# An Appeal **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 16, 2018, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287 "2018-05-16T14:06:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/21 "2018-05-16T17:42:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IIRC, my assessment at the time was that Clothahump was most likely not trolling in his use and defense of the term “wetback”. Rather, that his claim to have been playing his opponents was a face-saving posture, which he thought was a clever claim to make at the time, without considering the board rule implications. > > In line with that, when he defended the term again now, he simply forgot that he had adopted the “I was playing you” stance at one point. I don’t think that “this was too stupid to be trolling” is really the most effective defense. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/22 "2018-05-16T17:51:24Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I don’t think that “this was too stupid to be trolling” is really the most effective defense. That’s not the basis for my assessment. Rather, [ol] [li]Clothahump was not at all out of character in his use and defense of the term, other than that one post. So unless his entire board persona was one massive con, it’s more likely that the post was the outlier, and not the initial use/defense.[/li][li]The entire context of that post was clearly an attempted sneering defense in a Pit thread aimed at attacking him. It’s not uncommon for people in that situation to adopt a phony stance which they think may benefit them.[/li][/ol] That said, I’m not sure of any of this. But I think it’s more likely than not correct. And it accounts for his re-use/defense of the term better than him deciding to troll again on exactly the same subject. How that adds up in terms of board rules and enforcement is of less interest to me, and I can certainly see the argument that the mods should take him at his own word. This is just about what he was up to at the time, since that happens to be being discussed here. ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/23 "2018-05-16T18:01:25Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Doesn’t this happen every time some long-time poster is banned? “So and so should’ve been given another chance, it’s not fair, so what if they broke the rules, they brought a lot to the boards, blah blah blah, they should be allowed extra special super lee-way?” Well OK, this about sums it up except I’m fairly certain that I did not say blah,blah,blah. I’m more of a yadda, yadda type. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/24 "2018-05-16T18:13:48Z")
The cardinal rule of the Dope is “Don’t be a jerk.” He broke that rule and has paid the price. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/25 "2018-05-16T18:13:50Z")
Thank you for clarifying that we can start a second thread to discuss bannings. I had thought that we could not do so since the announcement threads were locked. **F-P** your clarification doesn’t counter **Colibri** ’s point. Either **Clothy** meant the admission or he was saving face, we can’t know which. He was taken at his word and warned and suspended. Even if it was a desperate defensive play, it is highly unlikely that he forgot all about it a year later. I don’t buy the defensive ploy theory in any case. He’s been around for years, unapologetically saying racist things and using racist terms. Why would he suddenly feel cornered on this issue and need to cover up? He manifestly does not care what the rest of us think about this. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/26 "2018-05-16T19:32:46Z")
Being a Brit I don’t participate much in or even read most of the political threads here, so Clothahump never annoyed me as much as he evidently did some people. I don’t even have a very strong opinion of him myself. But I do recall a thread not many months ago in which he appeared to graciously (well, relatively) concede a couple of points, and decided to purge his ignore list. It seemed at that stage he was willing to hear other points of view and engage in genuine discussion. Sadly, it seems that was short-lived and he went back to his old ways. Since it appears they were the vast majority of his posts, IMHO he has had many chances and just doesn’t want to change. In other words, he enjoys being a troll more than engaging constructively. A shame, but there it is. > [@74westy](#): > > No they didn’t. Absolutely perfect. Very well played. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/27 "2018-05-16T20:41:17Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Doesn’t this happen every time some long-time poster is banned? “So and so should’ve been given another chance, it’s not fair, so what if they broke the rules, they brought a lot to the boards, blah blah blah, they should be allowed extra special super lee-way?” It’s _particularly_ galling here. If I had to name one thing that really stood out about the poster in question, it was that their contribution to any given thread was, with _astounding_ regularity, the worst thing in said thread. I think that was intentional - or if it wasn’t, it doesn’t matter. Lemme explain. A _disturbing_ number of threads where they posted followed the following pattern: \ \ \ \ \ This is _classic troll behavior_. It’s just not immediately obvious, and very much possible to do without explicitly breaking any rules. Seriously, it’s _so_ easy. Anyone can do it. Here’s how. Pick literally any thread. Post something at least slightly related to the topic which is blatantly wrong, or at least so unpopular that you know you’re going to get immense pushback on it. Put the least amount of effort possible into it, preferably keeping things very vague. Do so in a manner which does not overtly break the rules. Then, when people comment on it, and you inevitably get a mix of people all over [Graham’s Scale](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html), from those who directly refute your central point to those who just call you an idiot, focus entirely on the latter while ignoring the former, and watch as the thread devolves. And this _will_ happen on a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance - an ignorant, low-content statement is really grade-A bait for the kind of people who are interested in what the tagline suggests. It’s a chance to show off how smart you are easily - who doesn’t want that? Do this long enough, and the forum will inevitably filter for the people who reach for the ad hominems (because the people willing to spend the time to debunk your bullshit have long since learned that it _really_ isn’t worth the trouble - hi there, **NotCarlson** 🙂 ), and this only becomes more and more effective. At no point here does the hypothetical troll break the rules, mind you. Not a single post they make is actually worth warning! That’s why it works! If their posts were obviously offensive, they couldn’t keep the con going. You have to pay attention to the larger pattern, _and_ notice that it keeps happening again and again. Now, some might make the defense that the poster in question wasn’t doing this on purpose, that it was unintentional and a result of their stupidity. Over and over and over again. But the overall effect on the board is… the same drastic drop in thread quality whenever anyone engages with them. At that point, “intent” seems like a very odd hair to split. Seriously, this thread is… bizarre. Please don’t demand extra appeals for someone who was _by far_ the single worst poster on the entire forum. If they weren’t a troll, they were acting completely indistinguishably from a troll, and making the entire forum worse by their presence. There’s exactly one good thing I’ve learned from this guy - not to throw around the term “troll” lightly. Because if you start calling any idiot with a mouth bigger than their brain a troll, you miss the nuance in what makes an _actual_ troll a problem on sites like this. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/28 "2018-05-16T21:24:37Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Seriously, this thread is… bizarre. Please don’t demand extra appeals for someone who was _by far_ the single worst poster on the entire forum. Since [**Collunsbury**](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=170306), anyway. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/29 "2018-05-16T21:32:43Z")
> [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > Absolutely perfect. Very well played. Thanks Dead [del]Parrot[/del] Cat. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/30 "2018-05-16T23:54:59Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Right. Banning and suspension notices used to be left open, but a lot of the comments were of the nature “Good. I’m glad he’s gone.” Since the target couldn’t respond, we felt that was unfair. That’s why we also close Pit threads once the target has been banned. But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say “Good, I’m glad he’s gone” in that thread, can’t they? So what’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/31 "2018-05-17T00:12:15Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say “Good, I’m glad he’s gone” in that thread, can’t they? So what’s the difference? History has shown there to be a great deal of difference. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/32 "2018-05-17T00:18:22Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > So what’s the difference? The difference is that fewer of those threads are started, and fewer people post in them. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/33 "2018-05-17T00:35:17Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say “Good, I’m glad he’s gone” in that thread, can’t they? So what’s the difference? The difference is, most people aren’t going to start a whole new thread just to take a few shots at a banned poster. If someone opens a new thread with a legitimate question, we’re willing to do the small amount of extra work to keep the thread from turning into a pitting of the bannee, because we want people to be able to raise questions about moderation of the board. And it usually turns out to not be a problem in these situations, because the practice of always locking the announcement does a good job of communicating that drive-by pot-shots at banned posters aren’t encouraged. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/34 "2018-05-17T02:33:16Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > But you allow people to open a second thread to discuss the banning. And people can say “Good, I’m glad he’s gone” in that thread, can’t they? So what’s the difference? Most bannings are actually not controversial, and once people check out the poster’s history of warnings in the banning announcement they don’t feel it’s necessary to appeal the banning. So for the majority of bannings, most remarks would be of the nature “Good, I’m glad he’s gone.” The current policy limits discussion threads to posters for whom at least one poster feels it’s worth the small effort to open a new thread. (For most banned poster, not even a single poster feels it’s worth it.) There are fewer threads, and as has been said the discussion is seen to be more serious, there are fewer potshots that need to be moderated. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/35 "2018-05-17T03:29:24Z")
Okay, that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/36 "2018-05-17T03:53:52Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > There are very few people who are truly rotten to the core. Heck, even Hitler had some good qualities. He had a real eye for mustache grooming. His precision was noteworthy! ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/37 "2018-05-17T04:43:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That said, I’m not sure of any of this. But I think it’s more likely than not correct. And it accounts for his re-use/defense of the term better than him deciding to troll again on exactly the same subject. I’ve never been a particular fan of elaborate theories concerning what motives someone had, but this still ignores the point that he was suspended for that behavior. The point of warnings is to let a poster know they need to change their behavior and a suspension is a final notice. Just like driving a car, you have a duty to follow the rules. If you get your thrills from coming as close to the edge as possible, you really can’t complain if you get busted when you go over. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/38 "2018-05-17T07:25:13Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Another issue is the fact, noted in other threads, that he didn’t really engage in “dialogue” on political issues. The threads he participated became more like Argument Clinic than debate. “So is it now a bannable offense (or part of one) to not engage when people are posting at you, whether they’re just mocking you or insulting you or just want to make their majority opinion heard because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.” Those are not my words but my sentiments. If I post my opinion on a topic and people come in to call me a doo-doo-butt-face and I do not respond to their shenanagins am I now a suspect of some offense? ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/39 "2018-05-17T09:10:49Z")
Seems to me like it is a bannable offence to admit to trolling, get a suspension, then come back a year later and do the same thing again. Isn’t that what the ban was for? The “not engaging” aspect is clearly just window dressing. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287/40 "2018-05-17T13:02:04Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > “So is it now a bannable offense (or part of one) to not engage when people are posting at you, whether they’re just mocking you or insulting you or just want to make their majority opinion heard because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.” > > Those are not my words but my sentiments. > > If I post my opinion on a topic and people come in to call me a doo-doo-butt-face and I do not respond to their shenanagins am I now a suspect of some offense? That bears no resemblance at all to what I said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-appeal/814287.md?page=3)