[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Then why not start another thread Pitting him (Bricker would love you for it) instead of turning this thread into a “let’s kick the crap out of Q.E.D.” fest it has become? .
[/QUOTE]
I believe mods
are not allowed to start pit threads about users (circa manhatten)
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
When it comes time for Q.E.D. to give his water back to the tribe, I for one, will stand and say “I was a friend of Q.E.D.”
[/QUOTE]
Give his water back to the tribe? I don’t think the Cleveland Indians wish to be urinated upon by **Q.E.D. ** or anyone else.
[QUOTE=samclem]
No, it’s not a public board. It’s a private board. Bunch of Nazis run it.
[/QUOTE]
I can tell this is facetious, because Nazi’s were renowned for their efficiency.
[QUOTE=wring]
I believe mods
are not allowed to start pit threads about users (circa manhatten)
[/QUOTE]
Huh, I did not know that. I’m not doubting your correctness, but do you have a cite for that? Does that mean, if they want to go off on a poster, they have to hijack threads that are only tangentially related? Or does it mean that they’re not supposed to be going off on posters, but found a way around it by hijacking other threads? Strange indeed.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Huh, I did not know that. I’m not doubting your correctness, but do you have a cite for that?
[/QUOTE]
Does me recalling a similar thing count? I don’t recall many (ok, none) of the details, but I seem to remember a mod pitting of a member which turned into this horrible, nasty trainwreck. As a result of this, the administration announced that mods would no longer be permitted to pit members. I don’t know if this rule is still in effect. It’s (another) silly rule they have, since it apparently doesn’t prevent the mods from being as insulting, provocative and gratuitously venomous as they want towards members in an existing pit thread,
And as we all know, if there’s one thing Q.E.D. can’t abide, it’s gratuitous venom.
At the risk of seeming a fool for not having read this whole thread…
This is a question about a banned poster… why hasn’t it been dealt with in the way such things are usually dealt with? How has it been allowed to continue?
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Does me recalling a similar thing count? I don’t recall many (ok, none) of the details, but I seem to remember a mod pitting of a member which turned into this horrible, nasty trainwreck. As a result of this, the administration announced that mods would no longer be permitted to pit members. I don’t know if this rule is still in effect. . .
[/QUOTE]
Well, there was this incident.
[QUOTE=Lobsang]
At the risk of seeming a fool for not having read this whole thread..
This is a question about a banned poster… why hasn’t it been dealt with in the way such things are usually dealt with? How has it been allowed to continue?
[/QUOTE]
No one has been attacking the banned poster, which is what usually closes such threads. Questions about the banning are allowed, picking on the bannee, not so much.
[QUOTE=Miller]
And as we all know, if there’s one thing Q.E.D. can’t abide, it’s gratuitous [del]nastiness[/del] venom.
[/QUOTE]
Nice catch, but it makes no real difference. I don’t specifically recall any instance of my being gratuitously nasty or venomous to anyone; certainly not to the extent demonstrated here by Giraffe, Frank and others. Gratuitously snarky, irreverent, irritable and occasionally snide, sure. But, I don’t believe I’ve ever been downright nasty to someone who didn’t (at least in my perception) attack me in kind first. You’re welcome, of course, to prove me wrong. Even should you manage to do that, my putative bad behavior doesn’t in any way justify it in others, particularly those who, by the very nature of their positions, ought to be held to somewhat higher standard of behavior than the rest of us.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
It just seems to me that this is a dangerous area, both legally and morally. Sorry for your curiosity, but if it were me, I’d stick to the rule that sock identities aren’t to be revealed.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, in the past, the mods will sometimes reveal the names of socks if PMed.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
No one has been attacking the banned poster, which is what usually closes such threads. Questions about the banning are allowed, picking on the bannee, not so much.
[/QUOTE]
But I’ve seen every such thread get closed. Even ones without attacks. It’s like the cardinal sin to ask about banned or disappeared posters judging by the speed and way they are dealt with.
[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
“Gleefully note?”
If we ask you not to do/say something straight up because it causes ill will and fistfights why would it be okay to insinuate it instead and cause ill will and fistfights?
If you were in doubt, of course not. If you have someone on your ignore list please keep that information to yourself.
There really is enough ill will and fistfights in this thread as is anyway; I think we’ve reached our quota, even for the Pit. Please don’t come along behind me and prove me wrong, okay?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. The only reason I dared mention it in the light of day was because the question was rhetorical; I assumed that it would be perfectly OK to note which former members used to be on your ignore list. I don’t see how I can start a fistfight with someone who’s no longer a member here, but of course I’ll defer to your authority.
[QUOTE=Lobsang]
But I’ve seen every such thread get closed. Even ones without attacks. It’s like the cardinal sin to ask about banned or disappeared posters judging by the speed and way they are dealt with.
[/QUOTE]
They almost certainly involved attacks. Threads that evolve into policy questions, like this one, usually stay open.
[QUOTE=splatterpunk]
Well, there was this incident.
[/QUOTE]
That might very well be the one I was thinking of, thanks.
[QUOTE=Lobsang]
But I’ve seen every such thread get closed. Even ones without attacks. It’s like the cardinal sin to ask about banned or disappeared posters judging by the speed and way they are dealt with.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so, but I don’t have the will at the moment to search for a counter example. I will point to Marley23’s ATMB notice about the banning to bolster my point :
It certainly seems that discussion is not forbidden.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
I think your example illustrates why it’s in everyone’s best interest to allow the Mods to take care of business as they see fit. Hard and fast rules (a la common Three Strikes laws) don’t really serve anyone well.
[/quote]
Hey, I agree with you completely. The best course of action is to let the mods use their judgment. No one hates ‘zero tolerance’ and other ways of avoiding the use of judgment more than I do.
However, as I pointed out earlier, if they make that the explicit policy, then given the example of this thread, every time they exercise their judgment it’s going to result in some trainwreck of a thread where every poster who doesn’t agree with that particular call is going to whine and moan and cause the mods a lot of grief. So I’d totally understand if at some point they said, “Okay, screw this. Here’s the rule, and if you don’t like it, tough noogies.” This isn’t a court of law - it’s a message board run primarily by volunteers. There’s a limit to how much crap they should have to take.
Sure. I can make up equally valid scenarios for situations where the mods would be dickheads if they DIDN’T release the identity of a known sock. Say, for example, if they found a poster who was making socks for the purpose of pretending to be someone of the opposite sex and striking up a romantic relationship with a doper in order to screw with him or her. Just banning the person, and then having the afflicted doper left hanging, wondering what happened to his/her new love interest, doesn’t seem right. Judgment call time.
But again, if this all causes too much nonsense from outraged dopers when their own personal judgment wasn’t followed, I can see where the administration might just say, “Screw it. This is the rule. No exceptions.”
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
TVeblen, I non-sexually love you.
[/QUOTE]
What would we do without someone else expressing your opinion for us?
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
What would we do without someone else expressing your opinion for us?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know, what do you say?
I still think banning should always be reported as alien abduction of the banned poster, and the process described as psychic visualization of the cosmic vibrations from the last thread in which the banned poster displayed stereotypical pre-abduction behavior.
It’s the only way to be sure.
Tris