Fixed.
Not to ride one of my favorite hobby-horses again, but I find it a mark of integrity when anyone in a position of power bends over triple-backwards to avoid abusing that power. If Lynn is a big fan of PP (which I don’t know, one way or the other) it would be very much to her credit if she would allow a poster to rag on PP far beyond what she would permit if said poster were attacking the KKK or the neo-Nazi Party, which I would imagine to be considerably far. IRL, she might even be obliged to recuse herself from judging a PP-related post, if she actually had connections or a history of supporting PP, (asking an anti-PP mod, or better yet a neutral one, to make that call, while continuing to post from her own personal perspective) and I wish we saw anything like that RL standard among the mods and admins here. It’s sadly rare.
He got suspended for his reaction to Lynn’s moderation, not because he’s a reactionary douchebag. That’s where the issue is, but political hay is made when the oppertunity presents itself, as evidenced by some of the folk in this thread.
regardless of the topic in the thread, I do think he was trolling.
No, I don’t think so. It still says “member” not “suspended”.
Correct.
I have no particular heartburn with suspending or banning someone for the lash-back to the moderator. I have a great deal of heartburn for declaration that this type of thread is “trolling,” when the precise tactic has been tolerated against other subjects since at least 1999.
I was critical of Planned Parenthood in that thread. I’d better watch my back. 
Well, in a currently active thread about police brutality in New York, Boyo Jim makes the following post -
Cite. He does not give the number of cops involved, and makes no mention that they were suspended. Was he trolling? Should he be warned?
Regards,
Shodan
Reminds me of what a friend of mine, a professional comedy writer, said years ago, “Lots of people will tell you that they have a good sense of humor, but the only ones that do are those that can laugh at the beliefs closest to their heart.”
The problem w/the thread title, IMHO, wasn’t that it went after PP the organization, but that it contained a material falsehood. Neither PP nor the nurse hid a rape of a 13 year old girl. What was clear when you read the OP was that a 20 year old falsely claimed she was 13 year old female sexually active w/a 30 year old male.
Crap. Forgot the main thing -
edited to add: So, yea, as far as I can tell, the thread title was a trollish activity (since the OP knew that it was false). However, on the third hand, the posts he was suspended for - over reaction from the staff. again, MHO.
Exactly.
Because exaggeration for for comedic effect is exactly the same as intention to mislead. gotcha.
that’s bullshit reasoning and you know it.
I really don’t get this.
Being in the UK, I’ve never heard of PP. They seem to be almost unanimously highly thought of. Over here, if a highly regarded organisation has a bad apple, it would be drawn to our attention.
In a nutshell, as I understand it, a YouTube video puports to show an employee of PP ignoring the fact that her underage client has said that an adult male has had sex with her.
Euthanasiast saw that video and was outraged, as I see it, that that employee was content to ignore what is certainly an immoral, and probably is an illegal act. So, he started a Pit thread titled ‘Planned parenthood hides rape of 13 year-old girl’. I’d say that that is a succinct summation of the video. The very nature of a title is that it is an abbreviation of the post. I don’t know that anyone creating a title would study it *that *carefully: it’s got to be only half a dozen words. As the title stands, by inference, all of PP is being accused. Just a using a little bit of common sense would suggest that every single member of the organisation being culpable would be unlikely; so it’s likely to mean that one - or a few - members were guilty. Which is the case.
In Ed Zotti’s announcement of the suspension, he gives the reason as being
(bolding mine)
As I understand that, it means that you must not answer back or defy the enforcement. That is what submit means, isn’t it? If so, Euthanasiast clearly broke that rule - because, boy, did he react against it. Whether that is a fair or just rule is another issue.
In explanation of the suspension, Ed goes on to qualify the above rule by saying that the accused can respond in a number of ways. I must admit that I wasn’t aware of that refinement. May be Euthanasiast wasn’t either. In the heat of the moment, I would have thought an instant reply was understandable.
In the SD registration agreement, Ed Zotti defines trolling as
Now, this is where it may get down to interpretation, but I really can’t see where Euthanasiast was purposely inflammatory. I believe he thought he had a genuine gripe, and expressed it. I think he was upset at what went on in that video. I can’t see where those feelings did not seem to be genuinely held.
So, for not submitting, he must be found guilty. I don’t like it, but that is the published rule, and he broke it. Trolling: I don’t think so, but YMMV.
I’m sure such unanimity is to be found here on the SDMB, but Planned Parenthood is for better or worse a controversial organization, both for the work they do and for the tactics they engage in.
Actual tactics or the made up shit like the youtube video that started all this?
But that was the problem. Lynn did not want this to be drawn to public attention.
This is not the first time Planned Parenthood has violated the parental notification laws - they were fined $50,000 back in 2005 for doing this. But abortion is a sacred cow on the SDMB, and those who are fanatically opposed to any restriction on abortion, at any time, for any reason, will lunge at any excuse to shut off discussion the instant it starts to tend against them.
Planned Parenthood was looking bad. It was on video. The nurse in question, as part of her duties and acting as a paid agent of Planned Parenthood, obviously conspired to violate the laws against statutory rape and parental notification. In any thread of that sort, there will be a clamor of voices all saying “there’s no debate here - everyone stop posting!” and seeking any excuse, however flimsy, to invalidate the topic. It happened that one of the voices in the locked thread was someone who has the power to make damn sure there was no debate.
No, this is more bullshit they pulled out of their ass - there are any number of examples of moderators explicitly telling posters to post their complaints about mod action in the Pit.
Lynn tried some bullshit; Euthanasiast wouldn’t roll over for it, so she suspended him just to show who holds the whip hand.
And this is the trump card they pull out when they have no other excuse - the mods have magic mind-reading powers and can tell what you meant by everything. If they don’t like what you say, they shut it off.
SOP. They like their own ignorance better than other people’s.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, they seem to have a lot of support here. And All I know about them is what I’ve read in that thread. Part of my puzzlement at the accusations of trolling was that if they are so universally loved, why would anyone troll about them. But if they are controversial…
Taking the video at face value, I don’t believe that the thread title was even all that inaccurate, to be honest. Perhaps the banning was for missing a couple of words out of the title: “PP willing to hide rape of 13 year old girl”.
If you are right, I really would like to hear Lynn’s version of this. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that those in control here will close down threads and punish posters if they disagree with what they’re posting? Wow. Not good.
This was in the pit. Just not the right place in the Pit. Subtle, but, it would seem, important distinction.
I was critical of the nurse, not PP. Should I be worried?
sigh
If a thread discussed Dateline’s activites to snare online predators, would we cavil over, “No, the guy DIDN’T try to show up at a 13-year-old boy’s house for sex – it was an 18-year-old actor he was talking to!”
Actually, I’m sure that some people would. But it’s a facile response: the comment clearly is intended to convey what the man THOUGHT he was doing.
That’s true here, as well. The nurse pretty clearly believed she was dealing with a 13-year-old, she blatantly refused her legally mandated reporting responsibilities and gave advice on how to continue to evade reporting requirements, and she clearly worked for Planned Parenthood. It’s not unfair to advance the theory that this was consistent with Planned Parenthood’s goal, and it’s certainly not unfair to argue that she was acting contrary to Planned Parenthood’s guidance either.
What is unfair, in my view, is to piously claim that this is trolling, and an offense worthy of suspension, when countless similar tactics have been permitted with no moderating response over the past nine years.