Dear ntucker, I don’t think you’re quite prepared yet for the Worldwide Wild Web. 
You never take my threats seriously. 
Inference. As it happens, incorrect inference. Not that I’m surprised; it’s amazing how frequently people are wrong about others’ intent. Usually what they end up with is what they want the person to have meant.
And yet, that doesn’t make the analogy valid.
I don’t even remember calling you that, but :D.
I have to say I’m not getting the death threat analogy either, Arnold Winkelried. Here are the two cases as I see them:
- Hypothetical Joe, a poster living in Texas, gets angry at Unmember, who’s in Oklahoma, and posts: “Shut the hell up before I drive to Tulsa, rip your heart out with my favorite pair of ice tongs, and feed it to my pet wolf.”
Likely scenario: Joe is being an Internet Tough Guy and doesn’t mean what he’s saying.
Worst-case scenario if Joe follows through on threat: Joe is a psycho, gets in his car, drives to Tulsa with his pair of tongs and pet Wulfgang by his side, and performs an cardiodectomy (note: not a real operation) on Unmember.
Moderator action: Erring on the safe side, our moderator suspends or possibly bans Joe.
- Sleeps with Butterflies has a hissy and tells Marley23 to stop PMing her or she’ll consider it harassment.
Likely scenario: Sleeps tries to put Marley23 on Ignore, discovers she can’t do it, jokes about it on Giraffeboard before posting a snarky and possibly melodramatic thread in ATMB bitching about Marley PMing her. Mods/Admins say GTF over it, the several folks support her, others don’t. Thread peters out after six pages.
Worst-case scenario if Sleeps follows through on her threat: Sleeps tries to put Marley23 on Ignore, discovers she can’t do it, jokes about it on Giraffeboard before posting a snarky and possibly melodramatic thread in ATMB bitching about Marley PMing her. Mods/Admins say GTF over it, the several folks support her, others don’t. Thread peters out after six pages. Oh wait, this was supposed to be the worst-case scenario. So I’ll add that Giraffeboard posts an ad saying something like, “Giraffeboard: we don’t harass you in PMs!”
Moderator action: Marley23 suspends Sleeps for a week for something that’s not against the rules, even in the worst-case situation.
I’m sorry, I’m not seeing the similarity. In example #1, if Joe follows through, he commits a crime, someone’s dead, SDMB community feels horrible. In example #2, if Sleeps follows through, she … complains about moderation. Which is not only legal, but it’s allowed on the board.
Honestly? Everyone overreacted following that dumbass Precious thread. Everyone. From Cisco to Sleeps with Butterflies to Marley23 to MeanOldLady to tacoloco and especially to choie for posting two more TL;DR posts than this silly, silly situation merits.
I’m still waiting on an answer as to why the moderators are so bad at consistently enforcing the rules.
I already have grey hair and I expect that I’ll have lots more by the time that happens.
tacoloco is in danger of getting grey hairs,
he has his views on matters, and the moderators have theirs.
It seems obvious to me that Sleeps didn’t want to continue the argument – at least not in PMs. And she didn’t get a chance to demonstrate cooperation or non-cooperation on the public forums. I don’t think that this rule is a good match at all.
I used to teach communication. Sleeps statement is not an aggressive statement. It is assertive. She doesn’t blame Marley for her feelings in her final statement. But she does say, “If you do _____, I will feel _____.” You really can’t argue with what another person feels. She will feel harassed.
Notice that I am not saying that a moderator should let that kind of statement interfere with her or his duties. But I don’t see that it is threatening, jerkish, dishonest, or worthy of suspension.
And Marley did have other options. He could have simply let it drop long enough to see if she would cooperate. Wasn’t that the real issue anyway? Or he could have taken the disagreement public in a non-pitting sort of way.
Instead, it looks more like a “who’s going to have the last word” contest. And we know who will win that one.
But in the long stretch, Marley, you’ve lost something of more value – at least for a while.
:rolleyes:
Internets serious business
I fail to see the great injustice here.
So you’re posting on a moderated message board, a mod sends you a PM about something, and you reply with “any more PMs will be considered harrassment”?
My immediate, visceral reaction to that is “Ugh. Go away.”
I can’t exactly blame Marley for feeling the same way.
It’s very clear that Sleeps wasn’t making a threat. A threat would have been “If you continue to PM me I’m coming after your family with a hatchet”. Or maybe something like “If you continue to PM me I will make up lies about you to the other mods”. Sleeps simply made a childish douchebag comment, but in no way can it be construed as a threat.
However
If Sleeps HAD made any kind of threat she wouldn’t have gotten a weeks suspension, she’d have gotten a permanent ban. Hell, a weeks suspension is hardly a suspension at all, it’s more like timeout or a warning++ (seeing how the normal kind clearly wasn’t working).
So
As usual, SMDB manages to have a 5 pages thread full of drama over a slightly unfortunate choice of words, even though both sides know perfectly well what is meant.
“views” means making up whatever bullshit they want to justify bad decisions.
Again, I’ll ask, why are the moderators here incapable of consistency in their decisions?
You have to have have or provide something of value before you can lose it.
So of course, when she said “don’t send me any more PMs”, she actually meant “feel free to send me more PMs if necessary.” Of course! How could I have missed that? I should stop taking what people say at face value, and take some lessons in “reading intent”.
It was just to show that it is the board’s policy to treat comments like that seriously, even if there is not a great likelihood that they will ever come to anything. Same thing if you threaten to sue the board - that’s cause for banning. What could come of accusing a moderator of harassment? Probably nothing. What “punishment” did Sleeps with Butterflies get? A one-week suspension. Big deal. And in any case, even if you’re thinking that the reasoning is week, I think that the suspension is justified by the rule I quoted above (“if you continue to argue with moderators about a ruling, then further action may be taken.”)
And all she had to do was stop replying to Marley23’s PMs! I know that this would have been very difficult. :rolleyes:
Now this is true enough. People love the drama. I’ve had my fill of it for the week, so I’m done with this thread for now.
To be fair, Okies do get right up our noses. If it weren’t for their casinos there would probably be a lot more of the situation you’re describing.*
It must be very debilitating for people unable to do either. How do you manage in the world?
For someone done with drama, that’s a hell of an exit. You could easily have followed your own advice and simply…not replied. Tell you what. Don’t reply to me. That’ll show me.
*Hyperbole for those clinically unable to discern such things.
He could’ve harassed her even without responding, by changing his handle to Butterflies.
Yet another person who gets it. I have to say, given the general quality of moderation on this forum, I’m both surprised and disappointed that the mods and admins are turtling down on this one, given that the above statement is, to the best of my knowledge, completely factual.
Why are his feelings relevant? Wanting someone to go away, and abusing your powers to make it happen are two different things.
And if he’d then suspended her for a week and given the reason “Because she got up my nose and pissed me off” it would have been A) no less valid than the reason given originally, and B) refreshingly honest. To have done so, however, would have required actual balls and would not feed the need for passive aggressive modding some modes seem to think is required around here.
And since drawing lengthy inferences from single data points is apparently the new sport, my inference is that after receiving Sleeps’ PM Marley threw a dancing shitfit around his apartment screaming incoherently about how everybody must “RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH, DAMMIT, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND I AM AN ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING DOPE MODE!!!” then fruitlessly attempted to link Sleeps’ IP with that of another poster before figuring out a suspension is all he could get away with.
But of course, that’s just MY inference, and unlike some people I know how much it’s worth.
Yes but death is an actual harm. Complaints are allowed. There is even a forum for it. ATMB. I assume if TPTB allow something, they can’t at they same time consider it to be harmful. And certainly not worthy of a suspension.
That’s the point. What if a mod were harassing someone? Is she not allowed to complain? Or, as I have asked before, are complaints of harassment de facto tossed away?
We are either allowed to complain, and let the complaint stand or fall on its merits, or we are not. It can’t be both ways.
As I said before in this thread, the stated position of the Straight Dope is to take claims of harassment very seriously. Someone (I think it was TubaDiva) said just that at some point within the last year (I tried to find the post but I was unsuccessful - maybe someone remembers the situation better than I do). The gist of it was, “Don’t throw claims of harassment around lightly, because we will take them all seriously.”