# Defending Reeder **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 31, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969 "2005-07-31T04:10:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Athena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@Athena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Athena)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/41 "2005-07-31T13:57:51Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > But Apollo and Athena rule here I do? Man, are there ever gonna be some changes around here. Cecil! Get your skinny ass over here! There’s work to be done. And bring me more of that double-hopped ambrosia while you’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/42 "2005-07-31T14:05:19Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > OMG!!!11!! BUSHCO IS TEH 5UXX0R5!!!111!!! > > Link. What vile slander. Is it really necessary to make it seem like his behaviour was worse than it really was? Some people are enjoying this just a little too much. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/43 "2005-07-31T14:09:08Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > According to my unpacked rules, I would only ban people if they were massive assholes to others or posted in a fashion that fucked up threads. These more stringent conditions for banning would, in turn, result in fewer bannings, which is my preference. That sure is fascinating. When you have created and are administering your own message board, please stop by and let us know how that works for you. ---
**Author:** ![dre2xl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@dre2xl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dre2xl)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/44 "2005-07-31T14:10:55Z")
Reeder probably did a better job of making people sympathetic to the Republican cause than all the conservative posters put together. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/45 "2005-07-31T14:46:56Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > What vile slander. Is it really necessary to make it seem like his behaviour was worse than it really was? Some people are enjoying this just a little too much. Excuse me? Have you ever actually read any of **Reeder** ’s Pit OPs? That is exactly the style. A one line comment about how horrible Bush is, or Bush’s family, or “BushCo”, followed by a link to a web site. That’s it, that’s all there was. I’m glad he’s gone - I won’t be embarassed by him anymore. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/46 "2005-07-31T16:06:45Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > What vile slander. Is it really necessary to make it seem like his behaviour was worse than it really was? Some people are enjoying this just a little too much. I assume you’re being facetious.In fact, that was a generous example. Usually it wsa more like: I CAN’T BEILIEVE IT. LINK. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/47 "2005-07-31T16:15:57Z")
This is sad. **Reeder** , along with **Diogenes the Cynic** , **rjung** and a few other posters, often say things that my impulsive side is _thinking_ but my rational side won’t let me _say_. They also say a lot of things that I don’t agree with, but so does every other person in the world, so I can’t very well hold it against them. I know basically zilch about Reeder’s banning (wasn’t even aware of it until this thread), but I think I can pretty much guess how it happened. I wish he would’ve straightened up and taken at least some of the advice he got. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/48 "2005-07-31T16:22:21Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I can’t be bothered to look up the cite, bacause it goes back maybe a couple of years, but he apparently was ‘laconic’ solely because, according to **Reeder** himself, he found it extremely difficult to type for some unstated reason. I don’t know whether he had some functional disorder or not, but there must have been something behind his remarkably childish and labored prose style and he gave every impression of at least having OCD. He mentioned serving time for [drug offenses](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5547061&postcount=12) - it may have addled his brain. Or maybe he was like that before he started drugs - who knows? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/49 "2005-07-31T16:23:52Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > Is it really necessary to make it seem like his behaviour was worse than it really was? I wasn’t even aware it was _possible_ to make it seem like his behaviour was worse than it really was. > [@](#): > > Some people are enjoying this just a little too much. Yep. I’d’ve been happy to drop the first shovelful of dirt on his dead membership, myself. The guy was a schmuck of the first order and I feel zero guilt for saying so while he “can’t defend himself” because I used to say as much when he was around, too. My opinion of Aeschines, incidentally, has _not_ dropped as a result of him starting this thread. That was impossible, too. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/50 "2005-07-31T16:50:59Z")
My opinion of Aeschines has also not dropped as a result of him starting this thread. Still, I’m going to miss Reeder. It was always nice to hear about things as soon as they happened, from the worst possible perspective. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/51 "2005-07-31T17:04:03Z")
> [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > All bannings are arbitrary. Even your proposed solution just introduces more qualities to be arbitrarily evaluated. Why is it better to have people bitch about finer points than broader ones? Banning ain’t so much arbitrary as unforgiving. Hell I don’t remember what the fuck I said last month, but the moderators can look it up in an instant. After three strikes ;j ;j ;j and :eek: - it don’t matter if these incidents happen in three or four disparate conversations. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/52 "2005-07-31T17:28:01Z")
Friends, Dopers, Countrymen, lend me your screens; I come to bury **Reeder** , not to praise him. The evil that men post lives after them; The good is oft interr’d with their screennames; So let it be with **Reeder**. The noble **Tuba** Hath told you **Reeder** was a big time jerk. Because 'twas so, it was a grievous fault; And grievously hath **Reeder** answer’d it. Here, under leave of **Tuba** and the rest, For **Tuba** is an honorable mod, So are they all, all honorable mods, Come I to speak in **Reeder’s** funeral. He was a troll, faithless and unredeemed; Like **Tuba** says he was a big time jerk; And **Tuba** is an honorable mod. He hath brought many threads unto the Pit, Whose fallout did the atmosphere inflame; Did this in **Reeder** seem much jerkish? When that Jenna hath cried, **Reeder** hath trolled; Jerkishness is not made of clearer stuff. As **Tuba** says he was a big time jerk; And **Tuba** is an honorable mod. You all did see on many occasions The mods hath warned him for being an ass, Which he did oft refuse; was this not jerkish? Like **Tuba** says he was a big time jerk; And **Tuba** is an honorable mod. I speak not to disprove what the OP spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. He was banned as a jerk, not without cause. What cause requires you, then, to mourn for him? O judgment, thou art fled to felched goats, And **Aeschines** lost his reason! – Bear with me; I have accidentally stepped on his corpse, And I must pause to scrape him off my shoe. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/53 "2005-07-31T17:36:24Z")
Ah, at last some humor. Nice post, **minty**. It seems, my fellow posters, that we don’t agree. I certainly understand why you think the banning was justified. I had been a little more gratified had some of the points I have made been recognized and perhaps even validated by a poster or two. I guess most of you agree with the spirit of the board wholly. There are many things I like about it, but some I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/54 "2005-07-31T17:48:39Z")
I love lollipops. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/55 "2005-07-31T18:03:08Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Ah, at last some humor. Nice post, **minty**. > > It seems, my fellow posters, that we don’t agree. I certainly understand why you think the banning was justified. I had been a little more gratified had some of the points I have made been recognized and perhaps even validated by a poster or two. > > I guess most of you agree with the spirit of the board wholly. There are many things I like about it, but some I don’t. Having your points “recognized” or “validated” is not a right. Unless you decide to start making valid points, they won’t be recognized. There is simply zero basis to defend **Reeder**. He was consistently obnoxious, and the problems in his behavior can be made clear in the special rules the Mods made for him. Only one thread about Bush at any given time, a month-long suspension around the time of the election - they show that his behavior was problematic and that the Mods tried to institute special procedures to make up for the fact that he had no self-control. Each special rule for him was an instance when the Mods gave him an extra chance instead of just banning his ass like they probably ought to have. If that wasn’t enough chances for him to act like an adult, then fuck him. ---
**Author:** ![Xploder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/a183cd/32.png) [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/56 "2005-07-31T18:24:56Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Having your points “recognized” or “validated” is not a right. Unless you decide to start making valid points, they won’t be recognized. There is simply zero basis to defend **Reeder**. He was consistently obnoxious, and the problems in his behavior can be made clear in the special rules the Mods made for him. Only one thread about Bush at any given time, a month-long suspension around the time of the election - they show that his behavior was problematic and that the Mods tried to institute special procedures to make up for the fact that he had no self-control. Each special rule for him was an instance when the Mods gave him an extra chance instead of just banning his ass like they probably ought to have. If that wasn’t enough chances for him to act like an adult, then fuck him. Very well put. I myself, started doing a happy dance when I saw that he had been banninated. About fucking time too. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/57 "2005-07-31T18:29:46Z")
Well, this is a toughie for me. On the one hand, I hate Bush _et al._ with the hot, vengeful rage of an ancient Greek deity. On the other hand, **Reeder** was a twit. So you can see my dliemma. Did he deserve to be banned? Yes – on three or four other occasions, when he ignored warnings about bringing politics into other forums and directly violated the rules. It was surprising when he wasn’t banned at these times, in fact. Like many other liberals on the SDMB, I often winced when he’d enter a discussion, knowing that opponents in a debate would subsequently respond only to his hysteria and not to the more reasonable posters. Many’s the time that SDMB righties would tar all SDMB lefties with the **Reeder** brush. And that sucked. However. Did he deserve to be banned for _this_? That’s the big question – and honestly, for me the answer is “no.” When the Pit has been littered with trivial ephemera such as … - FedEx delivery guys are rough with packages! - The chick sitting next to me chewed gum! - CTRL-A selects too much! - My husband left his pen in his shirt! … seems to me that something involving the president that was on the _Tonight Show_ and was actually featured in a couple of White House press briefings (I kid you not) would be relatively fair game. And if it wasn’t, why not just move or close it, just as **TVeblen** and **Giraffe** have done before? As an administrator of a forum, I come across many stupid, offtopic, troublesome posts from people who grate on my last nerve. When that happens and I get an itchy trigger finger, my rule has always been to ask myself two questions: 1) Is this post causing actual damage to the board or its members? and 2) If this post were written by someone I really like, would I find it so abhorrent? If the answer to both of the above is “no,” I just ignore, move or close the thread with an explanation (okay, maybe adding a snarky comment if I feel it’s deserved). Of course that’s just me, and Og knows the SDMB admins & mods have a lot more work than I do. Still, one thing I do know is that arbitrary decisions – rules applied to one person and not another – are toxic to the spirit of an online community. In the long run, they’ll cause more trouble than any irritating “Laura Bush used the wrong salad fork!!!” post. **Reeder** ’s banning was probably inevitable, and I’d have approved of it in most other situations. This just wasn’t one of them. IMHO of course. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/58 "2005-07-31T18:37:35Z")
> [@choie](#): > > However. Did he deserve to be banned for _this_? That’s the big question – and honestly, for me the answer is “no.” When the Pit has been littered with trivial ephemera such as … How many times does this have to be explained? The Powers That Be have been quite clear on the fact that banning results from a _pattern of behavior_. **Reeder** - as you note later in your post - would inevitably have been banned. The mods ‘n’ admins never promised that banning would only result from single episodes of astonishingly bad behavior. **Reeder** might have continued forever without one of those epic meltdowns, but that doesn’t mean his obnoxious behavior was okay. He was _specifically warned_ not to post this kind of thing, and in my opinion, his posting did a great job of heading off what might otherwise have been an interesting, relevant discussion. If his presence makes the board worse for the rest of us, then I bid him adieu and advise him to exercise caution, lest the door hit him in the ass during his egress. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/59 "2005-07-31T18:45:22Z")
Yes, I get that, **Excalibre**. But “pattern of behavior” should be taken into consideration when you’re deciding between warning and banning. And I simply don’t think the thread in question was even _warn_-worthy. This wasn’t “bad behavior.” There’s a difference between posting a silly topic and actually doing something against the rules. If not, good God, might as well shut down MPSIMS right now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969/60 "2005-07-31T18:51:39Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Ah, at last some humor. Nice post, **minty**. > > It seems, my fellow posters, that we don’t agree. I certainly understand why you think the banning was justified. I had been a little more gratified had some of the points I have made been recognized and perhaps even validated by a poster or two. > > I guess most of you agree with the spirit of the board wholly. There are many things I like about it, but some I don’t. But one of your key points, that you find \*\*Reeder \*\*to be “insightful” had no basis in fact. Once again, what insights were the rest of us missing? List the top 3. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defending-reeder/314969.md?page=4)