# Bribery rulings **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 16, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695 "2009-03-16T23:45:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/41 "2009-03-18T04:32:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Did I ever tell you about that time I murdered the illegal immigrant hooker using an illegal firearm while doing a line of coke within 1000 feet of a school… and failed to declare any of that activity on my tax return? Oh yeah? Well I once removed the tag off a mattress. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/42 "2009-03-18T04:45:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Did I ever tell you about that time I murdered the illegal immigrant hooker using an illegal firearm while doing a line of coke within 1000 feet of a school… and failed to declare any of that activity on my tax return? If all that is wrong…then I don’t wanna be right. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/43 "2009-03-18T04:51:23Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Uh, if you think I haven’t had to read every, single, one of the innumerable posts of people whinnying, mooing, and neighing about the crimes against humanity carried out against the good, gentle posters of the SDMB by the Evil Ed and his minions, then the most charitable thing I can say is you need to think again and think fast. Oh boy. My sympathies, Una. You clearer have greater stamina than I. > [@Una Persson](#): > > I understand completely that people were upset at Rules enforcement or about the new Rules that Ed tried to put into place. Well, I guess I understand that - but I sure don’t empathize with it. “Concerned” - sure. “Puzzled, baffled even” - ok. _Upset_? About a $15/yr message board, albeit a terrific one? _Methinks some of us need a bit of perspective_. Let’s remember that all of these rule changes AFAIK applied to the Pit, which is the board’s safety valve, not its _raison d’etre_. > [@](#): > > There were many people who wrote very good posts expressing themselves well who made good, logical objections and rebuttals to the new Rules. True, and we should give credit where it is due. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/44 "2009-03-18T05:12:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Oh yeah? Well I once removed the tag off a mattress. Now, that really is going too far. There are things even I won’t do. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/45 "2009-03-18T05:19:34Z")
I blame the media for making mattress crime look so cool. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/46 "2009-03-18T10:05:29Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Here: who can defend the abuse heaped YET AGAIN on Ed here yesterday? [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942303&postcount=32](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10942303&postcount=32) I’m not going to defend that. It was abuse thrown at him where it’s not allowed, and the warning was justified. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the underlying complaint’s invalid. I can see where it’s coming from, even if it was expressed in an inappropriately inflammatory way. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I seem to have Q.E.D. syndrome, where everyone thinks I have some sort of power at the SDMB: I work for Cecil. I do not work for the SDMB. Reread what I wrote more carefully. I neither said nor implied that you work for the boards. I said you were a part of Ed’s “inner-circle”. You are. Don’t play dumb about that. You even seem to be party to the board decision-making process, even though you’re not a member of the staff (you chose “Plan C”, after all, although maybe that was just another joke). > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Come on. I saw the way that several posters went after and nitpicked and rules-lawyered and capered and strutted about clucking their tongues over his apology - I also read it off-board too. Not everyone sits there and prepares an apology like a Presidential speech - there was nothing insincere, nothing mendacious, nothing deceptive, and most of all nothing insulting in Ed’s apology, pure and simple. People nitpicked about tense, about how certain special words they wanted to see weren’t used…for fuck’s sake. It is, in fact, possible to subject apologies [to syntactic analysis](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000327.html). Some “apologies” don’t turn out to be apologies at all. We don’t have tone of voice here, no gestures or any other non-verbal emphasis. So, yes, posters are going to examine syntax. Some of them are going to come to a negative conclusion regardless of how he apologizes, because hey, that’s the way they are. Others, however, are going to note rightly that Ed’s first apology was weak. Because it _was_ weak. To Ed’s credit, his later apologies were not weak. They looked to be genuine, but as was pointed out repeatedly, even among the people who accepted the apology: just apologizing is not enough. There has to be some action to back up the apology. Not groveling, but real results. This was noted again and again. The best example probably comes from **Exapno** , who [accepted the apology for what it appeared to be](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10917800#post10917800), and then specifically noted that _it wouldn’t be enough on its own._ That was the plain truth right there, but if Ed noticed that, he made no indication of it. In fact, he went on to state later that he thinks the staff manages to “put things right” most of the time. This was another false notion that **Exapno** [had to correct.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10921143#post10921143) And again, nothing. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Sometimes in the real world shit happens that was unintentional, out of your control, or which didn’t go off like you planned. It would be nice if we all could be perfect like the average SDMB poster apparently feels they are and have everything go in exact, orderly clockwork in our lives, but I fear Ed may after all be human. Once again, this response doesn’t respond to what I wrote. We’re not all asking for perfection. I noted, quite specifically, that apologies don’t mean anything if they’re not backed up by action. The problem here isn’t making mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. The problem here is refusing to set things right, even after _you’ve admitted_ that you’ve made mistakes. If I nick another car with mine, it’s not enough for me to go to the driver and sincerely state how poorly I was driving, and then immediately leave. Expectations are a wee bit higher than that. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Don’t put words in my mouth in this forum, I never said nor implied that “(you) all want to say cunt?” Don’t give me that forum nonsense. I know the conventions here. I didn’t use quote tags; I was just attempting to characterize your post. Falsely, as it turns out. I misread you, and I apologize for that. And you’ve admitted since then that there have been reasonable complaints. So that’s fine by me. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Unfortunately to many, “genuinely listening” means “do what I say”, and if he doesn’t “do what they say” then by definition he’s not “genuinely listening.” _Come on_, if nothing else there have been so many different suggestions and different spins and takes on the suggestions - by well-meaning, good posters - that just to try to balance out all the competing opinions and arguments has to take time - or may not even be possible to see what the clear, shining path through any situational morass may be. Can you not at least agree with that? Yes, I can agree with that. I’ve even noted that tendency myself (or a similar one, at least). But, once more, the fact that some people are like that doesn’t mean everyone’s like that. It might actually be possible to iron out some of the worst differences here with a new and open decision-making process. Something fresh and serious, turning over a new leaf and all that. Seriously, read [**Exapno** ’s post again](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10917800#post10917800). There’s a fundamental flaw here in how decisions are reached. No decision will ever please everyone, but if you actually involve the posters in these decisions in a (dare I say) “democratic” process, then changes will be easier to accept, even for those of us who don’t agree. This would be a big change, yes, but the whole reason that people are upset is that the administration has continually fucked up using their usual methods. Rather than continuing that continual series of fuck-ups, which continue to this day, it might be worth considering trying something new. The old way caused the splinter in the first place. Ed specifically admitted that he’d rather force a change on everyone instead of running it by the people who actually post to the boards consistently. And after admitting his mistake, he did absolutely nothing to change this method of administration. He ignored the comments that he needs more than an apology, and he maintained the rules he forced down from above because he _still_ wants to lay out the situation like a dictator rather than allow an alteration to be considered collectively before its implementation. He’s dictator by every legal right, but that still doesn’t mean it’s good to act that way. He’s put the burden on us to argue against his already implemented ideas, rather than erasing the rule and starting from scratch. So now we’ve got an off-limit Potty Word List, which we have to actively _fight_ instead of _discussing_. It’s the same pattern, again and again. Mistakes are made, and yes, apologies are offered. But no substantive change ever comes along that would provide any evidence that the apologies are sincere. This is just the latest example. What I personally want, quite simply, is for him to adopt an attitude where he is taking _active steps_ to encourage members to stay. That doesn’t include groveling, but it does mean a fundamental rethinking of how he makes decisions with respect to the boards. It’s hard to let go of the old ways, I know, especially since the slogan at the top of the page is a mark of his life’s work. But the content in this particular place isn’t provided by him. And I, for one, think it’s possible to achieve his goal of a slight improvement in the level of discourse in the Pit without the mistake of forcing silly rules down in an abrasive, authoritarian manner. But again, to do that, he has to do more than apologize. He has to start acting like his apology means something. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > But one thing I never, ever, ever have done is curse at, demean, mock, abuse, flame, slur, or threaten the SDMB Staff. Would that everyone could rise to even that low level of conduct. Your halo is still being shined. It’ll be shipped by Friday, and you can expect delivery in two-to-four weeks. Seriously, I’m not denying the validity of the [Greater Internet Dickwad Theory](http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/internetdickwad.jpg), but at the same time, it’s worth noting that the reason that some people are so upset (including me) is that this place is much more than just a $15 diversion. It’s like a favorite bar and a brilliant never-ending novel rolled up into one. It exists because of the columns, but it has a separate existence that should be appreciated and nurtured. It pains me to see the attitude of “These are the rules, accept them or leave” from someone who didn’t even participate directly for most of the life of this place. Especially when he could make decisions with different focus, a sort of “This is what I want to accomplish–how’s the best way to get to that point?” But of course, I’m not saying anything that hasn’t be said before. Your (understandable) outbreak of frustration caused my own, but this is all old ground. I just needed to get this all out one last time, not that it’ll change anything. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/47 "2009-03-18T11:59:34Z")
::: Moderator bangs gavel :::: WHOA!!! Calm down, y’all, on all sides. First, the reason for moving criticisms about moderators to ATMB and out of the Pit is so that we can have calm, reasonable discussion. Moderators can change their mind when presented with new angles or points of view. That was exactly what happened until **An Arky** ’s comments (which I think are pretty snarky, not helpful, and not contributing to the discussion.) Then we’ve got a train wreck. So, cool it, everyone. If you want to continue this way, start a new thread in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/48 "2009-03-18T13:46:24Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > So, cool it, everyone. If you want to continue this way, start a new thread in the Pit. We’re not allowed to, last time I checked. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/49 "2009-03-18T13:48:28Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > We’re not allowed to, last time I checked. I’m pretty sure **Dex** was suggesting that if individual posters feel the need to snipe at each other, they should do that in the Pit. Most of those issues seem to have worked themselves out, though. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/50 "2009-03-18T18:12:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Most of those issues seem to have worked themselves out, though. Really? How so? Nothing’s been changed so all the problems that existed are still there. We’ll end up going through all of this again in another year or two. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/51 "2009-03-18T20:05:27Z")
**Czarcasm** reopened the thread this morning, in case anybody hasn’t noticed. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/52 "2009-03-19T00:57:34Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > **Czarcasm** reopened the thread this morning, in case anybody hasn’t noticed. Nobody has posted in it since 7 this morning PST. That thread has 5 posts(3 of them are mine!), and this thread dedicated to opening that oh-so-vital thread has 52 posts. Way to go, all you defenders of free speech. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/53 "2009-03-19T01:29:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nobody has posted in it since 7 this morning PST. That thread has 5 posts(3 of them are mine!), and this thread dedicated to opening that oh-so-vital thread has 52 posts. > > Way to go, all you defenders of free speech. _What_ thread? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695/54 "2009-03-19T02:46:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nobody has posted in it since 7 this morning PST. That thread has 5 posts(3 of them are mine!), and this thread dedicated to opening that oh-so-vital thread has 52 posts. > > Way to go, all you defenders of free speech. Well, given that it was closed for more than 36 hours, i think it’s not unreasonable to assume that people either lost interest, or moved on to other things. But surely you recognize that the validity of closing it is not in any way related to how many people post to the thread? I had nothing to add to the thread, but i was still interested in the reasoning behind the closing. I’m sure others felt the same way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribery-rulings/489695.md?page=2)