Like I said, if you’re not interested in understanding the rationale, I can’t help you any further. I think it’s been explained clearly.
I don’t think making a reference to what is now a board meme should necessarily be considered a “jab” against the poster that originated it, or necessarily a hijack of the current thread. It makes for a cute one-liner in, for example, a thread about another guy named Sandusky without saying anything about SA at all directly or one’s opinion of the theory even if the reference to SA is understood by some.
SA seems to be proud of having coined the meme for one thing, so just mentioning “paper towel tube” with no negative or insulting implications about him isn’t a jab. If anything it’s a tip of the hat to him, from his point of view, right? Or should be considered so.
If SA does feel jabbed by the mere mention of paper towel tubes in any thread, and it seems he does based on a previous ATMB thread on this subject, then doesn’t that just fall under the “your words here live forever and we don’t erase history” tradition of this board?
In my opinion unless a reference to paper towel tubes is also accompanied by a specific mention of SA along with some other insulting context, then it isn’t a jab or insult and barring the mere mention of it even in a friendly one-liner context is like trying to help a poster erase part of their posting history that they would prefer was forgotten.
I can see it from the hijack point of view more so than a personal jab infraction, but in GQ a little joking around is usually tolerated especially if the question has been answered.
Despite saying he stands by his theory it seems to bother him to see people using the meme and considers it an insult that would give other posters ‘the wrong idea about him’ unless he steps in to clarify his position and restate all his arguments from a totally unrelated thread. It is also SA who has a recent history of hijacks by defending his position in exactly this way. So, he is essentially telling TPTB if they don’t start noting and warning people for using this meme he will continue to hijack threads by restating his arguments in each thread it happens in, forever.
I don’t understand how this is any different than if he asked the mods to go back and erase all his posts in the thread so people wouldn’t get the wrong idea about him whenever someone else references it from another thread - for whatever reasons; reference, one-liner joke, meme mention, etc. in the future.
This is interesting, as I remember reporting someone for something similar. I was told that there was no rule against bringing up something you’d said in the Pit. I was told it didn’t matter that it was clearly intended to make fun of the poster, nor that said poster had been ridiculed in the Pit for a while about it.
It’s quite interesting how different mods interpret the same sets of rules, isn’t it?
I am telling TPTB nothing. I would submit however that the hijack begins when someone takes an off-topic swipe at me or posts an off-topic insult aimed at me. Since I’m officially prohibited from responding, it hardly seems kosher to allow those hijack attempts free rein now, does it? Even Pit threads involving banned posters get shut down because the poster in question is no longer in a position to defend himself. If I’m to be put in a position where I can no longer defend myself, why shouldn’t the same practice apply when swipes and insults are aimed at me?
Except that it’s a meme. It isn’t really about you anymore and as long as there is nothing insulting about either you or the theory itself it isn’t an insult.
This is like saying that every single time anyone on this board ever says “Hi Opal!” she should feel compelled to hijack the thread to explain why lists must consist of 3 or more items.
I’ve never seen a reference to a paper towel tube on this board in any context where it wasn’t intended as some sort of dig or swipe at me. As was said upthread, there might occasionally be a genuinely benign reason to talk about a paper towel tube…as part of an art project or help in growing tomatoes or something, and my understanding is those uses wouldn’t be prohibited. However such usages around here are rare as hen’s teeth.
“Hi, Opal,” on the other hand, is not insulting and doesn’t require a defense.
You interpreting it to be a personal swipe at you doesn’t mean that it is, especially if you do stand by the theory that began the meme. If so, then why would it be a swipe with no discussion of you or criticism of the theory? Maybe it’s being made by someone who agrees with you. Maybe it’s being made by a new poster who has heard the meme but has no idea how it started and just knows from context that it’s funny to mention it whenever Sandusky comes up.
Obviously we can mention paper towel tubes in any thread about paper towels, that isn’t the point. It shouldn’t be considered insulting to you in a thread related to Sandusky, another guy named Sandusky, the mechanics of sexual intercourse, a thread about forensic investigation of crimes, or whatever else comes to mind. As long as it doesn’t insult you personally or even reference you directly it really should be fair game IMHO. Just because it originated in a pit thread where people gave you hell for it way back when doesn’t mean it is giving you hell all over again every time it is used as a meme in connection with related topics.
It should be considered a hijack in some circumstances, but it’s not a jab unless it contains a jab.
Neither is “paper towel tube” nor does it require any defense from anyone.
This isn’t something I can get too worked up about, but I do think the paper towel thing is legitimately funny just based on the absurdity of the conversation, and I while I agree that you’ll never be able to completely separate the funniness of it from the opinion of the person who first put it on the table, the inability to make that joke is unfortunate. Because it’s funny.
Crazyhorse said it better than I could. I know it won’t do any good.
Sorry, no. That’s all I’ll say outside the Pit thread.
I don’t think it’s worth getting this rilled up about.
I was unaware that SA was specifically asked not to address the topic, but that being the case I don’t think it’s unreasonable to keep it out of GQ.
Let me repeat the critical part, “out of GQ”
As far as I can tell there’s no overreaching ban on the subject, we simply keep it out of discussions on General Questions. I can live with that.
You’re not prohibited from commenting on it. You’re prohibited from bringing it up when it’s off-topic because we don’t want threads to get hijacked. Any time someone revives this joke, it’s very likely Starving Artist is going to want to defend and re-explain his position on the subject yet again. If the thread is already about the Penn State scandal, that probably won’t be a problem. If it’s a thread about, say, a medical marijuana case, it’s a problem.
I’m not impressed by this explanation. It was an easy opportunity for a thread hijack and maybe a Jerry Sandusky joke was inevitable, but this was a joke about Starving Artist’s “defense,” not Sandusky himself. And people still made the decision to post it.
This is a more valid defense, but the whole reason it became an in-joke is the ludicrousness of what Starving Artist was saying. So it’s hard to separate the words from the mockery of the argument. It’s more like taking shots at, say, lissener regarding Paul Verhoeven movies in threads about something else. Even if it’s a comment about something the poster really did say and is not a total misrepresentation, it’s a provocation and it’s off-topic. That’s especially the case when the comment gets brought up over and over again in threads that don’t have anything to do with the original topic.
That’s exactly what we are not trying to do, and I don’t think it can really be done. You do have to live with what you post. But that doesn’t mean we’re cool with endless thread hijacks and potshots.
Honestly SA, it was not meant as a dig at you but rather a mention of the meme you started. I apologize if you think it was a jab at you but it was more a recognition of how famous (or infamous according to Colibri) you have made the phrase “paper towel tube” on the Dope.
I have no dog in this fight, and I wasn’t going to defend **Saint Cad **because I believe he should have read the thread and seen the instruction. I think a note rather than a warning might have been sufficient, but I don’t have any strong feelings either way.
But I find it difficult to reconcile a previous prohibition on Starving Artist hijacking threads by defending his paper towel tube ‘illustration’ (for lack of a better tag) with Post 24. Especially since in that post SA does not restrict his hijack to that one item, but actually recapitulates his entire “I was right all along” claims. And we of course cannot reply to that assertion here.
A closing statement that he didn’t intend a hijack does nothing to overcome the reality. And leaving the door open to further hijack (“I don’t think it’ll be necessary for me to add anything else…”) suggests he really doesn’t accept the prohibition. Why does Post 24 not merit a warning for failure to follow moderator instructions? But Saint Cad’s did.
I think I can see his side of it. It’s like saying you aren’t making fun of him-you’re making fun of something he said. Very little diffference from his side of the fence.
That’s not quite the case. I do remember that Starving Artist has asked for dispensation to defend his theory whenever someone makes a joke about it, and he was told “not only no, but hell no.” I will say, Starving Artist, that it’s been explained to you before that ATMB is not the place to argue and re-argue this issue. You can do it in the Pit thread, but not here. Even if there is an ATMB thread about this paper towel tube thing, that’s not intended as a platform to you to offer your theories on the case again and again. This forum is for discussion of the rules. Next time, keep my and Colibri’s posts in mind before you start. I hope we don’t have many more threads about this and I don’t intend to create a situation where you can be attacked and cannot respond, but if you do continue to defend your “theory” again and again in ATMB, I will consider that a violation of the rules.
Because Starving Artist didn’t ignore a moderator instruction. Saint Cad was posting to a General Questions thread that had nothing to do with Jerry Sandusky and he overlooked a mod note where Colibri told people to stop making those jokes. This is an ATMB thread about the warning and about the joke that started with Starving Artist’s posts in the PSU Pit thread.
I find a toilet paper tube to be more than sufficient for my needs.
Marley, thanks for the direct answer. I guess my mileage will still vary. I re-read the thread you linked, and I see you directing SA, and **SA **dodging and weaving. In Post 5 **SA **asks permission to set the record straight, and in Post 6 you definitively answer, by repeating that the answer is NO. In Post 13 **SA **appears to accept your instruction (bolding mine)
but then spends the rest of the post making further defensive arguments. He amplifies this in Post 16, making additional repetitions of his defense of Paterno. Finally, in Post 17 **Colibri **shuts it down before it can “devolve into a debate on the original question” (too late for that, by then, but it seemed the only way to end the foolishness).
I thought at the time, and continue to think on re-read, that your instructions to **SA **were pretty clear. To paraphrase, “No ‘setting the record straight’ whenever these memes are mentioned in other threads”. And so I see his Post 16 in this thread as a clear violation of your instructions. You’re entitled to see things differently. I’ll just drop it because I really, truly don’t care if **SA **keeps posting such or not. If he chooses to ignore the first rule of holes, there’s more entertainment for me.
So your saying people should be allowed to goad SA as often as they want even though he is not allowed to respond? That sounds very jerkish to me.
I gotta agree. If he can’t address the topic then others shouldn’t be allowed to throw it in his face.