Uh, she was suspended for (allegedly) threatening to criticize a mod. Not criticizing. Threatening to criticize. Unless we are now interpreting “complaint” in some new way, which, having read this thread, would not surprise me at all. So I would say yeah, criticizing is being discouraged.
I doubt anyone here really thinks what happened to Sleeps is a result of being poster on a splinter board. It was probably one person who put that idea forward, but I’m too lazy to scroll back.
Equally ridiculous is the idea that people arguing against her suspension are only doing so because they know her or like her.
She didn’t threaten to blow kisses at the mods. 
It was more or less blackmail. Blackmail without merit, of course, seeing as it didn’t work.
I guess I’ve better start making sense real soon. You know them Nebraskans love their kittens!
Being new to this board, I don’t know who falls into what camp. But I’ve heard from several people, both in this thread and in PMs that the popular theory amongst the protesters is that this is vengeance for starting a splinter board. If someone tells me they’re fundamentalist Christian and that they are pro-life, I might assume they’re Republican. It was an honest mistake.
Edit: Just saw Tacoloco’s post. If that isn’t what the popular theory is, then I retract my statements based around the splinter board. That was what I had been told. I’ll take it now that the people who believe that are in the minority.
You really don’t understand. Seriously. Please respond directly to this question. How can a promise to do what not only is acceptable on these boards, but has a forum provided specifically for it, threatening?. It’s like threatening to write a movie review and post it in Cafe Society. Big whoop. Not against the rules, so no suspension results.
Blackmail without “merit” ( or more precisely, something to back it up) is not blackmail. Just like a threat without consequence is not a threat, and intimidation without the power to follow through is not intimidation. No matter how many times you try to weasel around it, there was no threat. No intimidation. No blackmail. What she said had no more power to harm **Marley **than a threat to blow kisses at him.
Because, in your mind, “Fucking Emperor Palpatine Old Lady.” is not any worse than “crazyburrito”? I disagree, I think that the first one is a stronger insult than the other.
About a year ago when I was in the middle of a breakup with my girlfriend at the time I went to her apartment to pick up my stuff. I knocked at the door and she opened it, saw me standing there and immediately slammed the door shut, quite obnoxiously. I called her from my cellphone and told her I was there for my stuff. She responded “This is harassment” and told me to go fuck myself. Needless to say, it wasn’t harassment, but it worked. She’d effectively bulldozed me and I had to go through judicial channels. That’s a true story and I’ll admit it might give me a slanted view.
But you can’t bulldoze a moderator like that. Other posters might be able to put what I’m thinking more eloquently.
Here’s the direct answer to your question: I don’t seriously think that Sleeps would have gone on to complain in the forums that Marley was harassing her. But it’s the fact that it was a cheap attempt to get the moderator to shut up. Stack this ontop of a supposed history of bad behavior that other people in this thread have mentioned and you’ve got a reason to suspend her.
Edit (too late after posting the message): Other posters might be able to put what I’m thinking into words more eloquently.
How can it be an attempt to get him to shut up when it is perfectly acceptable behavior? That’s the question. What is it about threatening to behave acceptably that would cause someone to change his behavior?
If that were a reason it would have been cited. That’s how it works around here.
I await with great anticipation your citation of a rule against complaining about the moderators. Oh shit, *I just threatened you with asking for a cite! *WATCH OUT GUYS, I’M GONNA GET BANNED. IT WAS NICE KNOWING YOU ALL.
Gee, really, you think?
The word harassment has a different meaning than criticizing. In addition, in the USA, it has commonly come to mean something with legal repercussions. So it’s not the same as criticizing. I have already covered the topic of how “valid” a threat her post is, I’m not going to go over that ground again.
Acceptable on these boards? How so?
Revised Forum Rules for the BBQ Pit: read this before posting
“However, refusal to cooperate or persisting in arguing with a mod after you’ve been told to stop may result in disciplinary action.”
I’m sorry, but when a moderator sends you PMs related to board moderation and you tell him “any more PMs for you on this topic will be harassment”, I think the rule I just quoted applies.
There is no such rule? I don’t get it.
Don’t worry so much about the Evil Moderator Cabal, their misdeeds are much exaggerated. Relax.
It’s a fair concern. I was once accused of text-rape for allegedly sending an ASCII art penis to ELIZA, but was acquitted because ELIZA is not a real woman and the “penis” was actually a geoduck clam.
According to **Marley **she was suspended for threatening to complain. Now unless all complaints of harassment are de facto invalid, she must at least be allowed to plead her case, i.e. criticize a moderator, before any action can be taken. So suspending her for threatening to complain is stifling criticism.
Well , of course, that’s not what she said. She said that further contact would be considered harassment, and she said it in response to his statement that he had been offline for a while. She referenced no topic. And again, it was the (alleged) threat to complain that caused the suspension. No need to go all Aunt Polly on her ass. If she were suspended for refusing to cooperate that’s all he had to say. But he didn’t.
Contrapuntal, in going back to read exactly what Marley23 said, I see that you have already covered the ground with him, and I don’t see anything new in this latest exchange. IMHO it won’t be any more productive for me to go over it with you again, so I’ll just say that I disagree with your reading of how this all went down. We’ll end up just repeating the same things over and over again. I stand by what I said in post 210.
Fair enough.
I wasn’t planning on jumping back into this fray, but I would like to correct the above bolded part of the statement. ‘On this topic’ was not in the PM.
Is the entire point. There’s no such rule against complaining. Therefore, ‘threatening’ to complain isn’t really much of a ‘threat.’ A threat is a promise to harm someone/thing. Can you show potential harm in Sleeps’ PM, yes or no? If yes, do so. If not, then again, we are back to arguing semantics. At no point was the word ‘legal’ or ‘sue’ or ‘report’ in either of those two sentences. Again: After all the flap about legal threats on this board, is it now, after some two hundred posts, your contention that Sleeps was threatening legal action? Proof, please?
Exactly. If I “threaten” (or make a statement that could through some leap of imagination be construed to indicate that I may proceed with some course of action :rolleyes:) to do something that’s explicity allowed by the SDMB’s rules, how is that a violation of the rules?
Seeing as how it’s the only thing he PMed her about was moderator actions, it’s a reasonable inference. She didn’t want any more PMs talking about moderation.
I’ll refer you again to my example about death threats. We don’t allow those at the board either, even though, realistically, there is very little chance that it will amount to anything.
If you don’t quit harping on this failed line of reasoning, I’ll consider it harassment.
Her nickname for me, liverdamage, is surprisingly appropriate!