OK, mods, this is getting Orwellian

[BrainGlutton]

This thread was just locked after nine posts.

There have been requests on ATMB for a list of banned posters. Mods have responded they don't want to put up a list on "don't feed the troll" grounds -- we would be infested with troublemakers gunning to get banned and listed as a point of honor. Fine, I can understand that. But now we can't even talk about them?! Have they become unDopers now?!

I'm thinking his is related to the equally braindeadly policy of flushing banned posters' threads down the memory hole so the rest of us can't even access them for reference purposes -- discussed in this Pit thread.

"Syme did not exist. Syme had never existed."

Fellow Dopers! Never think you can't be vaporized by the Thought Mods!

[Bosstone]

You're funny.

And retarded.

But funny.

[Frank]

Get a fucking grip, OK?

Spammers and socks and trolls are disappeared to the best of our ability. We understand the issues members have with that. Nevertheless, we believe it is the best method to deal with such.

Posters banned for other reasons are not wished into the cornfield. The reason we discourage general discussion of those posters is very simple: they cannot respond.

Though some may find it enjoyable to be able to unrequitedly pile on those who are no longer with us, we see no point in such a walk down memory lane.

If, in the course of a thread, a relevant reference is made to a banned poster, that's a horse of a different color, but threads devoted solely and merely to the departed have been, and will be, closed.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

This thread was just locked after nine posts.

Consider yourself lucky. This thread was locked after two posts.

[OneCentStamp]

Originally Posted by Frank

If, in the course of a thread, a relevant reference is made to a banned poster, that's a horse of a different color

Must...not...make...obvious...joke...










...sorry, couldn't resist.

[JSexton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

This thread was just locked after nine posts.

There have been requests on ATMB for a list of banned posters. Mods have responded they don't want to put up a list on "don't feed the troll" grounds -- we would be infested with troublemakers gunning to get banned and listed as a point of honor. Fine, I can understand that. But now we can't even talk about them?! Have they become unDopers now?!

That thread you linked to is, essentially, "list your favorite banned posters." If you can't see how that would violate a rule about not listing banned posters, which you yourself reference and acknowledge, then I don't know what explanation is going to satisfy you.

There's nothing Orwellian about it. It's the same exact policy. If a banned poster comes up in conversation, there's no problem at all. But a thread devoted to listing banned posters is going to be locked.

I really don't see the problem.

[Colibri]

Are you kidding? You've been around plenty long enough to realize what a stupid idea the original thread was.

Aside from the whole issue of banned posters not being able to respond to criticism about them, a thread of that kind will almost inevitably devolve into discussion of why so-and-so was banned, and whether it was justified or not. It's practically an invitation for a train-wreck.

Discussion of posters who voluntarily left without being banned is only marginally better. Some of these have been controversial, with strong feelings on the part of some for or against. Once again a fight just waiting to happen.

As has been pointed out, there is no problem with mentioning a banned poster when the subject happens to come up in the course of discussion. But a whole thread devoted to them? Bad news.

[John Mace]

Why don't you open a thread in GD: What would a SDMB without the rule against listing banned posters look like?

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Why don't you open a thread in GD: What would a SDMB without the rule against listing banned posters look like?

Don't give him more ideas, please.

[Ravenman]

How about, "What dozen threads should I start today?"

[Bryan Ekers]

Cafe Society: What banned posters would you like to see movies made about, and who would play them?

[AskNott]

"Are you gellian?"

"I'm so gellian, I'm Orwellian! And so's my daughter, the hellian."

[Vinyl Turnip]

Gosh. Guess I should rethink creating that "let's see how many board rules we can break in one thread" thread.

[Miller]

But my "How do I rob a bank?" GQ thread is still golden, right?

[rayh]

Originally Posted by Miller

But my "How do I rob a bank?" GQ thread is still golden, right?

As long as it doesn't involve file sharing, you should be ok.

[What Exit?]

BrainGlutton: Overall I like you and your posts. You start many interesting threads. Last night half the active GD's were started by you. I think I posted to half of those.

But you do come up with interesting complaints for the pit that show a weird lack of Board common sense recently. This thread and the This ATMB thread should not have been locked! really leave me scratching my head.

I was also wondering if you noticed that you have started 422 threads in the last year? That is an amazing amount. More amazing as so many are interesting.

Jim

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Why don't you open a thread in GD: What would a SDMB without the rule against listing banned posters look like?

Oka-a-a-a-ay, now that you've moved up near the top of MY list. . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by JSexton

That thread you linked to is, essentially, "list your favorite banned posters." If you can't see how that would violate a rule about not listing banned posters, which you yourself reference and acknowledge, then I don't know what explanation is going to satisfy you.

Of course I acknowedge it. I don't accept it. That is the whole point of this thread.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by AskNott

"Are you gellian?"

"I'm so gellian, I'm Orwellian! And so's my daughter, the hellian."

*snort*

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Aside from the whole issue of banned posters not being able to respond to criticism about them, a thread of that kind will almost inevitably devolve into discussion of why so-and-so was banned, and whether it was justified or not. It's practically an invitation for a train-wreck.

On this Board, a train-wreck is not a bad thing.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by AskNott

"Are you gellian?"

"I'm so gellian, I'm Orwellian! And so's my daughter, the hellian."

May your feet suffer intractable soreness.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by What Exit

But you do come up with interesting complaints for the pit that show a weird lack of Board common sense recently. This thread and the This ATMB thread should not have been locked! really leave me scratching my head.

See my last post in that thread.

Originally Posted by What Exit

I was also wondering if you noticed that you have started 422 threads in the last year? That is an amazing amount. More amazing as so many are interesting.

I accept your tribute/criticism in the same spirit as would Stephen Colbert.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

I was also wondering if you noticed that you have started 422 threads in the last year? That is an amazing amount. More amazing as so many are interesting.

Interesting, and yet his motive still remains unclear.

I very much get the feeling he's trying to press an agenda; he, however, seems to rather be sneaky about it rather than come out and ask people what they think about his agenda.

Personally, I'm voting socialism, but I guess we'll see when he eventually implodes.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Frank

Posters banned for other reasons are not wished into the cornfield.

Uhh -- just what does this mean?
Could you repeat that in plain english that even us simple-minded folk can understand, please?

[Harborwolf]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Uhh -- just what does this mean?
Could you repeat that in plain english that even us simple-minded folk can understand, please?

I think what he's referring to is the practice of deleting posts of those banned for sockery.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Uhh -- just what does this mean?
Could you repeat that in plain english that even us simple-minded folk can understand, please?

Being "wished into the cornfield" is a reference to this Twilight Zone episode.

[fluiddruid]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Of course I acknowedge it. I don't accept it. That is the whole point of this thread.

A "favorite banned posters" lists only encourages trollish, jerkish, and rule-breaking behavior in order to get attention. Users are banned only in extreme cases and we do not need to call attention to their misbehavior.

[Stonebow]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

On this Board, a train-wreck is not a bad thing.

Explain, please. Are you simply arguing for your right to troll?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

On this Board, a train-wreck is not a bad thing.

While I enjoy watching people looking like idiots as much as the next guy (admit it, I'm not the only one who clicks on locked threads to see why they were locked), I don't blame the admins for not wanting to encourage trolls, trainwrecks and so forth, as they're disruptive, mean a lot more work for the mods, and can cause a lot of hurt feelings and ill will on the board. If you've ever spent time at discussion boards less moderated than this one, you've probably seen how a few malicious board members are able to disrupt coversation and pretty much ruin a board.

So, yeah, train wrecks are a bad thing on this board. Sometimes an entertaining thing, but nevertheless a bad thing.

[Autumn Almanac]

Originally Posted by AskNott

I'm so gellian, I'm Orwellian!

You're my hero.

[Señor Piña]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I don't blame the admins for not wanting to encourage trolls, trainwrecks and so forth, as they're disruptive, mean a lot more work for the mods, and can cause a lot of hurt feelings and ill will on the board.

Yeah, it must wear the moderators' fingers to the bone to have to click the mouse three times in order to ban someone.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Señor Piña

Yeah, it must wear the moderators' fingers to the bone to have to click the mouse three times in order to ban someone.

I'm certainly spent.

Now fuck off.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

On this Board, a train-wreck is not a bad thing.

Only to those juvenile enough to be amused by pointless acrimony.

[Autumn Almanac]

Originally Posted by my messed-up post

Last edited by Giraffe : Today at 11:49 AM. Reason: fixed coding

Hey, thanks. Now you're my hero.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Just keep on fighting the power, BG.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I'm certainly spent.

Now fuck off.

Fine demonstration as to how such threads attract trolls and their socks. I do think there's two letters missing off the end surname, though. Ta!

[Lute Skywatcher]

That should have read: "I do think there's two letters missing off the end of the surname, though. Ta!"

[Askia]

Originally Posted by OneCentStamp

Must...not...make...obvious...joke...

Obvious or not, I still got it. Wheeeee!

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Uhh -- just what does this mean?
Could you repeat that in plain english that even us simple-minded folk can understand, please?

Spammers (people posting adverts, etc), socks (people with multiple screen names) and returnees (banned folks who try to sneak back in) are banned and their posts are moved out of sight. This is done to discourage them: if they figure out that their posts will vanish, we hope they'll give up their little game. We pretend they didn't exist: they're pushed out of sight and out of mind.

When people are banned for other misbehaviors (continually insulting other posters despite warnings, say, or trolling), their posts are not disappeared. They're part of the record and history.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Uhh -- just what does this mean?
Could you repeat that in plain english that even us simple-minded folk can understand, please?

Spammers (people posting adverts, etc), socks (people with multiple screen names) and returnees (banned folks who try to sneak back in) are banned and their posts are moved out of sight. This is done to discourage them: if they figure out that their posts will vanish, we hope they'll give up their little game. We pretend they didn't exist: they're pushed out of sight and out of mind.

When people are banned for other misbehaviors (continually insulting other posters despite warnings, say, or trolling), their posts are not disappeared. They're part of the record and history. Immediately following a banning, some discussion is permitted; however, since the person is not around to defend themselves, we disapprove of further comments.

That clearer?

[blinkingblinking]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

, since the person is not around to defend themselves, we disapprove of further comments.

That clearer?

I do not get this comment. I can only criticize someone who can respond ? This makes no sense. People criticize notable people here. People criticize people who have left these boards.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Only to those juvenile enough to be amused by pointless acrimony.

Which describes, oh, 90% of us or so.

"A man's acrimony must exceed his point, or what's a Pit for?"

or

"the mod's are in Heaven, all's right with the Pit".

Or something.

Merry Christmas/Happy Hannukah/Cheerful Kwanzaa/Happy New Year/insert the non-sectarian holiday celebration of your own choice to my fellow Dopers if I don't get a chance to return over the next few days.

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by blinkingblinking

I do not get this comment. I can only criticize someone who can respond ? This makes no sense. People criticize notable people here. People criticize people who have left these boards.

Actually, your final statement is not true. I am sure that there are occasional one-off comments, (even insults), regarding members who have clearly left or been banned that we (the Mods) do not catch. There are a lot of posts each day and a single line of acrimony or a cheap shot could certainly get by us from time to time. However, we have never tolerated whole threads or ongoing discussions intended merely to bash departed posters.

Public figures are eligible targets for comment for the same reason that the laws concerning public figures are more relaxed regarding libel: by making it into the public domain, they surrender some portion of privacy. Posters, here, do not surrender their rights simply by engaging in this (somewhat) private forum. (This is an analogy; I am aware that we are not really discussing libel.)

The point is that picking on someone who is no longer able to defend themselves from personal assaults is a bit cowardly and is akin to malicious gossip and we just do not countenance that action, here, even for the worst trolls and abusive posters.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Only to those juvenile enough to be amused by pointless acrimony.

What's your point?

[gommsn]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I'm certainly spent.

Now fuck off.

Shit! I read this two days ago and I still laugh when I think of it.

GOLD, I tell ya, Pure gold!!!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Stonebow

Explain, please. Are you simply arguing for your right to troll?

I meant only that a "train wreck" of a thread, while often frustrating and infuriating, does help us "fight ignorance," in the sense of bringing to Dopers' attention tangential facts/arguments of which we would not otherwise have been aware or thought of for ourselves. Which is sometimes worthwhile (or at least entertaining ) even when those facts are false or the arguments total bullshit. Can't fight ignorance if you can't identify it!

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Actually, your final statement is not true. I am sure that there are occasional one-off comments, (even insults), regarding members who have clearly left or been banned that we (the Mods) do not catch. There are a lot of posts each day and a single line of acrimony or a cheap shot could certainly get by us from time to time. However, we have never tolerated whole threads or ongoing discussions intended merely to bash departed posters.

Dayum. If I'd known that was board policy, I wouldn't have felt the need to start this thread.

I gotta keep up on these things.