Are you serious? You guys just banned TLDR?

[tdn]

@Miller

Hey, careful with that broad brush! I’ll have you know that every time I post, the ASPCA adopts out a kitten.

How is that not jerkish and cruel of you? I mean, assuming that after every time you post, you then masturbate.

[Hamadryad]

Ah - only around here would banning an entertaining, response-encouraging, active poster who worked a few people’s nerves be cause for celebration.

I think he’s pretty much a tool myself, but over the years I’ve come around to the opinion that if there’s not obvious (message board) stalking or threats of real physical violence, banning people is just fucking childish.

I can understand keeping rampant insanity from the rest of the MB, but the ol’ knock-down drag-out any-man-for-himself Pitstains of the past have been (imnpfho) incredibly entertaining.

[Caffeine.addict]

I found him to be entertaining since I couldn’t take anything he posted outside of CS seriously. If there ever came a time that his opinion and mine coincided, I have been forced to closely reexamine my opinion.

Then again, I am willing to overlook a lot so long as it is entertaining.

[What_Exit]

@Hamadryad

Ah - only around here would banning an entertaining, response-encouraging, active poster who worked a few people’s nerves be cause for celebration.

I think he’s pretty much a tool myself, but over the years I’ve come around to the opinion that if there’s not obvious (message board) stalking or threats of real physical violence, banning people is just fucking childish.

I can understand keeping rampant insanity from the rest of the MB, but the ol’ knock-down drag-out any-man-for-himself Pitstains of the past have been (imnpfho) incredibly entertaining.

Well that problem is about to be corrected. The SDMB will have no shortage of new crazies and entertaining trolls rolling in when it returns to free posting in April or May. So you can rejoice.

[capybara]

I think the idea of a troll zoo is awesome. Like, instead of banning trolls, they could have access only to a special new forum-- the troll zoo-- like a penal colony island where anything goes. A bit Lord of the Flies and Escape from New York. There could be special functions to set people off-- like the hamsters eat a random number of long posts each day, or words get replaced every now and then. Or have the board auto-post an OP about circumcision or declawing or vaccines every two days.

[Sarahfeena]

@Arnold Winkelried

Assuming you think that five warnings is not enough to justify a banning, how many warnings should should s/he have been allowed before s/he was banned?

I thought most of those warnings were unwarranted in the first place, so I’m not sure how to answer your question.

@Guinastasia

Sarahfeena, have you read half of his “why do black people do such and such” thread?

I think I’ve read all of them. Are we banning with unpopular opinions or controversial observations now?

@WF Tomba

And I think that the thread about the woman going into the burning building was intended seriously. VC03 often showed a tendency to over-apply his own opinions.

I agree with this. I did not see him as a troll…I believe that he sincerely holds the opinions he has expressed. The fact that he is over-the-top in that expression brings color and life to the SDMB, in my opinion. In fact, I could not agree more with Vinyl Turnip’s joke:

@Vinyl Turnip

FIGHTING INTERESTINGNESS SINCE 1973
(IT’S ALL GOING EXACTLY ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE)

@Revtim

Well, thank god he’s gone, there were actually some interesting and amusing threads here in the pit recently. We can’t have that, otherwise those folks with the psychological defect that forces them to read every thread on the board might get the uncomfortable feeling of their shit being stirred.

Thank you, Revtim. My thoughts exactly.

@Hamadryad

Ah - only around here would banning an entertaining, response-encouraging, active poster who worked a few people’s nerves be cause for celebration.

I think he’s pretty much a tool myself, but over the years I’ve come around to the opinion that if there’s not obvious (message board) stalking or threats of real physical violence, banning people is just fucking childish.

I can understand keeping rampant insanity from the rest of the MB, but the ol’ knock-down drag-out any-man-for-himself Pitstains of the past have been (imnpfho) incredibly entertaining.

Thanks even more for this, Hamadryad. My overarching question is who was VCO3 hurting? If you don’t like him, don’t read his threads. Put him on ignore if you absolutely have to. But are we adults here who can deal with someone we aren’t crazy about, or are we little kids on the playground?

[Zsofia]

@Sarahfeena

First of all, I never said that specific OP had any socially redeeming value. But if that were the criteria, we would all be banned.

I’ll tell you what I think VCO3 was. A very valuable contributor to a lot of threads, and a guy with a weird sense of humor. He is kind of an ass sometimes, of course. As are a great many people around here. And unlike some, I never saw him being an asshole directly to another poster, like a lot of people also are around here.

I don’t get it.

I agree with you. I understand why he was banned, but I hate it. At least he was interesting. It’s not like you were forced to feed him.
Also, I do admit I always waited with baited breath to see what he would wonder about black people next.

[OtakuLoki]

@Zoe

The last topic that he posted may not have been appropriate for that particular news story, but I would like to see the subject discussed anyway.

Here’s a thread that I hope will allow us to discuss some of those issues, without the vitriol.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

@Sarahfeena

I thought most of those warnings were unwarranted in the first place, so I’m not sure how to answer your question.

All right then, here’s another question. How many warranted warnings should a poster be able to receive befoe s/he is banned?

If you want to go on to explain how all of the warnings for this banned poster were underserved, then fine.

My overarching question is who was VCO3 hurting? If you don’t like him, don’t read his threads.

By this standard, no one should ever be banned, assuming they have made at least one interesting post in one forum.

[Revtim]

@Sarahfeena

Thank you, Revtim. My thoughts exactly.

You’re very welcome. I’m pleased to see I’m not the only one here who is getting far more annoyed at the troll/“shit-stirrer” witch hunts around here than the (possible) trolls themselves. This place is enough of a like-minded circle jerk without everybody who dares have unpopular opinions being run off the board. And god help you if you are a new member, then any opinion that deviates from the norm labels you a “shit stirrer” and dooms you to constant moderation and almost guaranteed banning.

I hope it’s true this place is going back to free posting, with the witch hunting and shit board performance, it’s getting harder and harder to justify even the meager cost of paying.

[Polycarp]

@Sage Rat

I don’t think he was a troll either, but having dealt with some people in cyberspace who have aspergers, bi-polar disorder, depression, and whatnot, I’d have to vote that cruel or not, they’re not going to learn to behave in a normal manner anytime soon. Maybe if they came back a year later and said, “I’ve gotten new medication that’s changed me.”, that might be worth verifying. But a person’s medication isn’t something the mods nor the other board members can change through endless debates, pittings, and warnings. There might not even be a medication that works for the person at all.

Overall it comes down to the choice of letting the person drive down the quality of the board, or cutting them loose.

I had a person with aspergers stalking me in World of Warcraft trying to make me understand “just how lonely” they felt. I can sympathise for their situation, but having someone stalk me wasn’t going to continue regardless of whether they had ill-will or no.

The Rat may have a very important point here. I’ve dealt with a few Asperger’s sufferers before online, once where it was essentially my decision whether he got suspended/banned (on another, smaller board, of course). And in general they think that [o]they* are behaving appropriately, and cannot understand why there are assholes being hostle to them.

Based on TLDType…'s behavior (intense interest on particular, somewhat “geeky” subjects, the interpersonal skills of an out-of-control six-year-old, ability to discuss rationally in the midst of a shitstorm if someone engages him on his terms, I think Sage Rat hit the nail on the head.

Not to defend Vanadium Carbonate, simply to understand him.
By the way, I think that Creative Loafing should make it mandatory for a moderator doing a “You’re-out-of-here” post to make it memorable. Imagine, for example, if Giraffe had quoted Oliver Cromwell’s words dismissing the Long Parliament to VCO3: *You have sat too long here for any good you may have been doing. Depart, and let us have done with you!"

[elbows]

Everyone has a different tolerance for this sort of nonsense. Some find it only harmless, some mildly entertaining, some find it annoying and some find it jerkish. Some were very, meh, some were very, WTF how is this allowed? Some started out in one camp only to end up in another.

He was warned plenty, given lots of opportunity to dial it back a tad. His complete inability to do so speaks volumes, to me, about whether he could control himself. And, for me, tipped the scale. If you’re not mature enough to dial that back, when asked, then take your little show along to some other arena.

I don’t think it really matters if he believed his own nonsense or not. When it was interesting it was only mildly so, when it was misinformation it was truly jerkish.

He reeked of trollism because he started such stupid threads without ever really asking a question or defending a position or, sometimes, even owning up to whether he even agreed with what he posted. Then he would just abandon the thread and never return to respond.

It got old pretty quick.

Obviously such things are never going to be unanimous but I think you can see here the majority agree with the mods, good call, about time.

[Harmonious_Discord]

@What Exit?

Well that problem is about to be corrected. The SDMB will have no shortage of new crazies and entertaining trolls rolling in when it returns to free posting in April or May. So you can rejoice.

By the end of May school will let out and then a flood of repeat repeat arrives. How many times in a week will the same question get asked, even before the previous question is down a hundred posts on the thread list.

I read some of TDN… posts but learned to not open most. He didn’t usually come into a thread and derail it with trolling. He normally started threads for controversy. I hate to loose members, because diversity is what is fresh. Same same is boring. Lately bitch bitch is getting too much time. Bye bye you all.

[Sarahfeena]

@Arnold Winkelried

All right then, here’s another question. How many warranted warnings should a poster be able to receive befoe s/he is banned?

As I said, not sure how to answer that. How about infinite?

If you want to go on to explain how all of the warnings for this banned poster were underserved, then fine.

Sure.

This one, I already covered. I think he was sincere in his opinion, and not trolling at all.

This one doesn’t even appear to be a warning, just a statement of the VCO3-only rule. (BTW, I don’t agree with single-poster rules. There is one other that I am aware of right now, and I don’t agree with it, either.)

This one is a warning because VCO3 “insulted” another poster by asking him why the other was being an asshole to him. He was officially warned, but the other poster only was told that his calling VCO3 “slow” was “out of place,” even thought that insult was what prompted VCO3’s “asshole” question.

This one, I’m not sure of…I think the warning is vague, and I’m not sure what Frank is getting at. Maybe that this is inappropriate for any forum but the Pit? If so, I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but it would be nice if the mods would be a little more specific.

This one I could agree with…his overreaction is out of place here.

This one is exactly what I’m talking about. He has a legitimate opinion, and he is trying to be funny by expressing a hugely over-the top rant about it. I do not think that is trolling, I think that’s a perfectly acceptable use of the BBQ Pit. Some of us find it entertaining. If you don’t, don’t read his threads.

I think I covered everything. So that’s maybe 1 1/2 legitimate warnings, in my opinion.

[BMalion]

@capybara

I think the idea of a troll zoo is awesome. Like, instead of banning trolls, they could have access only to a special new forum-- the troll zoo-- like a penal colony island where anything goes. A bit Lord of the Flies and Escape from New York. There could be special functions to set people off-- like the hamsters eat a random number of long posts each day, or words get replaced every now and then. Or have the board auto-post an OP about circumcision or declawing or vaccines every two days.

I’d buy that for a dollar!

[Lemur866]

Eh, it’s too bad. At least he can bask in the posthumous glow of being king of the trolls. The nice thing about his trolling is that he put a lot of effort into it. So many trolls just dash off an inflamatory post in five minutes, and that’s it. But he’d return, he’d argue, and he’d never break character. VCO3 cared about trolling, not like these kids today with their hippity-hoppity music and baggy pants.

[Revtim]

Lemur866, how did you determine he was “in character” as opposed to genuinely holding the opinions he posted?

[Antinor01]

While I can agree that he probably deserved banning, I’m still sad to see him go. I actually kind of liked the guy.

See ya TLDR.

[Trunk]

The thing is. . .it wasn’t turning into a troll zoo.

It wasn’t even threatening to turn into a troll zoo.

TLDR came in every now and then, posted some funny (to some) crazy shit, and left. What was the problem (* answer below)? Did we have hordes of members doing the same thing and then claiming, “Well, TLDR did it”?

He didn’t overload the boards with it. It could be easily ignored (except for the 20 seconds that one day it took to realize he changed his user name).

It wasn’t like his thread titles alone caused children to cut themselves.

(*) The answer is that the mods are total fucking idiots. They apparently can’t get beyond the idea of “my interpretation of rule A applies to my interpretation of situation Q and therefore action X must be taken.”

He just bothered some people. He bothered them, and they finally made an example of him by falling back on their written rules. No examination of whether his actions were threatening the sensible reasons why the rules were written in the first place. The mere longevity of his behavior without it becoming systemic testifies to this.

This was just a case of John Ashford arresting Tommy Chong.

Surprising? Not in the fucking least. . .the idiots who mod this joint.

(It’s nice to see Fever being such a contributing member, though. The mods had that one right.)

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Polycarp

The Rat may have a very important point here. I’ve dealt with a few Asperger’s sufferers before online, once where it was essentially my decision whether he got suspended/banned (on another, smaller board, of course). And in general they think that [o]they* are behaving appropriately, and cannot understand why there are assholes being hostle to them.

Based on TLDType…'s behavior (intense interest on particular, somewhat “geeky” subjects, the interpersonal skills of an out-of-control six-year-old, ability to discuss rationally in the midst of a shitstorm if someone engages him on his terms, I think Sage Rat hit the nail on the head.

Though I have no experience of such things, I’m inclined to agree.

My impression of TURDUCKEN (which may very well be wrong) is that he didn’t think he was trolling. Rather, he said/asked whatever came into his head without really realizing how it’d be received by other people.