All Right, Samclem, I WILL Take it to the Pit

The BBQ Pit
81

Well, I do think it’s possible to sympathize with a person with a sexual attraction to children and adolescents.

Imagine, you are wired in such a way that, not only can you never act on what seems to you to be a natural and inherent attraction but your entire culture actively condemns and prosecutes should you act on it.

I mean, let’s face it, that sucks.

I have no idea what to DO about it…but I can sympathize with the plight of those born with pedophiliac tendencies. It seems to be one of nature’s crueler jokes.

82

Ed, Dex, and other admins:

You’ve done a good job explaining why you intervened and took the action you did — namely, that it wasn’t the topic per se, but the way the topic was presented. But isn’t Eve asking pretty much the same question? Isn’t she saying that it wasn’t the action you took that bothered her, but the way you took it? You deleted an active thread of interest to a number of people (though I never even saw it myself) without explanation or comment of any kind. Not that you owe an explanation, but just that, as Poly pointed out, it would be more in line with your recent efforts to communicate better with the community at large.

83

And, as explained before, we can’t explain until we’ve investigated, and the investigation took time. Once we had the investigation and discussion amongst the Mods, we provided the explanation to y’all.

When you’re the teacher and two kids are fighting, your first job is to stop the fight. You can figure out who was responsible later.

It’s been said now several times: we frequently take the same attitude. We move a suspect thread into limbo, we ban an advertiser, we take fast action. Then we investigate and discuss amongst ourselves, and then we usually post a public explanation. This takes time.

I have, in fact, on occasion closed a thread saying just that: I’m closing this thread until I figure out what to do, give me a day or two. Then the thread remains closed or is reopened.

With a thread that we want disappeared, it’s not so simple to say, “We’ve hidden this thread for the moment until we investigate.”

So, there’s a time lag.

We can’t tell you that this guy is a sock until we’ve investigated. We can’t tell you that he’s part of another board investigation until we’re sure. All those things take time.

We’ve said many, many times before: if you feel that you need an earlier explanation, SEND AN E-MAIL TO THE MODS. We’ll be happy (usually) to tell you privately what’s going on. But, no, why bother waiting a day or two for an explanations when you can go all balllistic about how the mods are tyrannical dictators, intent on censorship and destroying free speech and blah blah.

BTW, there are a few cases where we will not be publicizing the explanations. Trolls who come here to create a stir, get banned and disappeared and done with, we don’t want them to have the publicity of an explanation – “Dont Feed the Trolls.” Jerks who come here to advertise their websites that sell sex toys get banned and disappeared with no public explanation – we don’t need to give them free advertising space. Again, if you feel that you personally need an explanation, SEND AN E-MAIL TO THE MODS. We’re happy to explain in private, usually. Although we might say, we’re investigating, please be patient.

[sub]Note: capitalization in this post is used for emphasis, and not to be read as “shouting.”[/sub]

84

I didn’t see the original thread, and its topic isn’t of any particular interest to me, but the topic of threads being deleted without explanation is somewhat concerning, and here’s why. The rules of the board are somewhat subjective, so in order to get a good feel for what is and isn’t acceptable, sometimes we need examples. If I see a thread that mentions the existence of pedophiles, but seems within the bounds of good taste and academic discussion, then a couple days later I notice that it’s gone, I don’t know whether it degenerated to something unacceptable, or if what I had already seen was the unacceptable part.

The same goes with banning folks without comment. When I am reading a thread and one of the people in it suddenly appears as BANNED, I can’t help but wonder if he got banned for his slightly abrupt tone a few posts back, or if it’s something unseen, such as the mods determining that he was a sock puppet. It hardly seems worth bothering the mods about it every time, but I still want to know so that if it was simply the tone of his posts, I’ll know what’s too far and won’t make the same mistake myself.

We want to stay within the rules. Preventing us from seeing what constitutes a violation of the rules creates fear that we don’t really understand the rules.

85

And yes, I know that an explanation was eventually provided in this case. I just wanted to offer a rational viewpoint that didn’t sound like shrieks of “evil mods are censoring us!”

86

And, ntucker, we got exactly what you requested, from Ed Zotti, within a couple of days – along with Dex’s reiteration of the “send staff an e-mail if you have questions” rule (probably the SDMB rule that gets the most violations – I’ve started a thread on what probably ought to have been an e-mail question myself).

I think there’s more than a touch of paranoia among Dopers. I believe it’s fair to say (and I’d ask an Admin. to validate or correct it) that any “regular member” – which I think would include anyone who’s been here over a month and/or made over 100 posts – will get warned for a violation, not summarily banned, should he or she happen to cross a line. And when it’s borderline, it may be an “advisory warning” – a sort of “I see why you’re upset, but what you said was beyond what we’re prepared to allow” message that isn’t a formal “shape up or you’ll get banned” sort of warning but a defining of a line that wasn’t previously defined.

And I’ve never known any staff to be unwilling to explain why they acted as they did, or whether something’s within the bounds of the rules, if asked via e-mail. (Though occasionally the answer may be, "I can’t answer precisely what you asked for reasons of protecting OtherPoster’s confidentiality, but here’s a more generic response…)

87

I’m not an admin, and Dex already explained better than I can, but please remember that time is a harsh taskmaster. As SamClem explained earlier, sometimes–often–it takes us longer than we like to respond unilaterally. It’s just the nature of the beast, with multiple volunteers juggling jobs, families, etc. across time zones.

In this case, we strongly suspected this was a sock from a pedophila board, returned from a previous incursion to impose their agenda on our board. There was no way posters could or should have been aware of the possiblity, but we were. What was the ‘right’ thing to do in this case? Rest assured, e-mails were burning back and forth about exactly that.

It would have been grossly unfair to throw accusations before being sure. Equally, allowing Dopers to be sucked into it unaware would have been unfair, and irresponsible to boot. So the thread was removed from view to suss it out. Nothing permanent, just a holding pattern while checking it out. In this case, it turned out to be a sock plying a definite agenda.

That doesn’t mean all discussions of pedophilia are verboten, as has been explained. This particular thread, its antecedents and OP, were tainted from the get-go. A neccessary specific action doesn’t support extrapolating wholesale censorhsip or indictment for or against any particular viewpoint. This was just something that needed to be done, and took time to do it fairly.

Gad, I’m wordy.

Veb

88

I’d feel like I always feel when authors get accused of being responsible for actions that readers take and assign responsibility for to the author. Even if some Doper posted in response to a pedophile a direct advocation that he act on his feelings, it’s not on the Doper if the pedophile actually does it.

I get where you’re coming from and as always, it’s your playground so you get to make the rules. But I don’t, and won’t, agree with the reasoning.

89

That’s your privilege, of course.

Just one more quick example. There’s a difference between a “What health problems arise from use of cocaine?” and “Ask the drug dealer.” We’re not singling out pedophilia, we would have the same reaction to any illegal activity.

Some people are arguing that merely thinking about committing a crime is not the same as committing a crime. But that border is a fuzzy one. Example: “I’m thinking about trying crack, so far I’m resisting, but if I wanted to, where would I get some?”

I use the drug example because we often get kids who do a google search on “dope” and come here asking such questions. They’re usually banned and the threads removed. So, we’re fairly consistent in approach that we don’t want to encourage (or appear to encourage) illegal behaviours. I guess the definition of “encourage” can vary, Otto, and we can agree to disagree.

90

So very true.

91

Building on Poly’s example, prior to Lawrence would a thread on the topic of “where in Texas can I go to meet other gay men for sex” have been closed? With same-sex marriage being illegal in most of the world, are threads on “where can my girlfriend and I go to get legally hitched” closed? Turning to my own posting history, I had at least one thread talking about how my then-boyfriend, who was in the US illegally, was being exploited by the people who were illegally employing him. I even got accused by some members, at the time and months afterward, of engaging in or encouraging illegal activity because I didn’t report him or his employers to INS. The thread was not locked and obviously I wasn’t banned.

But that’s the thing, you’re not fairly consistent, either about which “illegal behaviours” you want to discourage or about what the definition of “encouragement” is.

But I don’t really care strongly enough about this to invest much more energy into it.

92

Many people bristle at the comparison, which is why I have avoided it 'till now, but to me the relevant analogy would be a pre-Lawrence poster posting an “Ask the Homosexual” thread. It’s thinking about an act that is just as illegal as homosexuality was for a long time, regardless of its actual moral justification.

And it’s not something that is readily changed, even moreso than drug use.

93

Well, agreed, we’re not considering all illegal activites to be of the same consequence. I guess “Ask the Person with three tickets for parking in a no-parking zone” probably wouldn’t arouse much concern on the part of moderators. Not compared to “Ask the Rapist,” say.

Felonies that involve victimization of others (like rape, arson, pedophilia, etc) or drug use tend to attract our attention much more than misdemeanors. We’re also concerned with copyright violations, on account of the READER being our sponsor.

So, no, I guess I misstated when I said we react the same to “any illegal activity” – I probably should have said “any felony.” My point was that we’re not singling out pedophilia, as some people have tried to claim. We just haven’t had a lot of “Ask the Serial Killer” threads, and we have had a lot of “Hug the Pedophile” threads.

94

I didn’t get to see the thread, which sounds as if it was treading on treacherous ground – but doing so successfully. I would like to be able to read it, because I find the human mind and its vagaries a fascinating field of study. And honestly? I also think it’s possible that just because this poster was here during the infestation doesn’t mean that his post wasn’t sincere.

Maybe it’s the Pollyanna in me, but couldn’t it be that the guy was here trolling the first time, started lurking, has spent months struggling with his disgusting feelings, and then snuck back here to express his conflict because he respected the SDMB community? Okay, yeah, nauseatingly idealistic, but I guess I’d like to believe that’s possible.

Well, it was a tough call and I support the closing of the thread, considering the source. I just kinda disagree with the deletion.

I see where you’re coming from. But from how I’ve seen the thread described, wouldn’t a more apt example be something like, “I’m thinking about trying crack, but so far I’m resisting; I was hoping you could help me and talk me through this, and in return feel free to ask questions about the mindset of an addict.”

If that hypothetical scenario were the case, and the conversation seemed to be remaining respectful and informative, would you delete the thread? I really can’t fathom that you would, since the SDMB encourages both intellectual curiosity and honesty from its denizens. Yes, if the post came from a returning bannee, you’d close it … but I doubt it’d be deleted. Far more contentious and frankly squicky threads remain open. (Case in point: the infamous I burning your dog thread, wherein IIRC the OP describes stalking, tormenting and hitting some girl at his country club. The thread’s hilarious and I wouldn’t want it deleted, but it is disturbing as all get-out, too.)

But 'tis your call, and I respect you all for making it and explaining it afterwards. Running a community is an incredibly difficult task, and judgment calls like this are often fraught with complexities like this. Good grief, I run a community that’s 1/40th the size of this one, and our measly issues can be a pain to deal with; I can’t comprehend what you guys go through on a daily basis!

95

Oops, sorry, right poster, wrong bizarre discussion. I meant his I’m sick of women thread.

96

[Bolding mine.]

Possibly irrelevant to the rest of the discussion, but since this is my nit, I’d like to point something out for clarity’s sake and so I don’t constantly feel like even more of a heel than I normally do.

[ol]
[li]My thread was after the affair ended. I’m sure that’ll seem like splitting hairs, but the differentiation is that one implies “Wee! I’m having a blast and I can help you do it too in a few easy steps!” and what the intended purpose was; trying to help others avoid the same pitfalls (obvious though they be) and not fuck up everyone else’s life in the process.[/li][li]I certainly wasn’t, and never have been, trolling. Nor was I faking, attempting to be an attention seeking drama whore or a sympathy hound. Not that I’ve ever been accused of any of that (I don’t think), but I just wanted to be as clear as I can be and let it be known that my intentions were in the right place, even if the rest appeared misguided.[/li][/ol]

Last, I got to read the discussion in question sometime before it disappeared. I did find it enlightening and wanted to continue to read along to learn some more things. Like what to look for if I ever wish to protect any children in my care who I might be worried about coming into contact with this sort of thing, dealing with my own past problems that are similar and still hoping to explain to myself that it wasn’t because of anything I did or was, but instead due to external factors and also, since I believe everyone deserves assistance, finding out some way to make these folks less tortured and on the path to recovery and health.

Just my humble opinion, of course. But I really don’t want anyone here to ever think I was advocating infidelity by what I’d previously posted. I simply wished to use my idiotic experiences to do some good. For sadly, with all that, I’d done none.

Now, back to whether or not this all was handled as it should/could/would be.

97

This is not the place to get psychological counselling. Sure, you’ll find some people who are sympathetic and supportive, but you’ll find some people who tear you to emotional shreds. A person needing psychological counsellilng and/or a support group needs to go to a professional, not to a bunch of random people on the Message Boards.

We recently had an “I’m going to kill myself” thread (actually, we’ve had a few.) When a moderator sees such, we take action in real life – emergency phone calls, notify the police, etc. The “I’m thinking of suicide” discussion is appropriate for a psychologist/psychiatrist’s office, for a therapy group, etc. but is not appropriate on our boards. There’s bound to be one jerk who says something like, “If you’re jumping off a building, try to land on a pedestrian.”

In short, there are some cases where “I’m thinking about” some illegal act might be appropriate, and there other cases where it’s not. Generally speaking, if we’re talking felonies, we’re far more apt to worry whether the poster will think that the boards are supporting illegal behaviors.

98

That would be the case if you used “thinking” in the sense of “considering”. However, in the case of sexual orientations and drug use, it may be possible to think about it with no intention of following through (just like I can “think about” going on a killing spree as an intellectual exercise in order to satisfy my desire for revenge without actually doing it.)

Again, since the poster comes, apparently, from a pro-child-sex board that’s probably not the case, but if that were not the case I’m not sure that discussing the situation will not have a better overall effect on the world than hiding it.

99

I think I could fairly assume that when I quote a dependent clause people will understand it’s a sentence fragment.

You stated that you did not understand why we would want to “talk” to a pedophile. I explained why I might want to. Your opinion as to whether I have anything to “gripe about” is irrelevant to that wish.

–Cliffy

100

What if we had an ‘Ask the non-acting Ephebophilic’ thread started by a long-time poster? Would that be allowed to stand or would it have to be shut down also? A person attracted to people between the ages of 12-19 would be less… controversial than one attracted to kids under the age of 12 I would think. Most of the people in that thread were behaving courteously and several of us admitted to having attractions to those under the age of 18 too.

If this is just a topic that the mods don’t want to deal with, then I’ll understand. But on a board to fighting ignorance, I do think it is annoying that we can’t have discussions about such things, provided that we follow guidelines. I don’t want to go look and see what people say on other boards because I don’t go on other boards and I have no desire to pop those terms into google and see what comes up.