Yep. One thing I’ve learned in 9½ years is to not annoy Lynn. She used to be a Pit mod and built up a reputation for suspending people at the drop of a hat. Particularly when those people wouldn’t stop posting stuff after she told them not to post said stuff.
So, would the 20 year old be prosecutable?
edited to add: thanks, very much.
My guess would be that it’s a crime to make a false report of a crime to the police. She didn’t do that. She also didn’t specifically claim that a crime took place, she just reported a set of facts that the nurse knew added up to a criminal activity in Indiana. She could have told the exact same story word for word in some other jurisdiction, and the nurse would have had no obligation to do anything because the local laws would not define the actions as criminal.
Mr. Moto and Shodan, thank you very much for the cites. But if you don’t mind, may I ask one more question? I promise to then leave you alone. 
I’m assuming you did searches to find those. If so, were there other posts that mentioned similar beliefs? Because for the sentiment to be so prevailing among some of the members in this thread, I’d think there’d have to be more than just two instances. And although I can see where that would mean she’d have the ‘other side of the story’ from having worked in and around that environment, just going by what’s been linked to thus far, I don’t see how that particularly translates to a bias.
Of course, if there’s lots more like that, then I totally understand where all this is coming from. But right now, for just that couple (from 4 and 2 years ago respectively), I’m a wee bit baffled. Thanks again for your help.
My point was mostly about the utter bizzare logic of Lynn’s statement: “WHETHER HE(?) MEANT TO TROLL OR NOT, his thread title was inaccurate and calculated to inflame…and the intent to inflame is the very definition of trolling.”
I think you’re agreeing with me. Lynn admitted the possibility that he didn’t mean to troll, but somehow decided that it didn’t matter if meant to or not, even though trolling is defined by whether he meant to or not.
Well, I was focused on Lynn’s beliefs. And frankly, one cite would have been sufficient - people ambivalent or conflicted about abortion don’t show up to protest at the clinic and they don’t volunteer as clinic escorts either, if they’re on the other side.
It is plain that Lynn has her opinions on the subject.
And most of the anti-Lynn faction here also have opinions on the subject.
If you read the complete thread containing the post to which I linked, you will notice that Lynn Bodoni considers that her experience as a clinic escort completely outweighs the statistics that I presented.
Or this one, where she says the same thing, and adds that any criticism of weariing an “I got an abortion” T-shirt is necessarily a criticism of abortion.
Any hint of disapproval, any suggestion that gettting an abortion is of any more significance than an enema, and she bristles. In this case, she finds a (rather markedly flimsy) excuse, and immediately locks the thread and suspends the offender.
I don’t know how many examples you want, but there are three.
Regards,
Shodan
I do agree that Lynn acknowleged that Euthanasiast might not have intended to troll. I also think that she made a poor choice of words because he didn’t originate the thread title, whomever posted that video & title on YouTube did. Any intention to inflame ultimately started with YouTube.
Well, apparently he broke an arcane rule which states that if one is to criticize a mod for a warning, one must open a new Pit thread and not do it in the current Pit thread. I did not know that; I doubt many posters do. At any rate, he did not “do that” again. All he did was criticize a mod in the Pit, which used to be just hunky dunky.
Did he do that? She told him not to post inflammatory stuff, because that is trolling. Did he then post such inflammatory stuff? Did he refuse to stop the proscribed behavior? If he did, I don’t see it.
Or did he (as Ed claims) *defy *her? Not by posting in the forbidden manner, but by simply saying “go fuck yourself?” That kind of language used to be A OK in the Pit.
Waiting 14 posts, two of which came from the poster in question, isn’t very immediate.
The girl might have criminal liability; the nurse is absolutely immune from criminal liability if she reports.
“Go fuck yourself” isn’t inflammatory?
As I said, annoying Lynn risks suspension.
His last post in the thread in question was at 11:48; he was suspended 38 minutes later. If I report a post and nothing has happened forty five minutes later, should I complain? IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
It has never before been considered to be inflammatory in the sense that she used, which is as a definition of trolling. People have said far worse in the Pit on countless occasions without being warned for trolling. Do you think he was *trolling *by saying that to her?
That needs to be a sticky, then. Or at least we need a list of Things That Might Annoy Lynn.
So lets cut through all the bullshit in this thread.
Given Euthanasiast challenged a mod action doesn’t mean he hasn’t submitted to the interpretation or enforcement. He hasn’t repeated the infraction and even expressed regret for the title.
And if you disagree with me on that point, why have you provided the same forum for all the rest us to challenge mod “interpretation and enforcement” or simply mod action.
Rather selective of you isn’t it ?
I can understand that the vitriol Euthanasiast displayed can be destabalizing for the board. That is what I think has got your knickers in a twist. I don’t blame you for that.
May I suggest that you take issues of mod “interpretation or enforcement” out of the vitriolic pit , put them in ATMB, and ban the protest against mod action everywhere else? That should lend itself to a more civil feedback and protest.
Over the years I’ve noticed an increasing ratio of mod bashing to mod support. The general respect that is needed to sustain the mods isn’t helped with the uneccessary verbal abuse that has often been leveled at them.
I think the rules of what is or isn’t allowed in the Pit could be more clearly spelled out. Has the “You can criticize mod decisions in other Pit threads, but not in the current Pit thread” rule ever been explicitly stated before? I’ve been here a while and I can’t remember ever hearing it.
What isn’t fair is to make comparisons to what’s acceptable behavior in “real life” as if that makes it obvious what’s acceptable behavior in the Pit. The fact is, much of what is allowed in the Pit (e.g., publicly cursing people out) wouldn’t be acceptable behavior in ordinary adult life. So clearly different rules apply, and these need to be made explicit.
In particular, I’m talking about this:
In real life, not only can you not tell the cop to “go fuck himself” in person, but you also can’t go before the judge and say “that cop should go fuck himself”. At least, not without expecting severe negative consequences. And yet, in the Pit, you are apparently still allowed to post a new thread saying “Moderator X should go fuck himself.” If you’re letting someone curse out the cop to the judge, you can’t expect it to be obvious that they can’t curse out the cop to his face.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Euthanasiast was kind of being an asshole. I think many people in the Pit are kind of being assholes. Telling people to “go fuck themselves” and such is an asshole thing to do. (So, of course, is calling them an “asshole” – the irony isn’t lost on me.) My point is, the board administration has chosen to create a place where assholery is tolerated – even encouraged (as evidenced by the fact that “weak pittings” are sometimes deemed inappropriate for the forum and moved to MPSIMS). So if you’re going to say “Be an asshole, but not too much of an asshole” it really ought to be spelled out explicitly where the line is.
That’s because Lynn is a control freak of a cunt. She probably has “My Way or the Highway” tattooed on her ass.
To elaborate on the above: I just re-read the “read this before posting in the Pit” sticky. It doesn’t seem to contain any instruction like “Criticism of a moderator action can only go in a new Pit thread, not the Pit thread the moderator action occured in.”
If that’s the rule, it ought to be stated explicitly before you start punishing people for breaking it.
I reiterate: You can’t assume people will no what’s acceptable by “common sense” or analogy to real life, since in real life much of what’s said in the Pit would be clearly unacceptable. If you create a forum where the rules of polite society don’t apply, you ought to make clear from the start what rules do apply.
Not as destabilizing as capricious and arbitrary rule enforcement / bannings / suspensions.