You then answered, in this thread, in #92, the post I addressed to him. And you do this with some frequency, and not just with me. It's as if you're sitting there going, "Ah, I must step in now lest everyone become confused." I realize you've had a boner for me ever since the PRR thing, but that's settled now. In fact, he has his money and I've released him from any further obligation. He may post at will. I understand that you mean well, but your butt isn't needed in every little skirmish or interaction between two other posters. Your politeness about it doesn't help. It's like Thoreau said, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." Why can't you just wait until I address YOU and then respond?
Because I am a busybody I suppose. But please get over yourself, I haven't said boo to you in quite a while. I don't give much thought to you one way or another and you raised the ugliness of paying off posters with your lame joke.

I answered as I felt like it. Your question got a curt reply from Q.E.D. and I tried for something a little different and you got bent out of shape over it and acted like I was stalking you. This thread is of direct interest to me. You raised a question that I thought my opinion might actually help with. I was wrong again.

You don't normally bug me a third as much as a few posters on this board that I generally avoid. Your response to my post is of course well within your rights, especially in the pit, but what the fuck? What did I say to piss you off?

Jim

twickster

03-10-2008, 02:44 PM

...so I budded in, as I am wont to.
That would be "butted" in.

Liberal

03-10-2008, 02:56 PM

What did I say to piss you off?I'm not pissed off. Just forget about it.

Ponder Stibbons

03-10-2008, 03:04 PM

That would be "butted" in.Not necessarily. Maybe he's a tree. After all, it is nearly spring.

twickster

03-10-2008, 03:11 PM

Not necessarily. Maybe he's a tree. After all, it is nearly spring.
Wouldn't that be budded out? ;)

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 03:23 PM

That would be "butted" in.
And yet another typical typo from me. :smack:

Dangerosa

03-10-2008, 04:31 PM

Actually, I was post #14 and I was the poster that lightly challenged Q.E.D. in the other thread. I am surprised by the apparent strong dislike that many have for Q.E.D..

Really? He's prolific. He himself has admitted he can be snarky. Snarky is somewhere on the continuum that runs from polite to rude to jerk - and its certainly further along the rude/jerk end than towards the polite end. People who have been on the receiving end of his snark are likely to remember it, and when you snark as frequently as Q.E.D. does......

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 05:16 PM

Really? He's prolific. He himself has admitted he can be snarky. Snarky is somewhere on the continuum that runs from polite to rude to jerk - and its certainly further along the rude/jerk end than towards the polite end. People who have been on the receiving end of his snark are likely to remember it, and when you snark as frequently as Q.E.D. does......
I just hadn't noticed any on-board dislike for him. It is not like he gets pitted very often. I guess I have avoid his snark. I only noticed it in the other thread as I was looking forward to an answer to bbs2k's question.

I read almost every thread in ATMB. There aren't many and I sometimes I learn fun things like the 200 post per page option or that there was a chance of a Game and Sports forum being added.

Qadgop the Mercotan

03-10-2008, 05:41 PM

I read almost every thread in ATMB.
You need a hobby!

Fantasy literature can be very diverting.

As to the OP, Q.E.D. has a posting style that a significant number of posters find to be episodically but persistently abrasive. He knows it and doesn't appear to particularly care. That's a pity, because the board would be better served if one of our most informative and prolific posters managed to blunt that tendency a bit more.

What Exit?

03-10-2008, 05:49 PM

You need a hobby!

Fantasy literature can be very diverting.

As to the OP, Q.E.D. has a posting style that a significant number of posters find to be episodically but persistently abrasive. He knows it and doesn't appear to particularly care. That's a pity, because the board would be better served if one of our most informative and prolific posters managed to blunt that tendency a bit more.
:D I might have to try that Tolkien fellow I have heard so much about.

ATMB is pretty slow moving. It takes a no more than 10 minutes a day to keep up with it.

samclem

03-10-2008, 07:19 PM

As to the OP, Q.E.D. has a posting style that a significant number of posters find to be episodically but persistently abrasive. He knows it and doesn't appear to particularly care. That's a pity, because the board would be better served if one of our most informative and prolific posters managed to blunt that tendency a bit more.

Q.E.D.. Please read, digest, and act upon this advice from one of the most helpful experts on this Board.

*The bolding in QtM's post is mine--sc

bbs2k

03-10-2008, 07:42 PM

Hah!

anyrose

03-10-2008, 08:20 PM

I must say, this is one of the nicest Pit threads I have ever read. Y'all are being so polite while twisting those daggers...

g, d, & r before one ends up in my back ;)

fisha

03-10-2008, 08:33 PM

I was going to write my solution to this early this morning, but resisted. Seeing that no one has made the point, I'll add it now.

Be funnier. Seriously, make the snark a little funnier, it'll be tolerated better.

If that proves easier said than done, than follow Qadgop's advice.

Hostile Dialect

03-10-2008, 08:59 PM

Hah!

Hah what? Now that QED has achieved some modicum of attention, you can somehow manage to keep flying under the radar despite being one of the most blatant and annoying trolls we've had in years?

I'm afraid you might be right. Hah, then!

El Cid Viscoso

03-10-2008, 09:01 PM

Well. I don't understand how you can claim to be an educated and intelligent person while failing to grasp such a simple concept. But, there you have it.That's exactly it. Mean-spirited, puerile clunk is ineffective snark.

You really don't know what you're doing, do you?

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 09:02 PM

fisha

03-10-2008, 09:04 PM

I remember why I didn't post this morning.

Nothing here, move along everyone.

Ephemera

03-10-2008, 09:16 PM

Hah what? Now that QED has achieved some modicum of attention, you can somehow manage to keep flying under the radar despite being one of the most blatant and annoying trolls we've had in years?

I'm afraid you might be right. Hah, then!

Q.E.D. and I have had words numerous times in the past and I actually agree with most of the people posting to this thread that he's snarkier than he needs to or should be but you're full of it if you think he's "one of the most blatant and annoying trolls we've had in years".

wring

03-10-2008, 09:22 PM

I believe the object of that comment was bbs2k, not QED

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 09:22 PM

Q.E.D. and I have had words numerous times in the past and I actually agree with most of the people posting to this thread that he's snarkier than he needs to or should be but you're full of it if you think he's "one of the most blatant and annoying trolls we've had in years".
I think he's referring to bbs2k. Which is still bullshit.

Ephemera

03-10-2008, 09:25 PM

Ah. My mistake, then.

El Cid Viscoso

03-10-2008, 09:39 PM

Tonight at 11: what happens when nerds talk.

dnooman

03-10-2008, 10:23 PM

Tonight at 11: what happens when nerds talk.
Fuck you for some reason!

Is it more petty to post about something trivial, or is it more petty to notice said posting? Endless cycle, pure bullshit. Meh.

Klaatu

03-10-2008, 10:50 PM

dnooman

03-10-2008, 11:01 PM

It's funny, more than anything. QED seems to have some need for board validation, and many times just has to be the first person to post an answer. I can't count the times he has posted an answer, and I google some keywords and come up with the same link.

It cracks me up when he posts his google bullshit and then a member with actual expertise on the topic comes in and busts his balls.
If you "can't count" those times, would it be fair to say that they are "countless"?

That seems like a lot of times.

Out of said instances, that are beyond counting range, might you present us with a few exemplars? These instances seem to be countless, surely there must be a wealth of them.

I'm most interested in the instances where he answers first, and then is proven wrong if it matters to you. Otherwise, he may or may not be faster at providing factual info via search engines. That can certainly be called a skill of sorts.

Q.E.D.

03-10-2008, 11:05 PM

If you "can't count" those times, would it be fair to say that they are "countless"?
Nah, maybe it just means he's stymied by numbers much larger than a half dozen or so.

dnooman

03-10-2008, 11:21 PM

Nah, maybe it just means he's stymied by numbers much larger than a half dozen or so.
Just so were clear here, a half dozen equals a goozle right?

I'm so tired of the "Is a peck greater than a fartling, or is it equal to a cornsworth?" debate. Silly New Englanders.

I say we just adopt the metric system.

CarnalK

03-10-2008, 11:36 PM

Nah, maybe it just means he's stymied by numbers much larger than a half dozen or so.

I think he was probably laughing so hard at this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6920903&#post6920903) that he lost count. Though you were the late simulpost for first place on that one.

Musicat

03-11-2008, 07:13 AM

Yes, duh.Y'see, if you were as smart as you imply, you'd come up with wittier responses instead of just this reflexive crap.Sometimes it is smartest to know what NOT to say, and "duh" just might be the best and most concise response there is.

Just sayin'. :)

Autolycus

03-11-2008, 09:42 AM

Mellivora capensis

03-11-2008, 09:53 AM

You need a hobby!

Fantasy literature can be very diverting.

As to the OP, Q.E.D. has a posting style that a significant number of posters find to be episodically but persistently abrasive. He knows it and doesn't appear to particularly care. That's a pity, because the board would be better served if one of our most informative and prolific posters managed to blunt that tendency a bit more.

(my bolding)

//reaches for dictionary//

Once again I'm reminded why I hang around here, a new word every week. :D

Hostile Dialect

03-11-2008, 11:07 AM

What's your beef with bbs2k?

Are you seriously asking if I have some unspoken beef with bbs2k, or are you trolling me? If the first, try reading my post again. All the "beef" you need is in there.

Q.E.D.

03-11-2008, 11:18 AM

...try reading my post again. All the "beef" you need is in there.
No, it's not, idiot. Your post is a content-free accusation of trolling with absolutely zero substantiation. You got some evidence he's a troll? Then put up, or STFU.

What Exit?

03-11-2008, 11:24 AM

Are you seriously asking if I have some unspoken beef with bbs2k, or are you trolling me? If the first, try reading my post again. All the "beef" you need is in there.
Not as strongly as Q.E.D., but I think he has a point, what makes bbs2k such a troll in your eyes?

Damn, I like all three of you. I don't think any of you are trolls or a detriment to the board.

Hostile Dialect

03-11-2008, 11:33 AM

You got some evidence he's a troll? Then put up, or STFU.

I must concede that bbs2k's recent trolling spree is subtle enough to elude the understanding of most 15-year-olds, not to mention that your normal Google tactics are useless for it. Anyone else here who's been paying the slightest bit of attention to bbs2k's posting habits and PM habits shouldn't need any help figuring it out.

bbs2k

03-11-2008, 12:30 PM

I must concede that bbs2k's recent trolling spree is subtle enough to elude the understanding of most 15-year-olds, not to mention that your normal Google tactics are useless for it. Anyone else here who's been paying the slightest bit of attention to bbs2k's posting habits and PM habits shouldn't need any help figuring it out.
Okay...

First of all, what?

My posting habits are 1) silly 2) stupid and 3) helpful.

I'll read this whole thing later, and give a civilized answer later on tonight, but in the meantime you've forced my hand.

Eel girl blackmail! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342808).

PS: The "il!"combination is a fascinating one.

Ephemera

03-11-2008, 12:40 PM

His PM habits? How are we supposed to take note of something which, by definition, is private?

What Exit?

03-11-2008, 12:42 PM

I must concede that bbs2k's recent trolling spree is subtle enough to elude the understanding of most 15-year-olds, not to mention that your normal Google tactics are useless for it. Anyone else here who's been paying the slightest bit of attention to bbs2k's posting habits and PM habits shouldn't need any help figuring it out.
Gee, thanks for the en passant insult as you snark Q.E.D., but seriously, how has he been trolling since his return?

How would anyone be aware of his PM habits? My few PMs with him have been from a polite poster that is often silly. That is generally what I see in his postings.

Jim

Hostile Dialect

03-11-2008, 12:59 PM

Very mature, bbs2k.

Sorry, I assumed he was as much of an annoying prick in PMs to everyone else as to me, since his first PM to me started with something like "My PMs have a habit of being pasted to [other boards]". He then attempted to drum up some kind of promise not to say anything mean about him on this or any board, in exchange for not bringing up that eel post, as if I'm supposed to be terrified of somebody finding out something that I, um, TOLD THE INTERNET ALREADY. Anyway, I played along, mostly because at that point I had no real reason to badmouth him anyway.

Then I started to notice the trolling. The little cutesy pastes of things discussed at the other board--the GQ thread that touched this whole thing off is just the most recent example--are the bulk of it. But I've seen a fair bit of mod-baiting, other-poster-baiting, OP-baiting, etc. Each instance is fairly subtle as far as trollings go, but the whole picture is blatant to anyone who pays much attention to the pattern. And What Exit?, I didn't mean to insult you in that last post; I assumed you just hadn't been paying attention to his behavior, since you never seemed to be the type to get caught up in the Troll of the Week drama.

Anyway, bbs2k's next PM to me was a blatant trolling attempt. I can only do it justice by pasting it here:

You are sennonny at the snackpit, right?

Your secret is safe with me.

-Chris

Since I don't want to go into that board's drama any more than is necessary to tell this story, I'll simply paste my response:

How's your helmet fitting? (Reference to a lack of reasoning ability.) It's blatantly obvious that sennonny is from the East Coast. This has been covered (on that board, where it was pointed out soon after the "sennonny is Hostile Dialect" meme was conjured out of thin air). Don't waste my inbox space with this crap.

(Explanations in bold added for the benefit of exclusive Dopers.)

To which he responded:

pm

-chris

If that isn't the most blatant trolling attempt you've ever seen, I don't know what is. I had no intention of bringing Chris's silly PM drama to the public eye, mostly because no, I don't have a beef with him, and my life isn't that affected by his standing here at the Dope. But I feel clarification is now necessary. Mods, if I've stepped over the line, I apologize. I didn't know how else to tell the story.

bbs2k

03-11-2008, 01:10 PM

If that isn't the most blatant trolling attempt you've ever seen, I don't know what is. I had no intention of bringing Chris's silly PM drama to the public eye, mostly because no, I don't have a beef with him, and my life isn't that affected by his standing here at the Dope. But I feel clarification is now necessary. Mods, if I've stepped over the line, I apologize. I didn't know how else to tell the story.
My PM's to you are your's. You can share them all you'd like.

-my name is Chris

Giraffe

03-11-2008, 01:13 PM

But I feel clarification is now necessary. Mods, if I've stepped over the line, I apologize. I didn't know how else to tell the story.You have stepped over the line, for the second time. I'm not giving you a warning because you don't seem to be doing it maliciously, but you really need to knock it off.

I couldn't care less who posts what on the snark blog, or in response to something you posted on the snark blog, or accusing you of posting something you didn't on the snark blog. The snark blog is retarded. It's just the latest incarnation of LiveJournal drama we've had on this board since the beginning, with a bit less content and a lot more juvenile attempts to be edgy. If you choose to participate, that's fine, just keep it off here. If you are getting unwelcome PMs from someone trying to drag you into drama over there, simply ask them to stop messaging you. If they persist, forward the exchange to a mod and we'll tell them to knock it off. Either way, please keep it off the boards and out of the Pit.

Kneepants Erasmus, the Humanist

03-11-2008, 01:47 PM

That's great coming from you, Giraffe, since you are the biggest asshole I have ever met. Your trolling is legendary! I can't believe everyone else doesn't see you for the truly awful person you are.

:mad:

Not really. See, I thought this was a pitting of QED, but instead it seems to have turned into a pitting of Everybody. I was just trying to keep up.

*pets Giraffe* I so sowwy.....you are a good giraffy yes you are........

Omegaman

03-11-2008, 02:13 PM

This shit's like a soap opera.

LurkMeister

03-11-2008, 02:36 PM

Naw, soap operas make more sense......

Contrapuntal

03-11-2008, 03:29 PM

Frylock, just cruise GQ one of these days. I don't spend much time there anymore, but when I do, it seems like every (or nearly every) thread has an FPB by our hero, Google Man. Its tone is generally somewhere between "You're so lucky that I, God's gift to ignorance, am here to save the day" and "Wow, you're fucking stupid. How come you couldn't figure that out on your own?"So, you got squat, right? Two days later you have absolutely nothing to back up your bullshit.

Autolycus

03-11-2008, 04:16 PM

Are you seriously asking if I have some unspoken beef with bbs2k, or are you trolling me? If the first, try reading my post again. All the "beef" you need is in there.

Definitely trolling! No.. wait.. the other choice. Is that like a 'cake or death' question?

Anyway, I think your beef comes from a mad cow. I see his 'baiting' as playfulness. I think I see what you're saying, that his posting can be akin to poking a beehive with a stick, but that doesn't qualify as horrible troll in my book. I admit I know him in person, so I may be biased. C'est la vie.

Hostile Dialect

03-11-2008, 10:02 PM

Princhester

03-11-2008, 10:15 PM

You need a hobby!

Seems to me he has one ;)

bbs2k

03-11-2008, 11:33 PM

"Horrible" is your word, not mine. Although I wouldn't lose any sleep if he were banned, I find bbs2k's trolling mildly amusing when he's not trolling me. And he doesn't troll me that much, although I have a feeling that's about to change. C'est la vie.
Hostile Dialect, I have finally read this whole thing and have taken it all in. The accusations of trolling, the posting of private messages, as well as dragging in off-board snarky crap. I have thought about it, and I have two words.

I'm sorry.

I don't believe I am so much an ego-maniac that I believe everybody on this board recognizes my name, but I was under the impression that for those who did they knew I was often sarcastic. I'm sorry that you thought I was purposefully trolling you, and I sorry that it's gone this far here in this thread. I never meant to be intentionally annoying to you.

I'll try to stay out of your way from now on.

-I guess everybody already knows I'm Chris

Klaatu

03-11-2008, 11:36 PM

If you "can't count" those times, would it be fair to say that they are "countless"?

That seems like a lot of times.

Out of said instances, that are beyond counting range, might you present us with a few exemplars? These instances seem to be countless, surely there must be a wealth of them.

I'm most interested in the instances where he answers first, and then is proven wrong if it matters to you. Otherwise, he may or may not be faster at providing factual info via search engines. That can certainly be called a skill of sorts.

It doesn't matter at all to me, dude, it makes me laugh. Yes, he is quick at googling, I'll give him that. A rare skill. :rolleyes: Reminds me of DDG back in the day.

This is the fucking pit, and I don't care enough to provide you with cites of QED getting his balls busted on lame answers. I don't post here to accommodate you, I post here for my own amusement. This board gives me countless minutes of entertainment. Countless, I tell ya.

El Cid Viscoso

03-11-2008, 11:37 PM

It doesn't matter at all to me, dude, it makes me laugh. Yes, he is quick at googling, I'll give him that. A rare skill. :rolleyes: Reminds me of DDG back in the day.

This is the fucking pit, and I don't care enough to provide you with cites of QED getting his balls busted on lame answers. I don't post here to accommodate you, I post here for my own amusement. This board gives me countless minutes of entertainment. Countless, I tell ya.I like you.

Hostile Dialect

03-12-2008, 12:00 AM

I am also not about to dig up "cites" for behavior anyone with at least one eye and/or a functioning screen reader can find ample evidence of in under 20 minutes. If you spend 20 minutes in GQ and still don't believe me, that's your right; I, however, reserve the right to laugh at you, like Klaatu.

And beebs, apology accepted, although I admit no wrongdoing (except for the SDMB rules I've broken in this thread--no moral wrongdoing, I mean), thanks to your laughable but irritating "blackmail" game. Time will tell whether you're whooshing me. For now, I believe your apology is sincere, and I commend you for rising above the level of he-said-she-said, which many of us (myself included) sometimes struggle with.

El Cid Viscoso

03-12-2008, 12:50 AM

Please be nicer.

CarnalK

03-12-2008, 02:55 AM

bbs2k

03-12-2008, 04:40 AM

And beebs, apology accepted, although I admit no wrongdoing (except for the SDMB rules I've broken in this thread--no moral wrongdoing, I mean), thanks to your laughable but irritating "blackmail" game. Time will tell whether you're whooshing me. For now, I believe your apology is sincere, and I commend you for rising above the level of he-said-she-said, which many of us (myself included) sometimes struggle with.I am serious, although I apologize if you are somehwat dubious. I run into this a lot, I tend to be far more sarcastically toned than I really mean, so when it comes time to actually say something serious I run into the problem of "the boy who cried wolf".

And in your defense, I thought I was going to try to continue fighting with you too. Unfortunately/fortunately when I sat down to write a proper post in the Pit, I just really didn't have it in me. I've gotten into fights before, and they never really end well. It's not a trainwreck or anything, it's more of a simple frustration with issues never being resolved or talked about. What's the point?

I wasn't under the impression that I was actually somehow annoying you. I've traded similarly toned PM's with the likes of What Exit and Autolycus with nary a worry. Hell, even my pitted pal QED has sent me some of the funniest messages I've ever gotten, even though he's admitted to me in the past that he finds me mildly irritating.

I'll know from now on that I should tread more cautiously around you. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just saying that I sometimes have a hard time understanding how my behavior appears to others.

Back this past Novmeber I acted like an ass and got myself suspended. Was I trying to? Hell no. And it wasn't until after it happened, and everyone went, "hey bbs2k, what the hell were you thinking?" that I could actually go back and see that a couple people were noticing a bizarre and dramatic change to my posting style (ETF, and the now departed Sapo are the two I have in mind).

So yes HD, I am being serious. I'm not going to put you on my ignore list, and I'm not concerned about shying away from threads you or I start. If I am bugging you though, I'll do my best to knock it off.

In the future though, if you enjoy accusing people of trolling, both myself and others, please come up with some more evidence than just a couple poorly toned personal messages.

(Christ, no one is every going to want to trade PM's with me again, how the eff do these things alway manage to get out?!)

fisha

03-12-2008, 08:18 AM

Two words, bbs2k.

Live journal.

And this has to be the lamest pitting ever. Really. Starts off with , "please be nicer," gets all the way to unsubstantiated accusations of countless-gasp-snarkiness. At least once, really! And we even accuse him of using Google, like Himmler used to.

Then the thread devolves into two boys playing trainwreck in HO scale.

Jesus fucking Christ people, is this the best we got?

GED, I'm sorry. You deserve something better than this half-assed tard fest.

Cat Whisperer

03-12-2008, 08:33 AM

<snip>
Jesus fucking Christ people, is this the best we got?
<snip>
It's a slow day.

bbs2k

03-12-2008, 08:36 AM

GED, I'm sorry. You deserve something better than this half-assed tard fest.That's the spirit! Even though I think this thread is just about all worn out.

That certainly was waning and weak semi-rant I submitted you all to. Allow me to humbly FOBTMPSIMS.

If anyone needs me I'll be captioning cat pics and and catching up on all the baseball threads.

fisha

03-12-2008, 08:53 AM

Oh, and Hostile Dialect, you're a complete asshole for posting PM's, even if they were unsolicited and stupid.

Q.E.D.

03-12-2008, 11:28 AM

You deserve something better than this half-assed tard fest.
I'm extremely amused that in this thread imploring me to be nicer (I'll try, honest!) there's a small bunch of immature buffoons predictably acting like total pricks. And I got "told off" by none other than lissener. Priceless.

aptronym

03-13-2008, 07:17 PM

I'm extremely amused that in this thread imploring me to be nicer (I'll try, honest!) there's a small bunch of immature buffoons predictably acting like total pricks.There's a good reason for the double standard - that's what the Pit is for. Nobody would be telling you to be nicer if you had written in the Pit what you wrote in ATMB.

wring

03-13-2008, 07:48 PM

I'm extremely amused that in this thread imploring me to be nicer (I'll try, honest!) there's a small bunch of immature buffoons predictably acting like total pricks. And I got "told off" by none other than lissener. Priceless.
That's what you got out of this 4 page thread?

Q.E.D.

03-13-2008, 08:04 PM

Yes, every offhand comment I make near the end of a thread should be taken as a complete summary of what I've gotten out of it. :rolleyes:

wring

03-13-2008, 08:10 PM

yep, you sure are learning. I'm especially wounded by the rolleyes in my direction.

bbs2k

03-13-2008, 08:13 PM

Let it die.... let it die.... [/chanting]

wring

03-13-2008, 08:21 PM

fine by me.

j666

03-13-2008, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by zuma
It was not a pointless question and some of us are waiting for the answer. You jump in and decide be be a dick.

Maybe, but he's OUR dick.

Originally Posted by bbs2k
I believe he's an ass...

And OUR ass.

Can you appreciate how off-putting that is to those without 'Charter Member' under their alias?

It does rather imply, 'Sure, we'll take your money to let you play here, but never forget it's OUR sandbox'.

People with a lot of history have a greater context in which to be understood, but, still...

fisha

03-13-2008, 09:29 PM

Can you appreciate how off-putting that is to those without 'Charter Member' under their alias?

It does rather imply, 'Sure, we'll take your money to let you play here, but never forget it's OUR sandbox'.

People with a lot of history have a greater context in which to be understood, but, still...

I took it the other way. Yes, he might be an ass at times, but because of his other redeeming qualities, it's all good.

Hell, if you feel unloved by the board, you can be my ass if you really want to. Wait, no you can't, that position and the dick position are filled. How about you can be the sand in my vagina?