saying “It’s gauche to attack a banned poster when they can’t defend themselves.” It’s probably true that it is, but the post doesn’t address Miller’s point that, in the Pit, people (like George Bush, Pat Robertson, our annoying brother-in-law) are Pitted who can’t defend themselves, realizing that it’s unlikely Bush, Robertson, and our B-I-L are unlikely to subscribe.
So why is it wrong, to the point of closing the thread, to say bad things about a banned poster, but it’s fine to say bad things about other people we find annoying?
I think not too long ago there was some reverend-or-other who was alerted to a thread involving a member who was pissed at him, and who subsequently showed up to get his side on the record.
True, the celebs listed above are unlikely to appear, but it could happen.
There’s a rumor Fred Phelps and Jack Chick are going to start a tandem thread in GD entitled “Ask The Raving Loony Christian Fringe”. :dubious:
Yeah, I generally don’t understand the dichotomy here - granted, gossiping about someone in your crowd when they’re not there is not exactly the same as talking about the president, but it’s not convincing to me that this is outside the realm of what the pit is for. Gauche behavior is just that - gauche - and if people choose to be gauche, I don’t see the problem. milroyj has just the same opportunity to defend himself that many of the people we talk about do, including unloved co-workers and family members, celebrities, politicians, and so forth.
That was the whole vanilla kerfluffle, and it led directly to her banning. It was actually a Pit thread about one of her fellow churchgoers which SHE had alerted the (non-Doper) Pit-ee to and which the Pit-ee subsequently complained to their pastor about, causing him to show up here.
I think it’s a judgement call, and after five pages, it really didn’t seem to be going anywhere special, so why not close the thing? How much can one say for or against someone, who in several years of membership, provided almost nothing in the way of actual content to this board?
Also, closing it had the benefit of ending yet another of Liberal’s tedious, dreary, schoolmarmish scolds about speaking ill of the banned. That’s a win right there.
An analogy: we’re running a bar, and as such it’s not uncommon for people to get into fights or throw up on the floor, forcing staff to break things up and/or mop the floor. It’s just part of running a crowded bar, but we do sometimes notice a person who tends to be involved in far more than their fair share of these incidents. So we wait until the next time the guy gets in a fight and the bouncers break it up, but this time haul the guy outside and tell him not to come back. Even though we don’t want him around any more, we still aren’t going to let the other members of the bar kick his ass while the bouncers have him restrained. It just seems like the decent thing to do.
If that didn’t make any sense, I’ll try to think of something else. Maybe the board is also like a blimp… Or a roller coaster! Or a pirate ship!! Oh yeah, I’ve got more.
GWB, the Pope, Britney Spears et al very rarely care to answer public criticism from lesser mortals. They could sign on to the SDMB if they so wished to respond to their detractors and fans, the major odds against this happening not withstanding.
A banned SDMB poster would very likely want to fire back in connection with post-mortem gibes in the Pit, but is unable to do so. Therefore (after multiple pages of a goodbye/good riddance thread) an issue of fairness has been decreed.
So be it. They have spoken. We are but sub-atomic particles in a vast message-board universe.
Well, while i’m not getting too worked up about the whole issue of closing the thread, i think your analogy sucks. Physical harm and verbal abuse are two dramatically different things.
Also, as i said to Liberal in the other thread, i didn’t say anything about milroyj in that thread that i hadn’t said to him directly dozens of times before. When i criticized him, i also linked to the threads i was talking about, so that people could make their own decision about whether or not i was being fair to milroy.
Finally, even if people were just abusing him for fun, i don’t really see what the big deal is. I mean, he was ejected from this community for behavior that brought down the tone of the boards and annoyed the hell out of dozens, if not hundreds of people. What’s wrong with a bit of a flame-fest to send him off?
I feel our newest moderator has made a misstep, though a very slight one. THere was no reason to close the thread-as others have mentioned-because it wasn’t as if those of us who had chimed in about our former SDMB member hadn’t said the same things in many different ways. So it wasn’t as if we were just getting our hits in. Only before it was said to maybe bring him around to being a real functional boardmember instead of just someone who wandered around getting his jollies off on picking on people and adding absolutely zero content to our organization here, and now it was being said to defend the banning.
I think we’re mistaking intentions here. To use the bar analogy, the jerk has been thrown out after a few arguments, a groping on ladies night, and an outright brawl. Feelings are running high. I mean, the dudes jerk dial went all the way up to 11, so people start complaining about him simply to vent off the leftover steam.
This isn’t jumping the guy while the bouncers hold him down. It’s getting rid of leftover emotions after the insanity is over.
Liberal, do you agree with the above assessment? If not, why?
It’s not that I agree or disagree. I just don’t think there’s any need for analogies. There are many aspects that set this board apart from others, like the intellectual level of its members, the sense of community when a member needs help or an invading force enters. I remember when the Left Behind people invaded, and the board’s most fervent Christians and hard atheists joined forces to defend. Another of its qualities is its class. We don’t wish death on anyone — even people who might deserve it. We don’t bash classes of people — with one or two exceptions. We admit when we’re wrong (most of us do, anyway). We drag people to the Pit, but with the knowledge that they can come in and fight back. We have the intelligence, the maturity, and the class to simply suck it up when someone is banned, and let it go. After all, it’s over. There won’t be any more problems from MilroyJ. Men who lack the self-control to walk away from a corpse do not rise to the level of this board’s class. And it’s not like pitting Indian Hater Jackson or Jew Hater Hitler. True, they can’t defend themselves either, but it isn’t because they aren’t allowed to.
Throwing all analogies aside then, nobody is attacking anybody while they can’t defend themselves. As was noted in the milroyj thread, most of the things that were being said had already been said to milroyj’s e-face.
Milroyj seems to have done his best to stir up a lot of strong feelings in his time here. It is unrealistic to think that dopers should just swallow it up and not say anything.
But that is not the case. A full forum search for “creepy piece of shit jerk”, for example, turns up exactly one referenced thread. Well, until I post this.
I don’t see the point in closing a thread, then inviting people to open a new one. How can you discuss the appropriateness of a banning based on milroyj’s jerkish behavior, yet not discuss that same behavior because he isn’t around to defend himself?
Once liberal starts nitpicking, he pretty much ruins a thread, so it does not matter if the thread is closed, albeit for other reasons unrelated to his nitpicking.
If a banned poster is defensible, I’m sure some dopers will step up to the plate and defend him or her.
And if not, who cares. Aren’t we being a little rule-crazy here? So some may think it’s bad form, but is that enough to close the thread? Don’t the moderators have enough to do without being “bad form” police? If it’s so distasteful to you, open another thread.
And please elaborate on what’s so horrible about being unable to defend one’s self on a damn message board. It’s not a court of law. If I act like such an asshole that I get banned, I’m pretty sure I will suffer zero repercussions when the “Let’s bash that jerk Revtim” thread opens and I’m unable to defend myself from all the bad names people call my anonymous screen name… “We were going to offer you the job, but we tracked the SDMB username ‘Revtim’ to your home IP, and learned you are a goat-felching assgoblin… We’d rather not have that type of thing in our company.”
Anecdotes are good. Analytical frameworks are better:
Substitute “message board” for “corporation” and do the math.
Note that Liberal may not actually score the “message board psychopath” title. There’s an escape clause in DSM-TV-IR that says you can’t be diagnosed as psychopathic or sociopathic, if you only do this shit when you’re in the mainic phase of bipolar disorder, or if you’re schizophrenic.
Any way you look at it, Liberal is one fucked-up individual.
Three points:
[ol]
[li]As Tom (not Debb) said on the last thread, the people who bashed what’shisname were notjust basing, they were also listing reasons why it was a deserved banning.[/li][li]I agree this was a (minor) mistep by Giraffe.[/li][li]You want him to defend himself? Go right ahead. Just be aware that it will turn into a trainwreck. I posted to the SDMB Livejornal (link removed --Giraffe), only to have him respond. I considered saying, "Look asshole, if you had something intelligent to say, you would have. You didn’t in all the time you were here, so yes, it is true that “This guy, however, has no redeeming qualities.” I have not, since he will pay any attention to anything anyone says, and just go on slinging shit, but this time in Livejournal. Also, should I do so, I would just be encoraging him.[/li][/ol]
P.S. I read a little too quickly. stagemanager responded to my comments re: roy on livejournal, so I thought he was roy. He is not. :smack:
I considered saying, "Look asshole, if you had something intelligent to say, you would have. You didn’t in all the time you were here, so yes, it is true that “This guy, however, has no redeeming qualities.” I have not, since he will pay any attention to anything anyone says, and just go on slinging shit, but this time in Livejournal. Also, should I do so, I would just be encoraging him.[/li][/ol]