The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > About This Message Board

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2005, 08:42 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,390
What was the bad behaviour that earned Inkleberry a warning?

I'm looking for a little guidance on the warning and thread closing here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=345230

Inkleberry compiled (apparently with the help of other posters) a rather impressive series of references to posts by another poster that added up to a conclusion that the other poster was "squicking him out." Perusing the references, I found them to add up to a pretty strong argument supporting the "squicking" argument.

It later was revealed that Inkleberry had help from other Dopers in compiling the list. That earned him a warning and a thread closing.

Can someone please explain what was the rule that was violated here? What was it that Inkleberry did wrong? I, for one, was rather impressed by the job.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-17-2005, 08:54 AM
Anaamika Anaamika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I thought it was kind of mean, to recruit other people behind his back and then pile-on. I'd be kind of hurt if people did that, rather than one person coming up with a grievance and then others joining in with more links. inkleberry is a girl, BTW. And FTR, Evil Captor's threads didn't squick me out at all.
  #3  
Old 11-17-2005, 08:56 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 25,232
SkipMagic implies that the research was done via another board. He does not say so, but in other cases this sort of thing has been done on another board specializing in gossip and smearing of SDMB posters. It has previously been stated that dragging stuff from there over to here would not be permitted.
  #4  
Old 11-17-2005, 09:07 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,051
This message board has a bunch of internet resources associated with it set up by community members, like other message boards, IRC groups, mailing lists, and blogs. None of these are owned or operated by the message board or the Chicago Reader, just by members of the Straight Dope community. One of these resources is an anonymous blog. Near as I can tell, most of the links that so squicked Inkleberry out were posted on the anonymous blog first.

In addition to their being a general rule that you really shouldn't bring things or issues from other boards onto this one, the SDMB "powers that be" don't really like the anonymous blog group, I don't believe. Many of the posts on it have been critical of SDMB management, and it's criticized a number of frequent SDMB posters, sometimes (but not always) unfairly. So, inferring that the information was gotten from that blog was a little bit like waving a red cape in front of a bull.
  #5  
Old 11-17-2005, 09:18 AM
Arnold Winkelried Arnold Winkelried is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
Another thing that is disallowed, IIRC, is "posting by proxy" - former members (e.g. banned members, or members that have let their membership lapse) asking others to "post things for them." If you want to post at the board after the 30-day period, the current requirement is that you pay - not try to get someone else to post it for you.
  #6  
Old 11-17-2005, 09:22 AM
Loach Loach is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
What the hell is a squick?
  #7  
Old 11-17-2005, 09:29 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach
What the hell is a squick?
A feeling of uneasiness or creepiness, often under the suspicion that the person in question has tastes or preferences or engages in behaviour that you might consider creepy.
  #8  
Old 11-17-2005, 09:36 AM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach
What the hell is a squick?
It's a cross between squirmy and icky. Squicky.
  #9  
Old 11-17-2005, 09:47 AM
Slithy Tove Slithy Tove is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist
It's a cross between squirmy and icky. Squicky.
Or a voyage to the wilder shores of love with a trepanning patient.
  #10  
Old 11-17-2005, 10:20 AM
Uvula Donor Uvula Donor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried
Another thing that is disallowed, IIRC, is "posting by proxy" - former members (e.g. banned members, or members that have let their membership lapse) asking others to "post things for them." If you want to post at the board after the 30-day period, the current requirement is that you pay - not try to get someone else to post it for you.
Except that paid members are the only ones able to search, so the likelyhood that Inkleberry got any of her information from "former members" is pretty slim and you know it.
  #11  
Old 11-17-2005, 10:28 AM
Arnold Winkelried Arnold Winkelried is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
A former member can also tell a newer member "several years ago someone said something stupid in this forum, use these search terms to find it. She also repeatedly talks about this other subject, search for that." In effect prompting the newer poster to go dig up some old business with the hope of starting up fights at the board.
  #12  
Old 11-17-2005, 10:37 AM
Arnold Winkelried Arnold Winkelried is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
In addition to the fact that some of our former members, deprived of the search function, would doubtless be obsessive enough to set the forum view to "show all threads from the beginning" and then go back page after page to try and find a months-old thread that still rankles.
  #13  
Old 11-17-2005, 10:47 AM
Larry Borgia Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 8,813
Good on skipmagic for closing that horrible thread. Can't say any more in this forum.
  #14  
Old 11-17-2005, 10:50 AM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uvula Donor
Except that paid members are the only ones able to search, so the likelyhood that Inkleberry got any of her information from "former members" is pretty slim and you know it.

Moreover, the initial impetus for the thread came over the weekend, when I noticed one of EC's threads while reading in Cafe Society. I commented IRL that I found it kind of creepy. Other Dopers who were present in my living room agreed.

We then noticed a pattern related to his threads.

Further, we noticed that other Dopers in those threads mentioned they were a bit creeped out as well. Those Dopers are not any I have interacted with, here or IRL.

Now it is true that That Terribly Wicked Place That May Never Be Mentioned By Name, Og Forbid also had a thread about it. However, one will notice that my thread:
- Had multiple other OP threads mentioned
- Was full of quotes I had PERSONALLY found creepy
- Made reference to my own PERSONAL feelings of squick, wholly uninspired by either group mentioned above.

Yes, it appears that there are at least three "groups" squicked by EC. My living room Dopers, the OP commenting Dopers, and the Dopers from TTWPTMNBMBN,OF. In my opinion, using only info from groups 1 and 2 to me is still "lots of people contributing to this thread" - directly and non.

The mod, however, jumped immediately to the conclusion that I must have meant #3. Would've been nice to ask. My email does work, you know. Hence, the thread was closed, likely before anyone else from groups 1 or 2, or possibly as independently squicked humans, could reply. Which is unfortunate, given the behavior in question.

Of course, this whole debate is skirting around two very big issues, namely:
- The fear, paranoia, and outright hysteria over TTWPTMNBMBN,OF
- The issue of whether using SDMB as a personal porn mine in a creepy-to-many manner is something to be allowed, especially given events of the past where people were squicked.

One of these debates has never been allowed to see the light of day, unfortunately. The other was aborted prematurely, but could be ressurected in another form, I suppose.

In any case, my OP still stands- I find him squicky based on my own standards of squick and my own experiences of his threads. This is why I made *very* clear to cite my own references and to personalize the OP as to *my* own feelings.
  #15  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:00 AM
TubaDiva TubaDiva is offline
Accept no substitutes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,093
You have resources to eliminate the sight of postings you find distasteful from people you find squcky. You do not have to be exposed to anything you don't want to read.

If you put these people on the Ignore list, you won't see their posts at all. That's what you want, no?

BTW, if you do so, keep it to yourself; we don't want people using the Ignore list as a club to beat on people they dislike.

TubaDiva
  #16  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:07 AM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
It seems to me that if many people helped with the research, then you should have credited them.


Otherwise, that is plagerism. Why didn't you just sign everyone's name?
  #17  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:11 AM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
You have resources to eliminate the sight of postings you find distasteful from people you find squcky. You do not have to be exposed to anything you don't want to read.

If you put these people on the Ignore list, you won't see their posts at all. That's what you want, no?

BTW, if you do so, keep it to yourself; we don't want people using the Ignore list as a club to beat on people they dislike.

TubaDiva
Sure. Except that I personally believe the behavior to be a *community* issue, as IMHO, he is using the community as an extension of a fetish.

Moreover, whether or not one employs an ignore list, isn't the *expressed* purpose of the Pit calling members on specific behavior you do not like? Seems to me I was using the forum for the expressed purpose it was designed for. With cites no less.
  #18  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:12 AM
Ponder Stibbons Ponder Stibbons is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Tuba, don't be disingenuous. You know full well this has nothing to do with the reason for the pitting. It has to do with the fact that inkleberry found a bunch of links about a poster she evidently didn't like in the first place over at TTWPTMNBMBN,OF.

As far as I can tell, SkipMagic closed the thread because he doesn't want to encourage the posters over at TTWPTMNBMBN,OF.
  #19  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:13 AM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
It seems to me that if many people helped with the research, then you should have credited them.


Otherwise, that is plagerism. Why didn't you just sign everyone's name?

I was referencing my own personal judgements on the behavior. True, the IRL dopers did point out other threads. However, that is up to them if they wish to add *their* personal feelings about them to the board. My OP was about my own observations and opinions, not an academic meta-analysis.
  #20  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:14 AM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
You have resources to eliminate the sight of postings you find distasteful from people you find squcky. You do not have to be exposed to anything you don't want to read.
Yes, but there's lots and lots of Pit threads about similar things--stuff on TV, in newspapers, other posters, other threads and what have you. If we limit Pit threads to only those things you cannot avoid, there will be little material there (which might not be a bad thing, per se, but I digress). The point is, it was board business being discussed, not dragging outside activities in. Whether the material in question was discussed offboard is irrelevant. I'm not too uspet that the thread was closed--I have no problem with Evil Captor or his sexuality, personally--but it was a bullshit reason for doing so. The warning was bullshit too. I'm as much a fan of strong moderation as anyone, but the moderation around here of late has gotten far too heavy-handed for my taste. We get enough knee-jerking from the political extremists, we don't need in in the mods, thankyouverymuch.
  #21  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:18 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Captor's sexual tastes are big fat "meh" to me. The political views he expressed in this thread, though, made me uneasy.
  #22  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:23 AM
Corii Corii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
You have resources to eliminate the sight of postings you find distasteful from people you find squcky. You do not have to be exposed to anything you don't want to read.
But wasn't that RolandDwhatever guy banned for posting lots of TMI stuff? Why couldn't people just ignore him?
  #23  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:23 AM
TubaDiva TubaDiva is offline
Accept no substitutes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponder Stibbons
Tuba, don't be disingenuous. You know full well this has nothing to do with the reason for the pitting. It has to do with the fact that inkleberry found a bunch of links about a poster she evidently didn't like in the first place over at TTWPTMNBMBN,OF.

As far as I can tell, SkipMagic closed the thread because he doesn't want to encourage the posters over at TTWPTMNBMBN,OF.
Yeah, it's a bit of a hijack, but it's what I hope is a common sense view. Too often when personalities get involved, sense flies (or gets thrown) right out the window.

My point is still valid; if you don't care for someone's point of view, why would you voluntarily read what they have to say?

We'd prefer you put people on the ignore list rather than orchestrate campaigns against them.

We also are not fond of business being dragged from one site to another, especially just to stir the pot and create controversy or uproar; that's not news.

We've never been fond of "let's you and him fight," the popular board game indulged elsewhere. We reduce or downright eliminate it here whenever possible.

It's my job to find ways to make this experience better for all concerned. Sometimes it means pointing out stuff that gets overlooked when people are focused on disagreeing and not so much on solutions to a problem.

Just saying.

TubaDiva
who hates people who say "Just saying."
  #24  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:25 AM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
Yeah, it's a bit of a hijack, but it's what I hope is a common sense view. Too often when personalities get involved, sense flies (or gets thrown) right out the window.

My point is still valid; if you don't care for someone's point of view, why would you voluntarily read what they have to say?

We'd prefer you put people on the ignore list rather than orchestrate campaigns against them.

We also are not fond of business being dragged from one site to another, especially just to stir the pot and create controversy or uproar; that's not news.

We've never been fond of "let's you and him fight," the popular board game indulged elsewhere. We reduce or downright eliminate it here whenever possible.

It's my job to find ways to make this experience better for all concerned. Sometimes it means pointing out stuff that gets overlooked when people are focused on disagreeing and not so much on solutions to a problem.

Just saying.

TubaDiva
who hates people who say "Just saying."

Sorry, but only three words come to mind: Pot, Kettle, Black.
  #25  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
SkipMagic SkipMagic is offline
Twee Varmint
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Up The Wrong Twee
Posts: 6,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri
SkipMagic implies that the research was done via another board. He does not say so, but in other cases this sort of thing has been done on another board specializing in gossip and smearing of SDMB posters. It has previously been stated that dragging stuff from there over to here would not be permitted.
Exactly.

Was it pure coincidence that this was already being discussed on the anonymous boards the same day of inkleberry's OP? Was it just a mighty coincidence her links almost exactly matched the order as they were given in the anon board entry? I didn't look outside last night to be sure, but were the stars aligned correctly?

Point is, whether it's inkleberry spearheading the imported effort to attack a poster, or whether it's anyone else, troubles originating at other places don't belong here.
  #26  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
TubaDiva TubaDiva is offline
Accept no substitutes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corii
But wasn't that RolandDwhatever guy banned for posting lots of TMI stuff? Why couldn't people just ignore him?
Ooh, another hijack! Two in one day in ATMB, that's unusual.

A totally different situation altogether and not applicable to merely "there's someone I dislike or disagree with."

The poster in question made it clear after a while that he was not really a regular inquiring member of the community. He was more about stirring up controversy, getting people upset, pushing other people's buttons . . . and he was warned to knock it off . . . and he chose to continue . . . and after several warnings on our part and continuation on his, we chose to ban him. Not much choice at that point, really.

When management counsels you to do something (or not to do something, as the case may be), it's meaningful. It's important that you pay attention. If you choose to disregard what a moderator or administrator tells you about policies and procedures -- especially if this is brought to your attention multiple times and you continue as you were, -- you do so at your risk.

TubaDiva
  #27  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
CandidGamera CandidGamera is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Seems a warning was a bit much, but as a Pit Thread - it was pretty useless. I vote 'blah' all around. I mean, someone could open a pit thread complaining about my numerous comic-related posts - and they are numerous - since this is not a "comic related messageboard". That would be a pretty touchy and intolerant thing to do, though, and pretty much a waste of bandwidth.
  #28  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:33 AM
TubaDiva TubaDiva is offline
Accept no substitutes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkleberry
Sorry, but only three words come to mind: Pot, Kettle, Black.
Huh?

TubaDiva
  #29  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:40 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,390
I'm still confused as to why this is being seen as "dragging in from another forum" problem. All the links, cites, quotes were from SDMB posts.

The topic was about an SDMB poster, specifically about his SDMB posts, and all the examples were from those posts. So what if Inkleberry got the idea or got the links from reading something else? How can one parcel off one's mind like that? It seems almost like she committed a thoughtcrime of some kind.
  #30  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:47 AM
Uvula Donor Uvula Donor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
My point is still valid; if you don't care for someone's point of view, why would you voluntarily read what they have to say?
We'd prefer you put people on the ignore list rather than orchestrate campaigns against them.
We also are not fond of business being dragged from one site to another, especially just to stir the pot and create controversy or uproar. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkleberry
Sorry, but only three words come to mind: Pot, Kettle, Black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
Huh?
Okay, two more words: Manager. Stage.
Whoopsies! Got 'em in the wrong order!
  #31  
Old 11-17-2005, 11:53 AM
Arnold Winkelried Arnold Winkelried is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
I agree with the decision to discourage members from lifting posts from one of the various hate boards and repost them here to cause a "trainwreck".
  #32  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:25 PM
Ponder Stibbons Ponder Stibbons is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray
I'm still confused as to why this is being seen as "dragging in from another forum" problem. All the links, cites, quotes were from SDMB posts.
Over on "that other board" some posters apparently decided they didn't like Evil Captor and that, er, "community" did some research and came up with the rather impressive set of links that inkleberry subsequently posted in the Pit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray
The topic was about an SDMB poster, specifically about his SDMB posts, and all the examples were from those posts. So what if Inkleberry got the idea or got the links from reading something else? How can one parcel off one's mind like that? It seems almost like she committed a thoughtcrime of some kind.
No, I think it's more of a case of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
We've never been fond of "let's you and him fight," the popular board game indulged elsewhere. We reduce or downright eliminate it here whenever possible.
I think that's exactly what happened here. As I stated above, the reason for the pitting (lame as it was) had nothing to do with the thread's closure. The real reason is that the thread was obviously going to turn into a poster-vs-poster fight with people taking up sides and becoming a train wreck, all while the people at that other board laughed their asses off.
  #33  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:26 PM
TubaDiva TubaDiva is offline
Accept no substitutes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uvula Donor
Okay, two more words: Manager. Stage.
Whoopsies! Got 'em in the wrong order!
Not just apples and oranges; apples and watermelons.

There is a world of difference between someone who writes about a fetish and someone who solicits for a potential felony while on the board.

One of the hallmarks of the Straight Dope Message Board -- and Cecil's Canon, for that matter -- is allowing discussion on a far-reaching range of topics. Some of these topics can be controversial; not all are pleasant or agreeable. It is not difficult to find subjects other members of the board personally find disturbing or unsettling or disgusting. We've never made a pretense of being a Sunday School board; this is not your grandma's message board. (That being said, it ain't, say, Penthouse Forum either and there are limits to everything.)

For the most part, if you find something or someone you personally dislike, your best bet is to avoid postings by that person. That does not mean if you see something that is against board policy you should just turn away; the staff can't see every single post on the board and sometimes stuff gets past us. You can send any of us email at any time; we encourage our members to report what they consider to be inappropriate material. We discourage people from attacking other members of the board or organizing campaigns against them.

TubaDiva
  #34  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:44 PM
fessie fessie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
I gotta call sliced deli meats on that one.

- I myself was in the thread that picked on that one jerk who got banned - the one with the Seinfeld character's name, but not VanDelay - he'd said some assholeish stuff in my thread about yelling at babies.

- And there was the one where Diane and Indygrrl went to town re: tossing a cigarette butt, that was a hoot.

- About a zillion threads ripping on Liberal.

- The whole IDigBadBoys melodrama.

- Shoot, right now there's one complaining about people who say "um".

There've been plenty of trainwrecks that came about b/c someone started complaining & it was pointed out to them that they were an idiot & they appealed to a Mod who said, basically, "tough nookies".

Inkleberry's egregious error was to openly admit she's scoping out the 'nonnies. Big whoop. If their point isn't valid, let it be defeated in an open discussion.
  #35  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:53 PM
Uvula Donor Uvula Donor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponder Stibbons
Over on "that other board" some posters apparently decided they didn't like Evil Captor and that, er, "community" did some research and came up with the rather impressive set of links that inkleberry subsequently posted in the Pit.
Clicking on "Find all posts by Evil Captor" yields the exact same list no matter whose mouse does the clicking.

Oh noes!!!1! A c0nSpirAcY!!!11!1
  #36  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:57 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,390
[QUOTE=Ponder Stibbons]No, I think it's more of a case of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
We've never been fond of "let's you and him fight," the popular board game indulged elsewhere. We reduce or downright eliminate it here whenever possible.[/quote

I think that's exactly what happened here. As I stated above, the reason for the pitting (lame as it was) had nothing to do with the thread's closure. The real reason is that the thread was obviously going to turn into a poster-vs-poster fight with people taking up sides and becoming a train wreck, all while the people at that other board laughed their asses off.
But isn't that what happens whenever one poster pits another? Shouldn't there then be a rule that you cannot pit another poster? Or am I misunderstanding what the Pit is for?
  #37  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:02 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
We discourage people from attacking other members of the board or organizing campaigns against them.
So does that mean there is a rule prohibiting the subject of a Pit thread being the targeting of a particular SDMB poster?
  #38  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:04 PM
TubaDiva TubaDiva is offline
Accept no substitutes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,093
Difference of opinion is one thing; it's legitimate to call someone out for discussion, even in the Pit, where it's somewhat more heated but still has some rules to it.

It's another thing altogether to attack someone simply because what they like is something you dislike.

Again, don't confuse this with observing what you consider to be behavior that violates message board rules; that should always be reported to staff here on the board.

TubaDiva
  #39  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:06 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray
But isn't that what happens whenever one poster pits another? Shouldn't there then be a rule that you cannot pit another poster? Or am I misunderstanding what the Pit is for?
You may be well advised to stop over to TBTMNBN and be sure that no one is flaming your Pittee over there.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:07 PM
Man With a Cat Man With a Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: where you least expect me
Posts: 7,489
Tuba,

Just saying.



::runs off and hides behind tree::
  #41  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:16 PM
Exgineer Exgineer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
You may be well advised to stop over to TBTMNBN and be sure that no one is flaming your Pittee over there.
This is really only good advice for people who know where to find it.

I didn't even know such a thing existed until I read this thread, and now I kind of wish I hadn't.
  #42  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:18 PM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponder Stibbons
Over on "that other board" some posters apparently decided they didn't like Evil Captor and that, er, "community" did some research and came up with the rather impressive set of links that inkleberry subsequently posted in the Pit..
While the thread lists contained overlap, it should be noted that my thread included several unmentioned threads "over there" as well as specific quotes.

I spent well over an hour documenting specifically what I found offensive, including relevant cites.

Just because a partial bibliography is the same doesn't mean there is a conspiricy a foot.
  #43  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:23 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uvula Donor
Clicking on "Find all posts by Evil Captor" yields the exact same list no matter whose mouse does the clicking.

Oh noes!!!1! A c0nSpirAcY!!!11!1

But it is not the exact same list as the one in the OP of the closed thread. That list was pulled from the 'find all posts list'. And Inkelberry freely admits that she didn't compile the list. That others helped her and the names of the others do not appear in her op nor has she mentioned them anywhere.

Who are the people that compiled the list of 'squinky' posts.
  #44  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:27 PM
groupwbench groupwbench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
There is a world of difference between someone who writes about a fetish and someone who solicits for a potential felony while on the board
TubDiva
Key word here is ABOUT - He is NOT writing about a fetish! It is IS his fetish. It is obvious to anyone who has ever been solicited online by a stranger what the deal is here. He likes to direct conversation towards sex - mostly S&M themed sex. He derives pleasure from it. And it certainly is unlikely he just has a coke and smile, mmky? I truly do not care how badly the admins want to make this not so because of where the info came from. Now people are talking about it and probably doing searches to see if it is as bad as Ink and co. made it out to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
Difference of opinion is one thing; it's legitimate to call someone out for discussion, even in the Pit, where it's somewhat more heated but still has some rules to it.

It's another thing altogether to attack someone simply because what they like is something you dislike.

Again, don't confuse this with observing what you consider to be behavior that violates message board rules; that should always be reported to staff here on the board.

TubaDiva
Honestly I think the admins here have not read the thread in question but seem to be well informed of the thread on the board wedarenotspeakitsname. Again Key word here is ATTACK. The pit thread was hardly an attack. But we must call it an attack so that we can justify it, right? Cuz otherwise if you take out the word "attack" and put in the acurate word "Pit" it would muck up your point. I realize it does not matter in major scheme of things but could you guys at least get an anonymous board to plan this Mod/Admin siege each time the board wedarenotspeakitsname gets mentioned?
  #45  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:32 PM
Anaamika Anaamika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by groupwbench
Key word here is ABOUT - He is NOT writing about a fetish! It is IS his fetish. It is obvious to anyone who has ever been solicited online by a stranger what the deal is here. He likes to direct conversation towards sex - mostly S&M themed sex. He derives pleasure from it. And it certainly is unlikely he just has a coke and smile, mmky? I truly do not care how badly the admins want to make this not so because of where the info came from. Now people are talking about it and probably doing searches to see if it is as bad as Ink and co. made it out to be.
It's not an illegal fetish, now is it?
  #46  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:35 PM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by fessie

Inkleberry's egregious error was to openly admit she's scoping out the 'nonnies. Big whoop. If their point isn't valid, let it be defeated in an open discussion.

Look, people talk. It's what they *do*. The SDMB is not a sacred cow. It is not an AA meeting or a support group or a therapy session. There is no sticky or sign that says, "Everything discussed here must remain on board."

As cranky and offended as people get about that paticular nonny board, it should be well pointed out that there is an ENTIRE ARCHIVE dedicated to other boards where people specifically talk about the goings-on of SDMB. Not to mention the SDMB communities on LJ, myspace, etc. Or the FFF board. Or gossiping at Dopefests. Or chatting by Dopers about SDMB privately by email, phone, or in person.

We can't pretend that SDMB is some sort of isolated island, or that what you do here isn't going to be used in some other format (for good or for ill) IRL or elsewhere online. This is why we have screen names and don't give out addresses and don't involve too much of our own personal info here. There's a reason why you don't post things that aren't common public knowledge in the rest of your life.

Getting upset over people talking elsewhere about what goes down here is a serious case of short-sightedness and an incredible feat of denial regarding how humans behave. Trust me, coworkers, family members, and friends talk behind your back. Sometimes no very nicely. And sometimes one person can notice something that disturbs them, and come to find out that others do as well. This is not a conspiricy, this is not a board war, this is not anything OMGWTFBBQ. It's a case of one person's behavior, appearance, writings, whatever being so noticeably outside the norm that it is disruptive to the equilibrium.

Now, if a person pits another without merit, they'll prolly get roasted themselves. If it's just bizarre or lame, it'll die a natural death. However, in this case, that is clearly not what's happening. This member's behavior has spawned conversation IRL, on another community (at least 1 that I know of, I wouldn't doubt more), and now in 4 threads here. These conversations have been going on for weeks. It isn't a "remarkable coincidence" that an entire thread about it would now pop up in the pit, it is an expected course of events once enough feathers have been ruffled in enough places.

The nonny boards are for the most part lame. I hardly qualify "boobies!" and "fap fap fap" to be quality and incisive wit. Sometimes, though, the threads there have there merits. This seems to be one of those times.

As to why the boards exist, that's probably a multifaceted thing, and worthy of another thread. But to try and contain the SDMB to this space alone is lunacy and also totally ignorant of social behavior in general, and prone to failure.
  #47  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:37 PM
inkleberry inkleberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
But it is not the exact same list as the one in the OP of the closed thread. That list was pulled from the 'find all posts list'. And Inkelberry freely admits that she didn't compile the list. That others helped her and the names of the others do not appear in her op nor has she mentioned them anywhere.

Who are the people that compiled the list of 'squinky' posts.

Bullcrap. Inkleberry had repeatedly said she in fact compiled 95% on her own.
  #48  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:39 PM
groupwbench groupwbench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaamika
It's not an illegal fetish, now is it?
honestly I have no idea. However I do not recall that anything needed to be illegal to be pitted. I realize you are fond of this poster but seriously if someone takes issue with being someone else's wank material I think the Administration should atleast take a look at the situtation rather then just slam the door, don't you? Because his choice of age seems to be above the legal limit does it make it right? I know I know I am just making assumptions here because we were not able to have a real discussion about it that is all we can do.
  #49  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:40 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
I find it kinda funny that there's this whole community of people on some other board who are running around frothing at the mouth about my posts over here. I'm guessing banned folk, since otherwise they'd be over here frothing at the mouth. What a very silly board.

I think it's also funny that some people think I'm molesting the ENTIRE STRAIGHT DOPE with my sexually-oreinted posts. I didn't know I had that kinda power, man. Really. I guess it's my overpowering masculinity. I have that effect on posters, almost without knowing it. I guess you could call it, sexual charisma. Yeah, sexual charisma. I like that. Beats "creepiness" all hollow.

And for the record, I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 or more of my posts are over in GD, IMHO and the Pit and related to political matters, not sex. My main interest in posting here is politics, etc. However, I have that hippy-dippy sensibility that sex is part of who you are, and nothing to be ashamed of, etc. And I think Inkleberry and her buddies over in the Phantom Zone are the ones that have a problem. I think they don't want posts on the Dope to have sexual content. I think they're made uneasy by sexual content in posts. I'm prepared to let that be their problem, so long as it's amenable to others. There are some folks who are uneasy about sexual discussions unless they are channeled into very narrow, very approved areas. AFAIC, their views should never be recognized by other adults.

And for the record, I DO think Judith Miller should be stripped naked, straight-jacketed, ball-gagged, and forced to run laps around Times Square at noon on a weekday. But not ... and I think this is so VERY important ... NOT for sexual reasons.
  #50  
Old 11-17-2005, 01:50 PM
Anaamika Anaamika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by groupwbench
honestly I have no idea. However I do not recall that anything needed to be illegal to be pitted. I realize you are fond of this poster but seriously if someone takes issue with being someone else's wank material I think the Administration should atleast take a look at the situtation rather then just slam the door, don't you? Because his choice of age seems to be above the legal limit does it make it right? I know I know I am just making assumptions here because we were not able to have a real discussion about it that is all we can do.
I don't even know Evil Captor.

What I resent is:

Having people talk about us on other boards
Having inkleberry say, "pot, meet kettle" when what happened in TubaDuva's case was illegal and what happened in EC's case is illegal,

I don't care if people find him offensive, then that is a right and proper reason to pit someone, but talking about it on other boards and then bringing it here is against the rules of the board. It isn't a new rule, either.

FTR, I don't approve of what TubaDiva did either, and I think she got away with a lot because she's a mod..but then again, she's a mod and does an awful lot or us. So I am willing to give her some leeway.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.