# C K Dexter Haven **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 27, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187 "2005-10-27T19:12:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/61 "2005-10-27T22:35:39Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I understand what you’re saying. What I don’t understand is all this concern over Dexs methods. Has he abused his power before? Did he have a reason to abuse his power now? To be honest, **Dex** has not been much of a blip on my radar at all in my time here. In this case, you might say that this entire thread for me is a matter of principle and **Dex** simply happened to do something that I find offensive. So, I can’t say if he has abused his power before, and (because his little rant in the wrong forum is now, thanks to that abuse, 100% context free) I can’t say if he actually had a reason to do so now. What I can say is that this strikes me as an abuse of power and ,as such, is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/62 "2005-10-27T22:35:55Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Look, my point is that reality has been compromised here. I get that some folks don’t see this as a big deal in the same way that I do, but I say that this is a very, very bad precedent and that it should not be allowed. Period. If you want this to be a big deal, you have to back it up with something. All I have so far is your insistence that it is a big deal. I’m not asking this to be rude, but please give me something to hang all of these dark suspiscions on because right now this seems like a reflexive hatred of authority. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/63 "2005-10-27T22:39:38Z")
> [@Casey1505](#): > > … If he edits his post to remove some of the profanity and tone, great, too. Then we’ve made a difference… And I guess that this point is where I would disagree. What happened, happened. I really don’t like people with “perks” fucking with reality. I get that this is not a life and death issue, but that doesn’t mean that what happened isn’t wrong. Further tidying would only make things worse in my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/64 "2005-10-27T22:44:29Z")
For context: In threads pitting mods, I am pretty regularly called a sycophant or whatever: basically, I end up agreeing with mod decisions most of the time, and lots of idiots can’t conceive of that happening unless I’m trying to suck up to them. In Pit threads regarding **Weirddave** , I pretty regularly call him all sorts of names. We’ve not been bosom buddies. I think that his behavior on the first page of that thread, regarding **Reality Chuck** , was pretty ugly. I read the post that got deleted. And I think **Dex** was way over the top. It read to me as a gentle fun-poking, good-natured, and something that **lissener** could respond with a self-deprecating post to (“But Showgirls is TEH BEST MOVIE EVAR!!! _:runs away sobbing_” or something), and everyone would laugh and say, “You’re cool, dude,” to him. It was not ugly. Not nearly as ugly as the comments on the first page about **Reality Chuck**. And it was something that probably a lot of us were thinking. I wonder whether **lissener** reported **Weirddave’s** post with hyperbolic complaints about how unfair it was, and whether **Dex** responded to these out of a sense that he didn’t want **lissener** being unfairly attacked. I agree that he shouldn’t be unfairly attacked, but I don’t agree that he WAS unfairly attacked. It wasn’t insulting. It was goodnatured ribbing. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/65 "2005-10-27T22:48:48Z")
Just to say that I read **wierddave** ’s post before it was deleted. It struck me as a bit mean to bate [B}listener\*\* like that, and quite possibly worth a warning or cease and dissist from the mods. But it was by no means dreadfull or worth deleting. In fact the warning is considerably ruder than the deleted post. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/66 "2005-10-27T22:49:15Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > If you want this to be a big deal, you have to back it up with something. All I have so far is your insistence that it is a big deal. I’m not asking this to be rude, but please give me something to hang all of these dark suspiscions on because right now this seems like a reflexive hatred of authority. What you have is a thread where I am stating that this is a big deal to me. I am not telling you that you have to feel that this is a big deal. You can think whatever you want with my cheerful blessing (for whatever that may be worth). You say that all that you have is my insistence that this is a big deal and that I should back it up with something. That is a very fair request and, indeed, what I am requesting that **Dex** so regarding **Weirddave’s** post by calling for its restoration. No argument there. All that I can tell you is that this is not coming from reflexive hatred of authority. I have no issues with authority, for the most part. Where this is coming from is a mistrust that I feel any time it seems as if someone is abusing their authority. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/67 "2005-10-27T22:58:13Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > Just to say that I read **wierddave** ’s post before it was deleted. It struck me as a bit mean to bate [B}listener\*\* like that, and quite possibly worth a warning or cease and dissist from the mods. But it was by no means dreadfull or worth deleting. In fact the warning is considerably ruder than the deleted post. Hmm. I can see that reading of it, too; if a mod had said, “Knock it off, **Dave** ,” I wouldn’t have thought it unreasonable. Maybe it seemed goodnatured to me in comparison to the trainwreck on the thread’s first page. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/68 "2005-10-27T23:02:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Hmm. I can see that reading of it, too; if a mod had said, “Knock it off, **Dave** ,” I wouldn’t have thought it unreasonable. Maybe it seemed goodnatured to me in comparison to the trainwreck on the thread’s first page. > Daniel While I appreciate your remarks on my behalf, are you sure you’re not getting me confused with Umlaut du Fromage? He’s the one who made the remarks to Chuck that you really took issue with. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/69 "2005-10-27T23:06:23Z")
Gotta admit, Dex, I think you overreacted there. It’s not like you either. IS lissener forbidden from Verhoeven discussions? Because that would be a loss. He may go overboard on them but he’s knowledgeable and conversant on the subject. And he could certainly have responded to Dave’s taunt with some good-natured ribbing. Hell, I beat on Dave fairly often (disclaimer: while now seperated by a couple of states I consider he and Ginger to be good friends) and he gives as good as he gets. ---
**Author:** ![Miss\_Violaceous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Miss\_Violaceous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miss_Violaceous)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/70 "2005-10-27T23:12:58Z")
Important points are getting lost. Let’s recap, shall we? If we start from the assumption that Dex probably didn’t warn that severely without a good reason, it looks like Dave did something REALLY REALLY BAD in that thread, and ordinarily we should be able to see it so that we don’t do it ourselves. It’s not fair to Dave or to any other paid member of this board to publicly point out that a certain behavior is terrible and risks one’s membership, but then erase anything (aside from certain poster’s memories) that allows us to see what that behavior was. Again, that was an extreme reaction. And it seems like this post wasn’t a run-of-the-mill flame, either. There are good reasons to leave those kinds of posts intact, and we have specific interests at stake. So, it makes sense to request that the default be to justify severe warnings, and when the offending post really must be deleted have an iron-clad justification for it. What makes this sketchier is that, upon reflection, it starts to look like Dex is favoring lissener somewhat. He deleted (or moved) the post, why? It doesn’t make any sense in the context of the usual standard for post deletion. Until you consider the possibility that Dex was worried that lissener would flameout in response to the post, and would rather warn Dave severely and cover over the evidence to keep lissener on the board. That’s not to say that Dave was justified in the baiting. But I think that any poster who has the self-control to remain on this board (and I don’t see why returning banned posters in general should get MORE protection rather than less) should be able to control himself and not flame in response to a flaming post if a mod has beaten him to the punch with a warning. So, if the post was deleted to protect lissener (only a theory, of course, just one that seems to make sense given the current information) it seems to be going too far to protect one member of the board, while at the same time violating certain “rights” of the board population that we’ve come to expect, kind of the SDMB version of the void for vagueness doctrine. Concluding this post before I slip into any more legalese, - Ms V ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/71 "2005-10-27T23:13:16Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > While I appreciate your remarks on my behalf, are you sure you’re not getting me confused with Umlaut du Fromage? He’s the one who made the remarks to Chuck that you really took issue with. Well, I dunno. The way you pointed out **CHuck’s** authorship of that article rubbed me a little the wrong way. Rereading it, it definitely rubs me the wrong way: [you call him disingenuous, sarcastically suggest that his being published means his opinion is more valuable (something that I don’t think he claimed himself), and made a snide comment to his books being failures](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6718284&postcount=26). It was **umlaut** to whom I responded, but the ugliness, IMO, started with the linked post, which was yours. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/72 "2005-10-27T23:16:29Z")
**CKDexterhaven** Personal insults aren’t allowed in the pit? * * * Y’know, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed it, but there’s been a major shift in moderator strategy. It seems like the new strategy is to be random, severe, inscrutable, and inconsistent. I have to admit that I kind of like it, though it has caused me to threaten livestock. It’s inconceivable you guys won’t take me as a mod. I would be so good at this new way of doing things. * * * But seriously, what is there not to figure out. Clearly there was some kind of dispute among the mods as to whether to bring Lissener back or not. 5 to one says that it was conditional and one of those conditions was not to go off or be provoked in Veerhoven threads no matter what. Soooooo, Weirddave was inadvertently **specifically** taunting Lissener about a subject on which he was constrained. That’s why Lissener couldn’t defend himself. That’s why Dex jumped in so harshly, but it’s not like **Weirddave** was informed of the conditions (though it should be obvious) I’m right, right? So, why don’t we let it all go light up a Lucky, have a Coke and a Smile and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/73 "2005-10-27T23:18:03Z")
I realize also that my first post in this thread comes across as insulting to **lissener** , and I shouldn’t have done so, especially not on such flimsy speculation. My apologies if you’re reading this, **lissener** : when I read how you responded to the Verhoeven stuff in that thread, I was happily impressed with how you supported your view. I’d been cringing, to be honest, expecting you to blow up at people, but you didn’t do so. Was cool. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/74 "2005-10-27T23:19:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Well, I dunno. The way you pointed out **CHuck’s** authorship of that article rubbed me a little the wrong way. Rereading it, it definitely rubs me the wrong way: [you call him disingenuous, sarcastically suggest that his being published means his opinion is more valuable (something that I don’t think he claimed himself), and made a snide comment to his books being failures](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6718284&postcount=26). It was **umlaut** to whom I responded, but the ugliness, IMO, started with the linked post, which was yours. > > Daniel Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/75 "2005-10-27T23:50:14Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > What you have is a thread where I am stating that this is a big deal to me. I am not telling you that you have to feel that this is a big deal. You can think whatever you want with my cheerful blessing (for whatever that may be worth). > > You say that all that you have is my insistence that this is a big deal and that I should back it up with something. That is a very fair request and, indeed, what I am requesting that **Dex** so regarding **Weirddave’s** post by calling for its restoration. No argument there. > > All that I can tell you is that this is not coming from reflexive hatred of authority. I have no issues with authority, for the most part. Where this is coming from is a mistrust that I feel any time it seems as if someone is abusing their authority. It’s cool. I just get a bit puzzled at threads like this. IMHO, we’ve got a pretty damn good group of mods here, and it seems like every time they make a decision we get thread full of dark suspicions. I also wondered why the post was deleted. It’d be nice if they’d restore it, but I’d settle for a good explanation as to _why_ the post was deleted. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/76 "2005-10-28T01:13:26Z")
Well, since posters are publicly admonished for violating the rules, I believe Mr. Dexter should be publicly admonished for using personal insults outside the Pit. As for the justification of his warning, without the information of the original post, I am unable to make a determination. I guess that’s why free speech is so important in a Republic. Only an informed public can reflect upon the decisions of the leaders if open and fair discourse occurs. Maybe, on a board that is dedicated to fighting ignorance, this should be a goal. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/77 "2005-10-28T01:27:42Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > I see \*\*Case Sensitive \*\* was sternly upbraided in the “Lissener has been reinstated” thread for his suggestion not to mention a certain Dutch Director – oh wait, I no I didn’t. :rolleyes: I wuz only kiddin’. I wasn’t going to mention it, either, but yeah, that one struck me as a bit inconsistent too. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/78 "2005-10-28T02:14:01Z")
> [@Miss Violaceous](#): > > Important points are getting lost. Let’s recap, shall we? > > If we start from the assumption that Dex probably didn’t warn that severely without a good reason, it looks like Dave did something REALLY REALLY BAD in that thread, and ordinarily we should be able to see it so that we don’t do it ourselves. It’s not fair to Dave or to any other paid member of this board to publicly point out that a certain behavior is terrible and risks one’s membership, but then erase anything (aside from certain poster’s memories) that allows us to see what that behavior was. Yup, exactly. I find it amusing that the mods are resisting the requests to allow editing posts based on a timer, because they’re afraid WE will abuse them. Perhaps it’s a bit of projection? ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/79 "2005-10-28T02:32:10Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > I see \*\*Case Sensitive \*\* was sternly upbraided in the “Lissener has been reinstated” thread for his suggestion not to mention a certain Dutch Director – oh wait, I no I didn’t. My thought exactly, oh sister in Bean-ness. **Scylla** speculates: > [@](#): > > 5 to one says that it was conditional and one of those conditions was not to go off or be provoked in Veerhoven threads no matter what. Sounds plausible. But if the reinstatement was conditional, I wouldn’t think that the condition would be “don’t go off about Verhoeven.” There’s too much of a gray area. A more likely condition would be “Stay away from the Verhoeven entirely.” But whether the reinstatement was formally conditional or not, it would seem to be sensible for **lissener** to avoid discussing Verhoeven of his own accord. On a personal note: It was in that thread that I first noted that **lissener** had been reinstated. My first thought was “oh no. Another Verhoeven freak.” Then “Wait a minute–it’s the SAME Verhoeven freak!” :smack: “And he’s still going on and on and on about him!” :smack: :smack: And then I stopped reading the thread. The dude just can’t let it go. If we’re doing analogies: **Lissener** is to Paul Verhoeven as **Jack Dean Tyler** is to circumcision. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187/80 "2005-10-28T03:17:00Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Your memory doesn’t extend to Collounsbury? Or Mike Masterson/Silo? And I’m certain there are a couple others who were banned and later permitted to return, the specifics of which escape me at the moment. Although I wasn’t around for it at the time, I seem to recall reading something about **Contestant #3/KrispyOriginal** being allowed to come back after something went down. Not clear on what, exactly, but again, from what I heard and read, it was something regarding a rule that wasn’t exactly a rule at the time that he broke it…or something like that. I could be totally off though, or what happened with him could very not well fit the bill as being the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven/328187.md?page=5)