# About Euthanasiast's suspension. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 9, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333 "2008-12-09T00:50:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/281 "2008-12-11T23:36:25Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And while the technical reason for suspension might be defying a mod–noble indeed–if the precipitant of the defiance was out of line, the defiance doesn’t seem suspension-worthy. This has been one of my regular topics in this type of situations. If there is a mod action that many are calling questionable, it is unfair to punish the “offender” because of his reaction to the mod action. People take things personally. People say stupid things in the heat of the moment. If someone is modded and he thinks it was unfair, chances are that they will fire back. Then punishing the person for firing back, and specially after agreeing that the modding was questionable, is just salt on the wound. > [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > When there is a storm a-brewin’ over mod actions, and when the mods are discussing behind the scenes, we are generally required NOT to post. The various comments that have been posted here are being read and discussed, but we are supposed to say: “No comment.” Our past experience has been that, when one of these things arises, moderators making statements (even innocuous ones) is perceived as kerosene being thrown on the fire. And, of course, while the mods are holding private discussion, it would not be helpful to publicize that this mod favored this action and that mod favored that action. Our internal discussions are just that. We will arrive at a consensus decision that we all agree with, and for us to publicize the individual elements of our debate would be (a) pointless and (b) unnecessarily divisive. > > Most of you who have been around for a long time know this, so it’s disingenuous to try to make our silence seem like something else. > > We will reach some decisions and come to some consensus in a day or two. We are not all available 24/7, we have lengthy discussions behind the scenes, and this takes time. Patience. An excellent post. I would suggest that when things turn this way, and the mods are in council, you post some form of “fumata nera” post that lets us know that there will be no responses until consensus is reached. After all, is not like there have never been cases of stonewalling. It is not unreasonable that some people wonder what’s going on. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/282 "2008-12-11T23:36:52Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > And, of course, while the mods are holding private discussion, it would not be helpful to publicize that this mod favored this action and that mod favored that action. Our internal discussions are just that. Well, thanks for the response, but that does not seem to be the case in this instance - > [@Lynn Bodoni](#): > > When I read his response, I sent it round the mod email loop, and gathered opinions about his response, and whether he should be further warned, suspended, or banned. A couple of folks thought he should be banned. Some thought he should not be suspended. However, Ed thought that he should be suspended, and Ed’s the boss. > [@](#): > > When there is a storm a-brewin’ over mod actions, and when the mods are discussing behind the scenes, we are generally required NOT to post Again, **Lynn** has posted to this thread more than once, and this is after the mod discussion she described. This does not seem to be the case in this instance, either. > [@](#): > > Most of you who have been around for a long time know this, so it’s disingenuous to try to make our silence seem like something else. Did you read earlier how I said I found it grating when it seems to oscillate between people telling me I am not psychic, and the mods seeming to assert that they are? This is like the “no telling the mods ‘fuck you’ unless you open another thread to do it”. As I said, I have been here eight years, and have never heard any reference to this. You said that moderators generally are required not to post in threads when there is controversy over mod actions. **Lynn** has posted several times. You said that mods should not make the details of discussions public. **Lynn** has done exactly that. I rather resent the implication that I am disingenous in not knowing procedures that are clearly not being followed. And I would appreciate if you could please refrain from doing so. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/283 "2008-12-12T01:13:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, thanks for the response, but that does not seem to be the case in this instance - While you couldn’t know this because you aren’t a staff member and are not part of internal staff discussions the two of you are referring to two distinct discussions. Because they are internal, we don’t often give the details, but \*\*Dex \*\* is talking about this one: > [@Rule clarification: Insulting mods in the pit.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-clarification-insulting-mods-in-the-pit/476565/23): > > I wholeheartedly agree. It’s going to take a while for us to work through this internally. Hope to have more to say in a day or two. If you haven’t read that thread here is a link: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10560839](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10560839) Regarding your nice reading of Dex’s post, allow me emphasize a key word that you’ve glossed over. > [@](#): > > When there is a storm a-brewin’ over mod actions, \*\*and \*\*when the mods are discussing behind the scenes, we are generally required NOT to post. To the extent there is a rule, it requires both conditions to be met. That might not be the only possible interpretation of what \*\*Dex \*\*typed, but he was offering a quick explanation–not drafting a statute. I’m quite sure he didn’t intend to mislead you. I can tell you from personal knowledge that this discussion is ongoing and that it had not begun when \*\*Lynn \*\*posted. The discussion that **Lynn** alluded to was clearly over before \*\*Lynn \*\*posted. I’m not sure why you didn’t realize that, but I’m sure you intentions were good. Now you know. When will you hear more about this from the staff? > [@Rule clarification: Insulting mods in the pit.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-clarification-insulting-mods-in-the-pit/476565/23): > > in a day or two. Why aren’t we including you personally in the discussion? > [@Rule clarification: Insulting mods in the pit.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rule-clarification-insulting-mods-in-the-pit/476565/23): > > It’s going to take a while for us to work through this internally. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/284 "2008-12-12T10:22:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think it is the rules. I think it is the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of how the rules are enforced. I think I have detected a bit of pride on the part of some moderators at the inconsistant and arbitrary enforcement of the rules. Actually, some gloat. The most angered I have ever been by the behavior of a mod was for abusive behavior directed at someone else. The Doper was exposed and ridiculed for his reporting of posts he deemed offensive. The moderator who did this is particularly good at using his tongue as a weapon and he withheld nothing. I think it was a great betrayal of trust and privacy. As for a go-between, I’d rather have someone who doesn’t enjoy frequently torching the BBQ PIT for the sheer hell of it. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/285 "2008-12-12T12:06:24Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I think I have detected a bit of pride on the part of some moderators at the inconsistant and arbitrary enforcement of the rules. Actually, some gloat. You know, I think I wouldn’t mind that. I can live with purpose, and being partial is part of human nature. I think I am more bothered by random haphazard modding, or even worse, just reacting to reports. A mod being a deliberate dick would at least have some comedic value. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/286 "2008-12-12T13:01:52Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > While you couldn’t know this because you aren’t a staff member and are not part of internal staff discussions the two of you are referring to two distinct discussions. Because they are internal, we don’t often give the details, but \*\*Dex \*\* is talking about this one: > > If you haven’t read that thread here is a link: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10560839](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10560839) > > Regarding your nice reading of Dex’s post, allow me emphasize a key word that you’ve glossed over. > > To the extent there is a rule, it requires both conditions to be met. That might not be the only possible interpretation of what \*\*Dex \*\*typed, but he was offering a quick explanation–not drafting a statute. I’m quite sure he didn’t intend to mislead you. > > I can tell you from personal knowledge that this discussion is ongoing and that it had not begun when \*\*Lynn \*\*posted. The discussion that **Lynn** alluded to was clearly over before \*\*Lynn \*\*posted. I’m not sure why you didn’t realize that, but I’m sure you intentions were good. Now you know. > > When will you hear more about this from the staff? > > Why aren’t we including you personally in the discussion? Thanks for your response. FTR, I would not expect to be included in discussions amongst the staff. Also FTR, I think the suggestion of a boilerplate post that “this issue is under discussion – the mods will not be posting on the subject until it is resolved” is a good one. Of course, this sort of implies that there _will_ be a response communicating the results of the discussion. Even if it’s only “We talked it over, and we decided we were right - this rule applies only every second Thursday in months with no R”. IYSWIM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/287 "2008-12-12T13:08:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You said that moderators generally are required not to post in threads when there is controversy over mod actions. **Lynn** has posted several times. You said that mods should not make the details of discussions public. **Lynn** has done exactly that. > > I rather resent the implication that I am disingenous in not knowing procedures that are clearly not being followed. And I would appreciate if you could please refrain from doing so. No, I did NOT say that. I said, when there is some sort of shit-storm (which need NOT be about mod actions, we’ve had similar situations about posters) AND discussion going on behind the scenes. Posts by moderators prior to the shit-storm, or prior to the discussions, are not counter-examples. You may resent all you wish, that’s your privilege, but I posted here because _I_ resent you drawing unwarranted assumptions and whining about our silence. I resent you misquoting me and twisting it to your own devious ends. You crabbed about our silence, I explained what you already knew, and you’re still crabbing as if you didn’t understand what I said? And misquoting. Hmpf. You’ve been around for as long as you have, you’ve been in the middle of so many shit-storms, and you now pretend that you didn’t realize that mods couldn’t respond while discussions were going on?So, yes, I apologize for using the word “disingenuous” – I should have used much stronger terms, but the whole point at question is that the insults being flung in the Pit have got way out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/288 "2008-12-12T13:31:25Z")
Actually there’s two points. The very-well taken one that pit insults have gotten out of hand. Fair point and I’ll fully agree. I’ll also be looking forward to what comes out of the Mod Discussion on the issue. But the second point which seems to be getting lost in the whole “Let’s clean up the Pit” discussion is that the reason for all this comes from a bogus warning. If **Lynn** hadn’t made up\* the reason for that warning, the situation wouldn’t have spiraled out of control in the first place. **Euth** ’s suspension was “fruit from a poison tree”. How about clarification of this spiffy newly un-mothballed rule– **Bricker** and I and others have pointed out how this “rule” isn’t and has never been consistently enforced. I’ve done a few searches and found a few times in about 6 years where there have been warnings on misleading/inflammatory thread titles and some of those have been stuff where the thread title was unrelated to the post (Title: See the cute fuzzy kittens!/Post: CLINTON SUXXXORS!) which this clearly wasn’t. Since this isn’t the topic of the Uber-Secret-Mod-Discussion 😉 , could we have some discussion/comments on this specific point? Also, I’d love to propose a rule that new rules (or old ones dug out of mothballs) not be allowed to be retroactive. It really isn’t fair to expect posters to follow rules that we don’t know are in force. \*Yes. I concede that you can find an example here and there of other “inflammatory” thread titles that garnered warnings. It’s not a rule that’s enforced with anything even remotely approaching consistency. And the thread title was hardly as misleading or inflammatory as all the “All Republicans are sociopaths” or “All Democrats love and support terrorists” that did NOT garner warnings. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/289 "2008-12-12T14:52:03Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > You said that moderators generally are required not to post in threads when there is controversy over mod actions. > > No, I did NOT say that. I said, when there is some sort of shit-storm (which need NOT be about mod actions, we’ve had similar situations about posters) AND discussion going on behind the scenes. > [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > When there is a storm a-brewin’ **over mod actions** , and when the mods are discussing behind the scenes, we are generally required NOT to post. Emphasis added. > [@](#): > > I resent you misquoting me and twisting it to your own devious ends. You were not misquoted. Look, you said “mod actions”. Now you are saying it can be about posters too. Fine. The discussion that **Lynn** talked about was about a poster - **Euthanasiast** , to be specific. And she did exactly what you said she was not to do - reveal details about who thought what at the mod discussion. So I think that rule is one not consistently applied. Now there is apparently another discussion going on. Good idea - but the mods will not be posting until it is resolved. Except for the posts that you and **Gfactor** have made. So that rule does not seem to be consistently applied either. > [@](#): > > You crabbed about our silence, I explained what you already knew, and you’re still crabbing as if you didn’t understand what I said? Well, if you can’t keep your story straight, I don’t wonder that you are not well understood. And no, I did not know about all these rules that nobody seems to be keeping. _Damn_, this is irritating. You keep telling me what I know when you don’t know it yourself. There is a rule against revealing the details of mod discussions - except when **Lynn Bodoni** does it. The discussions are about mod actions - except they aren’t. The mods will not post if there is controversy - except for you and **Gfactor**. Misleading thread titles are OK - except if they are about Planned Parenthood. You can’t say “fuck you” to a moderator - unless you open a new thread to do it. Look, no one is saying that we should be privy to mod discussions. But, given that we won’t be, and shouldn’t be, please stop assuming we know which ones you are talking about. And _especially_ please stop telling me that I know what the rules are when they don’t seem to be applied with any kind of consistency. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/290 "2008-12-12T15:08:03Z")
It’s very interesting reading **Shodan** posts and agreeing with every word in them. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/291 "2008-12-12T15:11:09Z")
I think that the one thing I would take out of this thread is that rules have to be visible and applied consistently. People get awfully riled and confused when they’re not. So, whatever is going on in the mods’ discussion, please set a rule for yourselves that whatever conclusions you come to, that you make them clear, and you stick to them. It’ll get rid of all this faffing around. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/292 "2008-12-12T15:11:26Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > It’s very interesting reading Shodan posts and agreeing with every word in them. You’ll get over it. 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/293 "2008-12-12T15:13:06Z")
And since I’m in the strange position of agreeing with him here, I’m forced to admit he has a certain flair for concision and rhetoric I’d never noticed before. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/294 "2008-12-12T15:25:34Z")
Huh. Interesting. The “rule” that got **Euth** warned was, as far as I can tell, only spelled out once. By **Dex** no less right [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=208352) > [@](#): > > _Dex said:_ > It’s perfectly OK to post a provocative quote to get a discussion or debate rolling. What’s not OK is when those quotes are taken out of context, distorted, misattributed, etc. Don’t misunderstand: anyone might get a quote wrong upon occasion. But when we have a consistent, repeated pattern many many times over many many months, we have to conclude that this is trolling. Classic trolling: dropping a shocking or extreme (usually false) comment solely for the purpose of generating attention. > > The mods have debated his behavior for a long, long time. Most mods saw it as trolling, a few saw it as a permissible (if annoying) debating technique. However, the more the behavior was repeated, the more it became viewed by the mods as trolling and not debating. 1. “a provocative quote to get a discussion or debate rolling is perfectly ok.” I’d argue **Euth’s** thread title fits that. It’s certainly not a clear and obvious violation like the “See the fluffy bunnies” title with a “Fuck all abortionists” thread inside cae. 2. Even if it wasn’t ok, it certainly wasn’t a repeated pattern over many many months. So why was he warned? Especially since I still haven’t been able to find an example of this rule being applied since then (Aug, 2003) ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/295 "2008-12-12T15:27:32Z")
No snark: Don’t you mean “Why wasn’t he warned?” That’s what I’ve been wondering about. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/296 "2008-12-12T15:41:56Z")
I apologize, I misstated. My initial post should not have said “over mod actions.” The mod discussion going on is covering a wide range of topics. Neither I nor any other mod will be posting here until there is resolution. I’m sorry I bothered to clarify why we weren’t posting, since it seems I only get snapped at when I try to help. I won’t make that mistake again. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/297 "2008-12-12T15:43:41Z")
Thank you! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/298 "2008-12-12T15:50:10Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > No snark: Don’t you mean “Why wasn’t he warned?” That’s what I’ve been wondering about. He was warned, right [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10540145&postcount=52) > [@](#): > > \ In your FIRST POST, you admit that the information in your title is inaccurate. This sort of inflammatory posting is trolling. DON’T do it again.\ The word “Warning” doesn’t have to be in the post for it to be a warning (we’ve been told). ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/299 "2008-12-12T15:55:00Z")
Oh. My bad. i guess what I’m not getting is that \*\*Lynn \*\*'s initial reaction (“This…is trolling”) got the thread off the rails. If she changed the title to something more neutral, and said in passing “misleading thread title,” I’m not sure anyone would have even noticed or cared. Why not acknowledge that as the root cause of everything here, suck it up, and move on, no harm no foul? Must we find posters 100% at fault for every problem? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333/300 "2008-12-12T15:55:08Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > And since I’m in the strange position of agreeing with him here, I’m forced to admit he has a certain flair for concision and rhetoric I’d never noticed before. Eyes of the beholder, my friend, eyes of the beholder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-euthanasiasts-suspension/476333.md?page=16)