C K Dexter Haven

The BBQ Pit
1

I have to say that this sort of bothers me. I can intuit, based on the rest of the thread, that Wierddave was probably poking at lissner for his well know defense of either Starship Troopers of Showgirls, and I can further intuit that this is a bad thing and (in theory, as I can’t actually read the post to decide for myself) should probably result in a warning.

What I don’t get is the revisionism.

I will fully admit that of late I have come to find that a lot of the moderation around here feels somewhat random, inconsistent and condescending, and that this is coloring my view to some extent. The thing is this: I like lissner. Always have. Further, as far as I can tell, there was more than one post in that thread that could be seen as attempts to push that particular button and that he was very obviously not raising to any bait.

So, what is the deal? Did **Wierddave’s ** post also contain links to pirated MP3’s and underage bestiality porn? Was the post so volatile that you are worried that lissner will at some future point read it and have a meltdown? Are you protecting him from himself (and if so, isn’t that rather condescending)? Can I send you folks a list of posts that make me angry and have you wish them into the cornfield as well? Can I follow your example and call other posters “jackass” outside of the pit?

Seriously, this seems like a pretty bad call, lousy precedent and this revisionist crap makes me want to puke.

2

lol, nothing more entertaining than a mod losing thier shit in public.

3

And nothing unholier than this combination:

4

I certainly intend to comply with the instructions of the moderators in this as in all things, but I was wondering what exactly this new ruling entails. Are we now forbidden to mention anything referring to a poster being suspended or banned and reinstated? I have never had any disagreements with lissener that I can recall, and my post was written in a good natured way. Let’s face it, lissener was baned for flipping out over the movie Showgirls, and is now back. WRT lissener, it’s the 800lb elephant in the room. Someone dissed Showgirls, and I posted something along the lines of “Oh-oh, here’s your big test lissener, are you gonna flip out or let it go?” If I worked on a loading dock and one of my coworkers, say, drove a forklift into the river and was suspended for it, when he came back I’d likely make a joke about keeping him away from the forklift or pretending to dive for cover when he got behind the wheel, stuff like that. That was the spirit I intended behind my post anyway. Dex obviously disagreed, witness his scathing warning to me in that thread. shrug So be it, I’d just like a little more clarification as to exactly what it is that I can’t do now.

5

I don’t fully get it. Was the thread closed or deleted? If so, I tend to agree with the OP. If a poster is a troll, suspend him. But obliterating a thread beacuse of one poster in that thread seems uncalled for.

6

C K said thread but he meant post. The thread is still open but the ‘offending’ post is gone. Hence the OP’s reference to revisionism. At least that’s my take on it.

7

The thread wasn’t deleted, it was modified, ie the offending post and any replies to it were wished into the cornfield.

8

Yea, Dex, I think you goofed here. If you’re going to issue a public warning for all to see, then you need to leave the offending post there so we all know what it was that transgressed the boundaries. I mean, the staff here makes a big deal about people living with their mistakes – remember poor Hal Briston and the sheep thread?

If you don’t want it cluttering the CS thread in question, Dex, perhaps you should move the post in question here.

9

I’d like to third the post staying as it is–purely for selfish curious reasons. Dex doesn’t normally lose his cool like that, and I’m left wondering what could be so heinous about Weirddave’s joke.

10

Yes, aldibaranti, sorry, I said “thread” but obviously meant “post.”

The post was removed from view, in part, because it was deliberately provocative and baiting to someone who is unable to respond in kind. Kicking a person when he’s down is… well, jerkish. The offending post was not merely a taunt, but waving a red flag and double-dog daring a response… when a response in-kind is not permitted. THIS IS NOT NEW. We’ve not permitted discussions of banned people in the past, up to a point, because they can’t respond.

I agree, although the rule isn’t new, the situation is. We’ve never had a banned member returning before, so far as I recall. I guess Weirddave is hoping that it won’t happen this time, and won’t happen again.

Also, of course, the other reason the post was obliterated is that personal insults are not permitted in the Pit, and this was about as personal and insulting as you can get. **The rule about personal insults is not new. ** In the past, in some cases, I have allowed the personal insults to remain in view with a moderator warning, as a caution to others. In other cases, I have removed them. It really depends on how insulting they are, frankly, and other circumstances.

I am usually pretty low-key about this sort of thing, and I let you judge the severity of the offense by the extent of my reaction.

Weirddave was provoking someone who cannot respond, AND was engaging in personal insults in a forum that doesn’t permit such.

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “revisionist,” Binary.

And I also don’t understand your other comments,either. Are you suggesting that you should review each post to decide whether a Moderator should delete it or not? You want me to send you the dozens of posts from spammers and trolls and advertisers and so forth, to get your approval before I delete them?

A post is deleted for serious reasons. Despite Weirddave’s trying to make light of it now, it was neither light-hearted nor a “joke.” I dunno about your forklift, Dave, someone has a relative killed by a drunk driver, and you make a joke of it?

11

You mean Cafe Society, right?

12

Why was Lissener reinstated in the first place?

13

Jesus, Weirddave! You damn well know the history of what happened and to go over and throw in his face like that is … Good Lord! It’s mean, nasty, baiting and just petty, incredibly petty, and not something a real grown up man would do.

14

:confused:

So, he was dissing on someone other than Lissener? Because Liss sure as hell can respond to posts about movies. He’s doing so in that very thread. Or are you saying that Lissener is bound by some agreement not to discuss his views of a cetain director and his movies? Again, he is doing so in that thread.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see him not able to respond to those things. He makes some interesting points (which other disagree with) when discussing those things. So, how exactly is Lissener unable to respond to WD’s posts? He’s here, he’s discussing movies…

15

If the post in question and references to it have been deleted, then maybe your warning can be edited so that it doesn’t look like a meltdown to those of us who don’t know the events leading up to it?

Just a humble suggestion.

16

Since you deleted the post, it’s your word against his.

And drunk driving is a horribly bad analogy. Just off the chart. Pretty distasteful on its own.

17

My guess is that as part of lissner’s double-dog secret reinstatement rules he is not allowed to participate in any Verhoeven-related trainwrecks, and thus was unable to take it to the Pit, like any of the rest of us would have been able to do.

18

Oh, I see your point now. That’s *completely *analagous to a fucking message board joke.

19

I don’t think getting banned from a message board over a Showgirls discussion isn’t quite in the same category as losing a relative to drunk driving.

20

That would be ‘is’, not ‘isn’t’.

Er… today’s Backwards Day, doncha know? That’s right, it is… walks off whistling