Giraffe/VCO3

[The Flying Dutchman]

I don't normally pay any attention to VCO3, but not having a laptop and thinking about getting one I opened his laptop pit thread.

Then I com across this post

Originally Posted by Giraffe

OK, VCO3. Given your history of starting Pit threads and then never returning (latest example), we're going to have a special rule for you. No more dropping Pit threads like steaming turds and then never returning. If you don't want to discuss a subject, don't start the thread. If you start a thread and never come back (or make only fake, token responses to get past this new rule on a technicality), you're going to start racking up warnings.

Note to all: this rule applies only to VCO3 and his adherence to it will be judged by the mods (rather than some arbitrary minimum quota of posts per thread).

First off, I read through Giraffe's latest example of a pit thread by VCO3, and although he never returned, never once was he called upon to. There was only one question and it was rhetorical .

This warning of Giraffe's leaves several questions for me.

Is it proper form to make at least one more post in any thread you start when no one prompts you to re-engage? Quite often all you need to do is get the story off your chest.

Can a moderator properly judge whether VCO3 should repost or not given Giraffe's latest example.

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable with a rule that applies to only one person?

[silenus]

Yes.
Yes.
No. There have been ample precedents. Reeder, for example.

[wring]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable with a rule that applies to only one person?

precedent w/ Reeder & Bush threads.

[wring]

::shakes fist at silenus::

[Squink]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable with a rule that applies to only one person?

I like it.
Capricious modding keeps people on their toes.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable with a rule that applies to only one person?

No. Right now, only one poster is in the habit of dropping Pit threads like steaming turds and then never returning. So it works just fine for me.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm very not uncomfortable. This is the mink-lined slippers of concerns.

[Vinyl Turnip]

If I had a child who habitually shit on the carpet, I'm not sure my "solution" would involve requiring him to return periodically and play with it. Admittedly, I am no expert in child-rearing. (It's just something I dabble in occasionally.)

[lobstermobster]

Why does anyone have to return to a thread? I don't like new rules being made especially for just one person. It's a bad precedent. It makes me nervous as an unliked member of this board. It's for the better when VCO3 doesnt return. He's reading from afar with a smug grin as everyone falls all over themselves proving him right.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Is it proper form to make at least one more post in any thread you start when no one prompts you to re-engage? Quite often all you need to do is get the story off your chest.

Who decides what proper form is? Proper form at my grandmothers house is two forks, a knife, and two spoons arranged in a cult like fashion at dinner. The rule emposed on VCO3 would be like a mod stating that this is the only way to eat dinner, it's not cool.

Can a moderator properly judge whether VCO3 should repost or not given Giraffe's latest example.

No.

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable with a rule that applies to only one person?

Yes.

[susan]

It's for the better when VCO3 doesnt return. He's reading from afar with a smug grin as everyone falls all over themselves proving him right.

But not on his laptop, apparently. And perhaps from jail.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by lobstermobster

Why does anyone have to return to a thread? I don't like new rules being made especially for just one person. It's a bad precedent. It makes me nervous as an unliked member of this board. It's for the better when VCO3 doesnt return. He's reading from afar with a smug grin as everyone falls all over themselves proving him right.

I like you, lobs!

Then again, you post unpopular opinions. You don't post in an intentionally incendiary fashion, and you tend to reason out your posts. I think VCO3's restrictions make sense, particularly after he'd been warned many times, suspended, and then allowed to return under what should be a watchful mod eye.

[buttonjockey308]

It's in the middle for me; I think the only-for-him WARNING should apply, but should have been directed at VCO3 over private messenger, vs. in the public forum.

Bad form.

Still, I'm not comfortable with the one person rule thing. When one applies to me, CL/SDMB/whoever, no longer gets my money.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by buttonjockey308

It's in the middle for me; I think the only-for-him WARNING should apply, but should have been directed at VCO3 over private messenger, vs. in the public forum.

The warning isn't just to him but to anyone contemplating emulating him. And if secret actions and warnings started happening, the mods would be criticized for that, too.

And what is "CL"?

[Inner Stickler]

Creative Loafing, the new owners of the SDMB.

[shamrock227]

Originally Posted by lobstermobster

Why does anyone have to return to a thread? I don't like new rules being made especially for just one person. It's a bad precedent. It makes me nervous as an unliked member of this board. It's for the better when VCO3 doesnt return. He's reading from afar with a smug grin as everyone falls all over themselves proving him right.

Why shouldn't someone return to their thread? Do you typically start a conversation and then walk away while the other person is talking? This is a message board. We are having conversations. Type written and time delayed, yes - but still a conversation. If you just want an answer to a question without having an exchange, use Google. If you want to rant and walk away, get a blog.

Besides, this isn't really a new thing around here. It has always been considered bad form to start a thread and never return, no matter what the forum. You're right in that it was never a "rule" before just something no one really appreciates.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by lobstermobster

... It makes me nervous as an unliked member of this board. ....

Cite? I've seen a couple of threads where you've claimed this. What is it based on? I've been Pitted 3 times, and attacked in other threads, and I don't feel there is some large-scale built up dam of resentment against me. I've had people attack my post in one thread, and and the same people support me in another. Even VC03, I don't think, is "disliked" by the board. Opinion seems divided between disgust and amusement. Or some dislike the behavior -- making outrageous claims, and then whining about how hurtful the responses are.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Cite? I've seen a couple of threads where you've claimed this. What is it based on?

Maybe all the hate in GQ

[don't ask]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

Maybe all the hate in GQ

Wow two of them even contemplate murder.

[SomeUserName]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Is it proper form to make at least one more post in any thread you start when no one prompts you to re-engage? Quite often all you need to do is get the story off your chest.

It sort of depends on the rant.

If I came in to tell a long and glorious story of how I stubbed my big toe after tripping over the fucking dog, stepping on the stupid cat, knocking over the ugly lamp while I was holding my mothers favorite crystal ball then perhaps no. I don't think a return to the thread is required other than to say thanks for the Bravos.

There is no reason to return to defend my big toe but perhaps to explain the crystal ball.

But...

If I rant about about some shitty service I got at Walmart and I make statements how I called the sales girl a cunt, then I think you might have to return and explain yourself.

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Can a moderator properly judge whether VCO3 should repost or not given Giraffe's latest example.

IMO if he wanted to call VC3O out he should have removed his mod hat and done so as a poster.

"Is this another rant were you never return to explain yourself further?"

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

Isn't anyone else uncomfortable with a rule that applies to only one person?

I am uncomfortable with it and just because it has happened in the past does not make it right. A lot of things have happened in the past does that mean they should be repeated?

[essell]

How can it possibly be fair to apply the same rules to everyone when everyone is different?

Once someone has made their personal brand of "uniqueness" clear you can customise the rules for them.

I have no idea how this applies to VC03 because I've not been paying attention, but if the Mods have it comes down to how much you trust them.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by essell

How can it possibly be fair to apply the same rules to everyone when everyone is different?

Once someone has made their personal brand of "uniqueness" clear you can customise the rules for them.

That would work well in the offline world in governance.

[essell]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

That would work well in the offline world in governance.

Like I said, it comes down to Trust. The whole reason we don't let Government customise the rules is we don't trust people with power.

At one end of the continuum you've got Government, prone to abuse and filled with power hungry people. Don't trust them.

And on the other end you've got parents.
If you hear a kid ask "Why do I have to go to bed at Six when my Brother gets to stay up till 8 ?" you don't think of parents abusing their power.
It makes sense because they know their kids.

Mods and bosses and everyone else with authority sits somewhere in that continuum. It comes down to trust.

[ParentalAdvisory]

But we don't pay our parents to tell us when we should go to bed.

[Guinastasia]

It has its precedents-remember handy being forbidden to post in any medical threads, or on any sort of medical advice?

[twickster]

I don't see this as being a rule solely fabricated against VCO3 as much as it is explaining an existing rule -- "Don't be a jerk" -- with a specificity that he, apparently, needs.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by twickster

I don't see this as being a rule solely fabricated against VCO3 as much as it is explaining an existing rule -- "Don't be a jerk" -- with a specificity that he, apparently, needs.

So what about this part from the OP link:

Note to all: this rule applies only to VCO3 and his adherence to it will be judged by the mods (rather than some arbitrary minimum quota of posts per thread).

I may be misreading this, but I interpret it to be a rule solely fabricated against VC03.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

So what about this part from the OP link:

I may be misreading this, but I interpret it to be a rule solely fabricated against VC03.

Did the rule against handy making any posts in medical threads also upset you?

[picunurse]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

Maybe all the hate in GQ

Your link ends at "No matches to your search" You need to link to the actual thread.

Isn't returning to one's own thread just common courtesy?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Did the rule against handy making any posts in medical threads also upset you?

I wasn't aware of that, but THIS one doesn't upset me. I think it's deserved. But I'm just curious how twickster could interpret it as anything other than a rule promulgated for a single individual.

[Southern Yankee]

Not defending VCO3, but I do think it depends on the forum. I would think it bad form not to return to a GD or even a GQ thread you start. But the Pit is used to vent. You get something off your chest. It doesn't always need to be a conversation.

[Dunderman]

Originally Posted by Southern Yankee

Not defending VCO3, but I do think it depends on the forum. I would think it bad form not to return to a GD or even a GQ thread you start. But the Pit is used to vent. You get something off your chest. It doesn't always need to be a conversation.

No, but perhaps sometimes. The problem isn't that VCO3 did it once, but that it was a pattern. A pattern, I might add, consistent with the behaviour of people who post from underneath bridges.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by picunurse

Your link ends at "No matches to your search" You need to link to the actual thread.

Isn't returning to one's own thread just common courtesy?

The link was a cached search ID. Apparently it gets deleted after some time, there were several threads to be seen.

Here is a pic of what you should have seen.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I dunno what you mean. The rule is quite clear:

Rule 27(F)(16)(b)(iii): If there are at least 10 occasions of "shit stirring," a member will be warned [Warning of Type 52(b)] and asked to refrain. For purposes of this rule, the term "shit stirring" shall be defined as starting a thread on a controversial topic and not returning. The term "controversial" is defined in Rule 47(C)(23)(vii) below. The term "refrain" is ....

My point: we really don't want to have a twenty-four volume law code to define our rules.

And, in this situation, the word "rule" is perhaps misleading. How about calling it "terms of probation"? That seem more fair, more individualized, more case-specific?

[DudleyGarrett]

Originally Posted by lobstermobster

Why does anyone have to return to a thread? I don't like new rules being made especially for just one person. It's a bad precedent. It makes me nervous as an unliked member of this board. It's for the better when VCO3 doesnt return. He's reading from afar with a smug grin as everyone falls all over themselves proving him right.

You're not unliked. There are just a bunch of dildoes here.

[Sarahfeena]

My initial reaction to this was the same as the OPs. On the other hand, I do remember that VCO3 once stated in a pit thread that he had no intention of coming back for discussion. I can't remember now which thread it was, but I will try to find it later when I have more time. He basically said that he felt like ranting, did so, and didn't feel the need or desire to talk about it with anyone. I think that the mods are feeling like this is a violation of the spirit of the SDMB, and I'm guessing It's this stated intention not to return that has earned him this new rule.

[Key Lime Guy]

It is utterly apparent to any thinking person that:
-this is complete bullshit
-precedent doesn't make something right
-nothing has ever been more selectively applied than the 'don't be a jerk' rule

The bottom line is: this place is far more interesting with VCO3 than without him.

But who has the energy to keep spitting into the wind? It's more sad than anything at this point, watching this community crushed under the weight of its self-importance.

[Cluricaun]

So there's a rule made for one guy, big deal. He could have just as easily been banned had Giraffe been in the mood for blood but instead the rules of the game were modified for one player so that they can keep playing a little while longer. I have no problem with the idea with making your bed and having to lie in it. If he wants to do dumb shit, then he has to deal with the responses in the thread.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Southern Yankee

But the Pit is used to vent. You get something off your chest. It doesn't always need to be a conversation.

I agree. This is why I wanted to be very careful not to imply a general rule change in dealing with VCO3.

This rule is entirely based on VCO3's past pattern of Pit posting. Time and time again, he has started threads with titles and OPs written to stir people up and then ignored the ensuing discussion. Whether or not you believe his intent is good or to troll, the effect is the same and it's bad for the board. Besides, it's not like he can't start threads any more, he just can't start hit and run threads. Hardly an onerous burden.

[lobstermobster]

Originally Posted by shamrock227

Why shouldn't someone return to their thread? Do you typically start a conversation and then walk away while the other person is talking? This is a message board. We are having conversations. Type written and time delayed, yes - but still a conversation. If you just want an answer to a question without having an exchange, use Google. If you want to rant and walk away, get a blog.

Besides, this isn't really a new thing around here. It has always been considered bad form to start a thread and never return, no matter what the forum. You're right in that it was never a "rule" before just something no one really appreciates.

I mean I guess it's somewhat of a jerk stunt to pull by not coming back but to me it seems to fall under the category of Netiquette. It's an unwritten rule of conduct but you can't have official action taken against you. If I walked away f n rom a conversation in real life the other person would be annoyed but would have no reason to call the police.

Personally I only start threads every now and then so I don't forget they are there. I am pretty scattered though and could see myself and would have no way to remember to come back if I forgot. I don't like the rules getting more complicated.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by DudleyGarrett

You're not unliked. There are just a bunch of dildoes here.

Yeah, but they're the ones that like her.

[Key Lime Guy]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Time and time again, he has started threads with titles and OPs written to stir people up and then ignored the ensuing discussion.

How do you know that?

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Whether or not you believe his intent is good or to troll, the effect is the same and it's bad for the board.

Disagree. It would be worse for the board if he replied to every comment that baited him. Now you want him to, in effect, fan the flames. A prediction: this will probably be considered more trollish when it plays out.

I'd like to see the "don't be a jerk" rule applied to the respondents in his threads.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I'd like to thank the posters who have participated in this thread.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by lobstermobster

Personally I only start threads every now and then so I don't forget they are there. I am pretty scattered though and could see myself and would have no way to remember to come back if I forgot. I don't like the rules getting more complicated.

For 99% of the posters on this board, the rules aren't any more complicated today than the day they registered. It's only for the "special" ones that we have to step in and explain things from time to time.

[E-Sabbath]

There's also CarnalK's ruling on 'no more bondage threads' for a while. Er. That was CarnalK, right?

[fluiddruid]

The rules aren't getting more complicated. This is a one-person rule intended to clarify to VCO3 what is unacceptable about his posting here. This is after receiving several warnings and a suspension from posting, and due to his personal history. As far as I'm concerned, it's to keep VCO3 from continuing his trollish, or perhaps "troll-like", behavior.

In the past, we've forbade people from posting on certain topics. Again, while the rule might be executed differently for different posters, such one-off rulings are in order to enforce the rules ("Do not post...excessive number of threads on any topic within a limited period of time" and "The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. We reserve the right to ask you to limit postings on a particular topic, or to refrain from posting on such topics altogether").

We don't make new rules for "unliked" people; it's people violating the rules (or spirit of the rules) that are in question. This isn't done lightly or arbitrarily. VCO3 in particular has a history of posting contentious Pit threads and then never returning. This board is for discussion, not setting up drama and retreating. We don't want to enforce the rules meaninglessly, but I think any honest reading of VCO3's thread history, and what's more warning history, shows that this was the right decision.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

There's also CarnalK's ruling on 'no more bondage threads' for a while. Er. That was CarnalK, right?

No, 'twas Evil Captor.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I wasn't aware of that, but THIS one doesn't upset me. I think it's deserved. But I'm just curious how twickster could interpret it as anything other than a rule promulgated for a single individual.

I'm not actually arguing that it isn't -- I'm just saying that the fact that it is doesn't bother me, because apparently VCO3, like Handy and Reeder before him, needs to have it spelled out specifically what he's doing that is unacceptable.

[Malodorous]

Originally Posted by Southern Yankee

Not defending VCO3, but I do think it depends on the forum. I would think it bad form not to return to a GD or even a GQ thread you start. But the Pit is used to vent. You get something off your chest. It doesn't always need to be a conversation.

I agree, actually. Starting a pit thread and running off is bad form, IMHO, but doesn't really bother me.

He does it in GD too though, since he's been back he's started 5 GD threads, all on "hot-button" issues (racial issues, if mormons are crazy, are transexuals mentally ill, hate crimes) and only replied to one of them. I can understand sometimes you don't have time to return to a thread, or loose interest, but 4 in the space of a few days is trolling, IMHO.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

And, in this situation, the word "rule" is perhaps misleading. How about calling it "terms of probation"? That seem more fair, more individualized, more case-specific?

Had the word "rule" not been employed by Giraffe and a threat of suspension or banning given the history instead, I confess that this pit thread would not have seen the light of day.