Maybe I’m a "lazy bastard"™ too but I can see pseudotriton ruber ruber’s point.
[Eddie Haskell] Not that I am faulting the Moderators in any manner shape or form. They do a laudable, commendable, thankless job by keeping these boards operating in an efficient manner yet still ensuring that the SDMB members’ behavior is in accordance with the rules and regulations.[/Eddie Haskell]
Sometimes I am disappointed at the lack of detail expressed on this board. People speak in acronyms in topic headers, questions and responses. For example, “FOB charges for OEM parts - valid IRS deduction?”
“IANAA but just a WAG it’s not SOP. Of course YMMV. And BTW, TGIF”
Well, you get the idea.
Or someone might ask a question and get a brief answer (such as a hyperlink). The trouble is, that hyperlink is some 300 page monstrosity and the answer is to be found in a footnote on page 237.
So basically, it is a little annoying to get an answer to someone’s banning with several hyperlinks to wade through.
tomndebb - Sometimes the ‘T’ word can be used ?
(I don’t need a long explanation. Just give me 5 or 6 links to some lengthy boring SDMB TOS - ASAP)
(Just kidding)
What, so now I have to put the damn thng together myself? What the hell do I keep you around for? Look, just make it fresh at lunchtime and bring it to me. And if I see any crust on that bread, there’ll be Hell to pay.
I think he wanted to be banned, I think he wanted to flame out brightly. He probably only brought up the 20K vomit session to encourage the mods and admins to act swifter on his banishment.
Question: Once a poster is banned can we (users) discuss if they were a sock, troll or just a jerk?
Actually, I don’t know. I used it because the individual was pretty much banned (past tense) for blatant trolling and I was making a passing reference to his departure, not intending to throw more stones at his retreating figure. (And, although it was not my intention, I might hide behind my [ vibrato ] Shie-e-e-e-e-eld O-o-o-of Mo-o-o-oderatorship [ /vibrato ].)
Personally, I would not have a problem with mentioning that an already banned poster had incurred banning for trolling, as long as it was simply a statement in reference to a situation and not a happy dance on the grave of someone unable to defend him- or herself.
However, other staff members may take a different view and hand out Warnings for even using the word in connection to a poster–even one now banned.
Certainly, pissing on the ashes of the departed is not permitted, so even if the use was a simple declaration of fact, a degree of circumspection is warranted.
(We generally allow some discussion of a banished poster’s character in the context of arguing over whether the banishment was permitted. You would probably be safer avoiding the word troll in such discussions–which usually result in a locked thread when people unfriendly to the banned begin to haul out the heavy insults.)
I think I read that Google has chosen the Straight Dope Message Board to beta test a new translator tool–the Baninator5000. You plug all the threads by a banned poster into Google, and it spits out kind of a Cliff’s Notes version of what happened.
At least, I think I read about that. I could be mistaken.
