What was the bad behaviour that earned Inkleberry a warning?

About This Message Board
1

I’m looking for a little guidance on the warning and thread closing here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.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.

2

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

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

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

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

What the hell is a squick?

7

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

It’s a cross between squirmy and icky. Squicky.

9

Or a voyage to the wilder shores of love with a trepanning patient.

10

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

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

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

Good on skipmagic for closing that horrible thread. Can’t say any more in this forum.

14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.