This rule, if it is remain a rule, should certainly be most strictly interpreted against Peter Morris. It’s silly to shut down entire avenues of discussion because of one poster’s obsession. I’d rather just mod him normally if he gets out of line - but if you’re going to have a special rule then you should just ban him from those sorts of threads at all. No one else should suffer for his actions.
Randi is very much relevant to the thread in question, by the way.
Let’s restrict Randi’s expertise, and rely more on PM’s lack of it. “Fighting ignorance since 1973, it’s taking longer, and we know why."
I think so. It gives one poster too much authority to have a discussion about someone, and if he doesn’t like Randi’s name being brought up so much, all he has to do is show up and invoke this rule. Not only can he not talk about him, if you do to him too, you may be in a rules violation. And on cue a moderator shows up and says:
The OP was about someone wanting to know how Geller did a certain trick, and Randi’s name was mentioned in the OP as well. 85% of the good material critical of Uri Geller is done by James Randi.
I should note for the record that in this post, while the name “Randi” is not mentioned there is little doubt who is being talking about in the 2nd sentence.
Indeed. It should be o0bvious that the sentence was about Uri Geller
Here’s a question for you Peter: Do you really think you are fooling anyone with that line?
I’ll admit that I did not consider all of the ramifications before giving my instructions in that thread.
Based on the rule as it presently stands, I would say that:
Peter Morris is prohibited from mentioning or referring to Randi on this board. This includes oblique references where he does not mention him by name. He is not allowed to engage other posters on the subject when it comes up.
Other posters may not attempt to goad Peter into discussing Randi. They should not bring up Randi in threads in which Peter is posting, where Randi is not pertinent to the subject of the thread. Otherwise they are free to discuss Randi.
Peter is free to engage in the Uri Geller thread, as long as he does not mention or discuss Randi. He is not to respond to other posters on the subject of Randi. Other posters should not ask him about his position on Randi or engage him on the issue.
It’s unfortunate that these restrictions had to be put in place, but they were prompted by Peter’s previous obsessive behavior on the subject. We were faced with the alternatives of either banning Peter, or not being able to have any discussion of Randi that didn’t become a massive trainwreck.
I will not issue a warning to Peter for bringing up Randi in that thread (and he was apparently the first to do so) to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have thought it was OK because he didn’t mention him by name. However, I want to make it completely clear that any reference to Randi by Peter, even obliquely, in the future may result in a warning and review of his posting privileges.
I’m sorry, but I have a real problem with this. It lets Peter win by default by just posting in any forum where such a mention should occur. You are letting him win and rewarding him for being such a PITA.
No. Sorry. Don’t buy it. One of Peter’s insult tactics is to insult somebody with implications but not by mentioning said poster’s name. He has received a warning about this in the past. I rather doubt he brought up Randi w/o naming him innocently.
In a way I appreciate that the staff is bending over backwards to keep from banning a long-time member, but at some point I think you just need to decide that this amount of hassle and special rules and stopping other people from mentioning a specific topic is way more effort than one person is worth, particularly since it seems like the poster in question is 1) pretty unrepentant and 2) totally unappreciative of the work the staff is doing on his behalf.
You misunderstand what I said in point 2 above:
[QUOTE=Colibri]
They should not bring up Randi in threads in which Peter is posting, where Randi is not pertinent to the subject of the thread. Otherwise they are free to discuss Randi.
[/QUOTE]
If a thread is on the paranormal, magic, or other subjects it is perfectly reasonable to mention Randi, and to continue discussing him even if Peter shows up. I said that discussion of Randi in the Uri Geller thread by other posters could continue despite Peter’s participation (and the fact that Peter brought him up in the first place).
However, if a thread is on “What are your favorite movies?” and Peter is posting there you shouldn’t ask him out of the blue what he thinks of Randi.
I also don’t believe that Peter brought him up innocently either. He was trying to skirt the rule. However, I am choosing to refrain from a warning on the understanding that the next time he attempts something like this the consequences will be more severe.
So, Randi can be brought up in threads where Randi is not pertinent to the subject of the thread unless Peter has has posted in that thread? Unreal!
Has anyone mentioned Randi in threads where it was pertinent to the discussion? I doubt it.
Since this is a rule for all threads on all forums, shouldn’t this be listed in the rules? It’s doubtful that everyone that ever mentions Randi in the future will have read this new rule in the two threads it has now been mentioned in. It’s going to make this board look very ridiculous to anyone that isn’t aware that when Peter has posted in a thread and they mention Randi (and he isn’t “pertinent” to the subject of the thread), they get a moderator note that they can’t mention Randi because a particular poster has posted in it.
If this has never occurred before, what’s the point in making a rule for it?
OK, that’s fair enough. Sorry I missed that part.
It has occurred that people have brought up Randi in a thread purely to goad Peter into responding. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been mentioned in the rule as quoted. Sorry, I’m not going to do a search to provide an instance.
Stupid, overly complicated rule.
It should be “Morris, shut up about Randi, everyone else, you’re not being punished, do what you want.”
What if my favorite movie was “Beyond Desire (1994)” in which Randi had a role? If Petey is in the thread, can I mention it? What if it’s favorite TV show? Can I mention Happy Days since Randi was in an episode or two?
Really, the “Reeder” rule worked because it was simple: “Reeder, shut up about Bush except for one thread on the front page of the Pit”. It didn’t restrict other non-insane people, it didn’t punish everyone else and it wasn’t so complicated that it’s footnotes needed footnotes*.
Again: “Peter, shut up about Randi. Period. Everyone else, don’t ask Petey about Randi, but otherwise carry on.”–simple, clean and non-restrictive to everyone else.
*For the few who don’t get it intuitively, this is hyperbole. I realize Colibri’s post didn’t have footnotes.
While I have seen that sorta happen in paranormal threads (along with people mentioning PM after someone brings up Randi, usually in a “uh-oh, now PM will come along”) I would like to see an example if this happening in a more mundane thread or thread that isn’t explicitly about PM.
Peter can talk about Geller. If anyone has a rebuttal that includes Randi (which is very likely), they can’t post that rebuttal because of the particular poster that is being rebutted. Yeah, that’s fair.
On the other hand, I don’t recall this having occurred so far. When Randi has been mentioned in a thread where the subject wasn’t pertinent and Peter was posting it was for the purpose of goading Peter.
The solution to that is not to restrict Randi, but to ban the poster that cannot behave properly.
Read more carefully:
I would say that if dowsing or the paranormal or Uri Geller is the topic of the thread, then Randi is pertinent. But going into a fluffy kitten thread where Peter Morris happens to be posting and then saying “Randi” just to spin him up, or posting things like
is not allowed.
To clarify my understanding, if there is a thread about the paranormal or Uri Gellar and Peter Morris walks in, that does not mean the topic of Randi suddenly becomes verboten. At best, it means you can’t prod him with “what about what James Randi said?” The burden should be on Peter Morris not to respond, or at most respond with “I am not allowed to talk about that subject”. But really, he shouldn’t walk in to topics where he is not allowed to fully participate.
That’s pretty much what the rule is.