Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:46 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,628
Yeah, as a member who doesn't see ads and therefore has no idea who advertises on the Dope, I find a blanket ban on statements against them impossible to enforce or defend. I know ATMB threads exist that talk about how dubious some of the ads and advertisers are. Those companies could easily show up in posts about bad products generally. For all I know, some already have lawsuits or class action suits going on against them right now. Would advocating one as a good thing now be a banning offense? What about against one of the firms that themselves have been banned from advertising here?

I get the underlying notion of preventing any talk of lawsuits about the Dope, staff, and members. I've never filed a lawsuit in my life and don't plan on ever threatening one.

Even so, banning the mere mention of a suit against an unwritten and ever-changing list of entities that members literally can have no knowledge of in advance is a terrible idea that's bound to backfire against an innocent victim. Talk about Orwellian. Any system in which citizens can't know they've broken a law until after they've been convicted and sentenced is inherently a loser.
  #52  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:50 PM
Earl Snake-Hips Tucker Earl Snake-Hips Tucker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SEC
Posts: 13,777
Great. I've been waiting for almost 14 years to find out what happened to Alice Terwilliger, and now I guess it's lost to history.
  #53  
Old 01-17-2018, 04:57 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
Moderators kick any and all legal threats immediately to Ed and what happens is entirely at his sole discretion. "Grounds for banning" means there is room for consideration of context. That's why the rule is open-ended. But it's not mods who consider that context, it's Ed. Arguing this rule with the moderators is not likely to be productive, because we don't get to decide.

Mods aren't going to kick something like "I'll see you in Great Debates!" up to Ed. There is nothing anyone needs to do to change their posting behavior unless their plans involve personal or legal threats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, if we see someone saying "I'm going to demolish you in that Mafia game", we don't need to take action, because there's no problem...

Even to the extent that that's true, Ed isn't a robot, either. And it's not like this newly-codified rule gives him any more power, or constrains the power he has: He's always had absolute control over this message board, should he choose to exercise it.
Thank you for clarifying this. My impression was that this was enforced from a coporate office and that even Ed had no flexibility to judge the context or intent of a post before taking action. The amended rule lumps all threats, legal or otherwise, into the same broad category. It states that any threat under any circumstances is prohibited and then adds a second sentence saying "this also applies to legal threats." To me that could be interpreted to mean that any perceived threat or any post that could even be construed to be a threat might automatically fall under the purview of this corporate counsel, bypassing any and all ability to read context, intent, posting history, etc. by anyone, Ed or otherwise.
  #54  
Old 01-17-2018, 08:05 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 74,529
I think that there is a corporate office somewhere that Ed ultimately needs to answer to, but this board is barely on their radar at all. If they know about something here, it'll be because Ed tells them.
  #55  
Old 01-18-2018, 12:19 AM
rowrrbazzle rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
... this board is barely on their radar at all.
And I imagine Ed wants to keep it that way.
  #56  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:33 PM
Ed Zotti Ed Zotti is offline
Gormless Wienie
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 1,903
To clarify a few things:

1. The management of Sun-Times Media, owner of the Straight Dope, is well aware of the SDMB - in particular its financial performance, for which I'm held to account.

2. The management doesn't monitor SDMB operation closely except when things go wrong. One of my responsibilities is to make sure this happens infrequently.

3. The staff has a list of things I'm to be told about. Threats of legal action is one of them. I was the one who ordered the recent banning. Some things need to be nipped in the bud.

4. Neither the staff nor I are robots. Users need not fear they'll be banned for trifles. That said, our tolerance for legal bluster is low. It would be wise to avoid such talk.

Last edited by Ed Zotti; 01-18-2018 at 09:48 PM.
  #57  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:36 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 12,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Zotti View Post
4. Neither the staff nor I are robots. Users need not fear they'll be banned for trifles.
So, you're telling me that my plan for sending all the mods and admins an English dessert made with fruit, a thin layer of sponge fingers soaked in sherry or another fortified wine, custard topped with whipped cream so I can get people I don't like banned won't work?

  #58  
Old 01-19-2018, 03:50 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,628
No, he means we can freely put on a performance of Trifles, because of its obvious political relevance in the #MeToo atmosphere without worrying what MRA might say.

Last edited by Exapno Mapcase; 01-19-2018 at 03:52 PM.
  #59  
Old 01-19-2018, 04:22 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 22,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker View Post
Great. I've been waiting for almost 14 years to find out what happened to Alice Terwilliger, and now I guess it's lost to history.
Strange, you'd think everyone would know what happened to a woman who was 10 feet tall.

Or was that a different Alice?
__________________
Little packets of Fear and Outrage, sold like crack from your Computer and TV

"The worst things in the world are justified by belief" - U2, Raised by Wolves
  #60  
Old 01-20-2018, 03:13 PM
Siam Sam Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 38,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
No, he means we can freely put on a performance of Trifles, because of its obvious political relevance in the #MeToo atmosphere without worrying what MRA might say.
Due to the trouble with them, I thought he meant tribbles.
__________________
Carpe diem! But first, coffee.
Reply

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 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017