We should have noticed this sooner, no argument. That said, by far the most effective thing you can do to get something on our radar is to use “report post.” The mods tend to focus on their own forums; they don’t routinely check to see who’s on somebody’s shit list in the Pit. In any case, as near as I can tell, Cesario wasn’t mentioned in the Pit at all between Dec. 27 and Feb. 5.
Umm, there were plenty of calls to ban him for just being an unrepentant paedophile.
Aah, well, he couldn’t play nice, in the end. Who’s gonna babysit my kid now, huh?
Well, I’m not sure “being loathed by the community” is currently a banning offense, so that would have been a made up excuse as well. Unless of course, being hated is the same as being a jerk.
I don’t know, I just can’t see this as a bullshit made up weaseling excuse to ban someone. He was a one-trick pony who was cleverly try to sneak through the loopholes so the staff kept tightening them. I guess since he never said in his last thread “Aha! If you think it’s OK to try children as adults that means I get to have sex with him!” then we could have just let him keep going until he did do something that obvious.
I also simply do not get how insta-banning him would have shown any spine whatsoever. It would have been simpler,with less drama, and except for a couple of the die-hard free-speechers around here, less controversial.
When people are screaming for you to use your moderator powers maybe it’s a sign you should pay attention.
Why does every single banning have to drag on and on endlessly. Just do it already.
Truth is that wankers are going to complain about every moderation. But when the community is screaming for you to do something, and you have something as useful as, ‘don’t be a jerk’, as a rule, freaking use it already.
Instead we all got subjected to it for what seemed like an eternity. This board is supposed to be moderated. Why so afraid to do the moderation your community is screaming for?
He was either serious about advocating the molestation of children or he was trolling the damned board.
Either way his agenda was obvious and he should have been gone a long time ago.
Both, most likely. At least, if he wasn’t a genuine pedophile advocate, he certainly did his homework – especially all that nonsense about “youth rights”, which is a common facade for people with more nefarious intentions.
Of course, he was primarily an attention-whoring troll. Once deprived of his pet topic (fucking children, granting adult rights to children, etc.) he flamed out quite dramatically, like trolls of his ilk are wont to do. But I must pose the question: Since he’s been banned, are we allowed to talk about him now?
It doesn’t, and I think that’s the issue here. There’s a perception that the powers that be sat on their asses while Cesario played one-trick pony with what most agree is a disturbing character trait, while others are given swift justice and warned or banned for what might seem like minor transgressions. Also, the banning wasn’t for being a jerk or being a one-trick pedo pony, but for disobeying a moderator.
Reading Ed’s posts, I hope this causes some changes in internal SDMB moderator policy for tracking the actions of troublesome users.
But that’s not why he was banned. He was banned for “refusal to cooperate with the staff”, after having a little circle drawn around his belly button and being told he couldn’t keep any body parts outside that circle.
Did you really expect him not to say WTF at the ridiculous thread closing on the “Youth Rights, whatever”? You were trampling on him with a new made up rule about him not being able to post about things that happened in months that have R or U on their names and told he couldn’t even talk about the new rule. How is that not baiting him?
Or course he was to twitch. Then you banned him not because he was icky. Not because he was dropping his little turds all over the place and modded about it time after time. You banned him because he “refused to cooperate with the staff”. You weaseled out of your job of moderating and took him down with some technicality about a rule that you made up just for him 17 seconds before.
I am not impressed.
Not surprised either.
Thank you for your unfailingly kind and thoughtful remarks.
If the mods are supposed to be motivated by whether or not they’ve impressed Sapo with their—what, bravery?—then I’m on the wrong board.
Thank you for once again hanging onto a technicality and weaseling out of the main issue.
That’s only half the equation. The other half is that you and your staff need to make the right calls once a matter has been brought to your attention. With the Cesario matter, Tuba’s position was to advise me twice to ignore him, including quite a little lecture. You yourself told me that he was not breaking any rules, and you did not accept my argument that he was promoting paedophilia. That sort of response only left the squeaky wheel approach of posters pushing their concerns to you and your staff’s attention by creating entire threads devoted to the problem.
So you agree with Zotti that the problem with Cesario is that he was unable to cooperate with the staff.
I’m amazed that you could come up with these conclusions. The leash that Cesario was chaffing under was of his own making. He came with an agenda, and was hell bent on pursuing it. He was given every opportunity to become a productive member here. But he wasn’t interested in that. His obsession drove his posts, and led to the restrictions he faced, and his dismissal.
Ed’s succinct reason for banning was just that; a succinct summary of months of cat and mouse with him. He was a cancer. Every attempt to rehabilitate him was met with more recalcitrance from him.
My only complaint was the glacier like pace of dealing with him, and Ed has addressed that. To say he was “banned him because he “refused to cooperate with the staff”” in the way you’re implying [conveniently, it would seem] ignores the fact that was given ample time to shape up or ship out.
Would it have made you feel any better if Ed had instead posted a 5000 word post on the “History of Cesario”, and why it led to his banning? Because its all there for you to read.
The choice of words in the announcement of his banning was simply the period in the final chapter of a story that had gone on too long.
He got what he bargained for.
That is an incorrect, at best, summary of his banning, and disingenuous at worst.
It is completely pulled out of context. The words are the final words of many words------some of them private I would guess----- although most of them public, and they are properly understood in their complete context.
We didn’t need any more words than that. We lived through all the previous ones.
100% on point, IMO.
These points, and Muffin’s, underscore the problem. Nobody wants mob rule, but the badchad, and Cesario posters are rare. (thankfully)
But it seems that when they do come around it takes an almost board meltdown to get some action.
I like that the PTB show restraint, but when a clear problem like badchad or Cesario shows up we shouldn’t have to wait forever to pull the plug on him/her.
I think all are in agreement on this point.
Who’s Cesario?
Cesario’s dead, baby.
So this thread is bury him and not to praise him.
That works.