# Do not pressure posters into ingoring professional reporting requirements **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 7, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979 "2010-02-07T01:29:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/81 "2010-02-08T13:47:03Z")
> [@Cat Whisperer](#): > > [QUOTE=Northern Piper] > > Why isn’t a poster who repeatedly talks about how he wants to fuck little children not in breach of the rule against obscene posts??? I would really love to know the answer to that. [/QUOTE] It appears to have been answered, at [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12090763&postcount=347): [QUOTE=Ed Zotti] 4. Having reviewed Cesario’s postings and compared notes, we now realize how frequently he posts about his sexual inclinations. Our rules state, “The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. We reserve the right to ask you to limit postings on a particular topic, or to refrain from posting on such topics altogether.” We’re now invoking this rule: We don’t want to see any further discussion from Cesario about pedophilia. Attempts by other users to provoke Cesario into breaking this rule, or to make comments about him to which he cannot respond, will also not be tolerated. Thank you for your cooperation. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/82 "2010-02-08T14:14:31Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I was about to say that it was funny that just a few posts ago somebody had talked about goalpost moving, and then I realized that it was **Syntropy** who made the accusation. > > Are we talking about google results and “community” or are we talking about whether he broke the rules? Silly me. I’ll bear in mind from now on that when other, more established posters do it, it’s ‘thread drift,’ and when I address the points in that drift it’s ‘moving the goal posts.’ Thank you for the correction. I understand we’re talking about a great many things. It started out about Marley’s rather silly overreaction and moved on from there. Since no one wanted to stick to the point, I figured I’d address the ones that came up. I found it a little hypocritical that anyone would think that only SA’s actions would have real world consequences, while Cesario’s are just ‘some guy yammering on the internet.’ Since ‘real world consequences’ were mentioned, I thought it might be of interest to at least a few people to know what the consequences were of allowing these discussions to continue since they ‘weren’t hurting anyone.’ > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m dismissing it because it was plainly against the rules, and because **SmartAleq** was trying to cause a problem for the board because she expected us to do something she didn’t like. It’s pretty simple. If it were that clear there wouldn’t be so many people who disagreed. It was clear to YOU, because that’s the way you chose to interpret her post. > [@](#): > > Professionals know what their reporting obligations are, and if they had any that related to anonymous message board activity, they probably reported the guy six months ago. They’ll do whatever they are obligated to do. On the other hand, she’s encouraging people to make trouble for the SDMB as a foot-stamping protest and in a way that’s against the rules. I think it’s fair to respond to that, and I did so politely. I’d say the SDMB is making trouble for the SDMB and pointing it out so that it can be corrected is probably a better course of action than sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to look at it. She wasn’t ‘encouraging people to make trouble for the SDMB.’ She was encouraging mandatory reporters to do their duty. I understand that it’s difficult to be objective from your position, but were we discussing any other site, you’d hopefully be able to see the distinction. > [@](#): > > It’s true the rule I quoted also includes spam, but it includes other types of posts, too. The bottom line is that she was encouraging posters to get into a campaign against the SDMB, and it does violate our rules. So I politely asked her not to do this again. > > You know who else politely asked people not to do things? _Hitler._ Oh, get off the cross. I’m not comparing this to Nazi actions or anything of the sort. If you feel put upon for having to deal with these situations, perhaps you should step down so you can cease doing so and have some peace. So long as you choose to remain a moderator however, you should expect to have to address these little problems that are obviously beneath your contempt. YOU are the one who chose to inflate this issue by making the unnecessary comment, so YOU are the one being called into question. > [@](#): > > She clearly said more than that. Again: clearly _to you_. Did you bother clarifying? No. IT’S A CAMPAIGN! AGAINST THE SDMB!! ONOES!! THERE MIGHT BE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY TAKES INTEREST AND THEN THE WORLD WILL ENNNNNNNNNND!!1ELEVEN! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979/83 "2010-02-08T14:16:40Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > So, it’s simply not accurate for you to hide behind the shield of prior restraint. The SDMB is a private organization, not the US government. I shouldn’t have used a legal term there. But it’s true that not a lot of topics are off-limits here. There are some topics that are off-limits when discussed in a particular way (generally, if posters are encouraging illegal or hateful behavior). Nobody’s arguing we _can’t_ declare a topic verboten, I’m saying it doesn’t happen much and for good reason. > [@Syntropy](#): > > Again: clearly _to you_. Did you bother clarifying? No. IT’S A CAMPAIGN! AGAINST THE SDMB!! ONOES!! THERE MIGHT BE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY TAKES INTEREST AND THEN THE WORLD WILL ENNNNNNNNNND!!1ELEVEN! :rolleyes: And on that note, we’re done here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-not-pressure-posters-into-ingoring-professional-reporting-requirements/527979.md?page=4)