I do indeed, and I suppose it is. Thanks, Col.
For those claiming “not a real threat”, may I refer you to the Zenster banning where he was banned, not for making a threat, but was banned for making a hypothetical threat. Something like “IF you were in my state and IF you were in my neighborhood and IF you were to park in front of a fire hydrant, then I’d take an axe-handle to you”.
The board’s always been (mostly correctly) touchy about physical threats. They once even went so far as to mod or suspend a guy for saying something like “In an argument, I’d mop the floor with you” because “mop the floor” implies physical violence. Not a shining Dope moment, but consistant.
It was absolutely a threat, and there’s no possible interpretation of it as anything but a threat. It was probably a threat that he was physically incapable of carrying out, but that’s still a threat. It might have been a joke, but it was a joke which took the form of a threat.
Seems that this thread concerns Billfish, perhaps you should start your own thread?
Whenever someone makes a threat, even a jokey one, I go back and read their past posts. And they’re always abrasive, trying to make ad hominem arguments and derailing threads.
IOW, those make even minor threats rarely debate honestly. So, even if someone’s banned for a pattern of minor threats, we aren’t losing much.
Reviewing his suspension:
The previous poster used the word *wetback *in his post. Billfish responded, putting the word in quotes. His use of the word was a quote, not a slur.
Failure to follow a moderator’s instructions
Moderator issued instructions, Billfish posted a minute later. Moderator’s instructions not visible when he started typing. Then edited his post to point out the simulpost.
This sort of thing has happened before, and I always disagree with it. People shouldn’t be warned for not following instructions they haven’t seen. After issuing instructions, allow a few minutes period of grace for people to see them and act accordingly.
Two of the tree warnings that led to his suspension were bum calls, IMO. As for the third, I don’t know. Some argument about Trump that I don’t follow. I don’t understand why it was trolling, but I’m not going to challenge it.
This plus an obviously mock threat shouldn’t get him banned.
Sometimes it does seem that once a poster has an established reputation for being rebellious or trolling or disobeying mods, every further remark is filtered through that reputation and leads to warnings for things that would not draw a warning for everyone. Kinda like how (if you follow hockey at all) Antoine Roussel or someone like him gets a penalty every time there’s a scrum whether or not he did anything against the rules.
I realize that some things are cumulative but I don’t necessarily think that’s a good thing. That risks the board turning into an echo chamber. Maybe some of you think Roussel and his ilk being punished based on their reputations is “good for the game.” I respectfully disagree.
Sadly, this puts me in the position of sticking up for Shagnasty at times, but so be it. I don’t believe that someone expressing an opinion different from mine is the same thing as being a jerk.
Chronos, I like you just great but you are the one that gave me a warning for calling Forrest Gump a “retard” as “hate speech” even though that term is used in the movie itself. It was later reversed because it had no bearing.
He didn’t make a threat. It is a phrase that doesn’t literally mean what you are implying. If it was really considered so in the real world, 3/4 of my coworkers would be gone including the managers and especially the women.
America - a country separated by a common language. You just got exposed to academia for too long. Most of the rest of the world doesn’t work that way. I don’t think it is a good idea to make the SDMB more incestuous than it already is by purging people with divergent viewpoints. It is fine to ban trolls and straight up crackpots but he wasn’t among them.
Plus, you know, he was on the wrong side of the argument…
.
nc
I’ve been hearing this nonsense for over 18 years now. That dog doesn’t hunt. This was obviously not a banning based on ideology nor “divergent viewpoint,” and your relitigation of you own issues is bringing more heat than light.
This was very clearly a banning for being a jerk, and as Colibri accurately points out, threat/not threat is a minor nitpick on my part.
If he could edit his post to indicate a simulapost, he could edit his post to remove the language that went against moderator instructions.
He wanted to get the dig in, while looking innocent.
I’m using my iPhone not my PC.
I’ve rarely been happy to see someone banned. Rarely. But not this time.
It was clearly a threat, in fact the words Billfish posted have no other interpretation, except as a (weak) threat.
Clearly, “If you think I’m X, I’ll bitch slap you” is a threat. Whether it’s a conditional threat has never mattered here.
Bone gets a +1 here for being on top of the situation.
I would really appreciate it if you left “women” out of one of your posts. Just one.
Thank you.
I think it’s important to identify why we prohibit threats. There are at least a few reasons:
[ol]
[li]Obviously we don’t want to condone someone who would seek out to harm another person in real life.[/li][li]Threats are almost universally jerky of a specific nature.[/li][li]Threats are destructive to discourse.[/li][/ol]
For the folks that believe this wasn’t a real threat, that there wasn’t a means and opportunity to carry it out - that only covers #1. Even insincere threats can still be violative of #2 and #3. From above in post #11:
If this type of behavior were not moderated, discussion becomes much more difficult at best, and reduced to schoolyard taunts more often. That’s a bad outcome. I do not believe that every instance of internet tough guy will result in physical harm to come to someone, but that’s not the point. It does happen, and that’s #1 from above. But the other two rationales are just as operative. So the first question is, is this post actionable? According to the rules in the forum:
So yes, the post is actionable. The second question is what is the appropriate response? And as I said in post #11, the pattern of behavior, the previous suspension, the response to the warning, both in thread and via email, and the history of abusive responses factored in the group decision.
Do a search on my history. I never started very many threads about women at all since 2000. It is a myth that someone perpetuated. The vast majority of my posts have nothing to do with relationships or women. People don’t seem to believe it but look it up yourself. I post on lots of topics that I am knowledgeable in.
Wrong. Some people subscribe to threads and get an email every time it’s updated. His words would have gone out to all subscribers. The words once posted cannot be unposted.
In such a situation the correct thing to do is leave the words there, and explain that he hadn’t seen the instructions. Which is what he did.
No, not wrong. That is not the best course of action. Anyone who subscribes, if they can see the update to indicate the simulpost they can see the edit that removes the offensive content.
He could even say “simulposted with moderator warning, removed content”.
It’s a cheap way to get a last dig in, and avoid consequences.
That phrase is a lot more offensive that the topic at hand. Why do you think it would be acceptable to say that to someone?