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.
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.
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.
Reeder probably did a better job of making people sympathetic to the Republican cause than all the conservative posters put together.
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.
I assume you’re being facetious.In fact, that was a generous example. Usually it wsa more like:
I CAN’T BEILIEVE IT. LINK.
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.
He mentioned serving time for drug offenses - it may have addled his brain.
Or maybe he was like that before he started drugs - who knows?
Regards,
Shodan
I wasn’t even aware it was possible to make it seem like his behaviour was worse than it really was.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I love lollipops.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.