Evil Captor's suspension

[furt]

@Bryan Ekers

As far as I can tell, the most useless and offensive part about the snark board is that I’m apparantly not mentioned anywhere on it.

Oscar Wilde was right.

I just got my cherry popped there yesterday. I wasn’t impressed.

And a fine job by the mods.

[Syntropy]

@Excalibre

Which “first pitting”? Do you mean the extremely brief one posted by Inkleberry or the really, really long one I started about twenty minutes later after Inkleberry got hers closed?

Because I can tell you with a pretty good degree of certainty what I was thinking in posting that thread - and believe me, I have nothing against bondage. I’m not squicked out by the thought of people being tied up in the slightest. I’m not aroused by it in the slightest, not being straight - and when it comes into detailed descriptions of naked women, I don’t find it all that pleasant, but I’m certainly not “quicked” by any of it.

Yes, the first one by Inkleberry as well as posts made in your pitting of him and subsequent pittings. And no, I know you didn’t make any of those posts. But there were plenty of people who came to the feeding frenzy to complain about how icky it was.

Evil Captor, Arnold Winkelreid, and the folks who banded together to defend Evil Captor shouted over and over that I was just some kind of prude for wanting him to knock it off. It didn’t matter whether they had any evidence or not - though of course they didn’t have any evidence of that (as it would be pretty damn tough to call me a prude if you knew me) - Captor ‘n’ crew simply told the same lies over and over, and the fact that you believed them is pretty good evidence that it worked. It’s the same sort of thing that you see in politics - Bush and his team did such a good job painting Kerry as “weak on security” and “a flip-flopper” that suddenly it became the public perception - regardless of the truth.

Good lord, who said I believed them? Again: I very much doubt that was the primary reason for his departure. I do think the subject matter did have something to do with it, however, and I think it’s a bit naive to pretend otherwise. BDSM is something a lot of people find icky. I’m in the camp of thinking it’s an awful lot of work just to get your rocks off, but hey, whatever does it for you. Which is probably why I didn’t end up in a lot of threads with the guy. Evidently we don’t share similar tastes in movies.

None of the people who said nasty things about me in that thread have apologized so far. I’m beginning to think that holding my breath while I wait might not be a good idea.

If I said something nasty about you in any of those threads (I don’t think I did) I apologize.

The trouble is when they start deliberately posting deceptive thread titles in order to sneakily convince folks to talk about Buffy when they don’t want to. Evil Captor wasn’t even just a one-trick pony - he constantly hijacked threads to bring them back to his preferred topic, and posted threads with rather bland titles about movies when the only topic he planned to discuss was how the movies depicted bondage. It is faintly creepy that Evil Captor seems to view movies in terms of nothing but potential masturbation-fodder - but that’s a minor quibble. It’s obvious that (as lissener has pointed out) Evil Captor wouldn’t have managed to stay around for nearly as long has his one topic been something else - he managed to convince a number of people that he was some sort of martyr for the noble perverts of our fine country, no matter the reality, which is that perverts (and again, I use the term affectionately, as I’m certainly among them) are anything but marginalized here on the SDMB. The irony is that S&M enthusiasts are about the least discriminated against minority group on the board, with the possible exception of us queers - but that didn’t stop Captor and his little posse of idiots from pretending like he was some unfortunate victim of the SDMB Puritans’ Society.

Agreed. And managed to offend a few people who tried to defend him as well. My one and only point was that lissener’s assertion that the content had nothing to do with the suspension was disengenuous. If I continuously hijacked threads with allusions to, I dunno, why crocheting is so much better than knitting, I’d probably get a few “WTF?” posts and a mod might, MIGHT, smack me upside the back of the head and tell me to knock it off. I’m not sure I’d garner four multi page pittings and a suspension for it, though.

[lissener]

@Lute Skywatcher

Certainly. From where I sit, your argument with Maureen has become one big strawman.

Um, duh, I got that your suggesting my post was made of straw was a clever way of saying it was a strawman. (First clue? “Straw.” I know, I’m quick.)

The reason I asked you to be specific was because I didn’t want you to come back and just tell me that my “argument with Maureen has become one big strawman.” Silly me.

Please explain what it is about my “post content” that makes you characterize it as a strawman.

[Syntropy]

Well, probably because you totally misrepresented my post then attacked that misrepresentation.

[AncientHumanoid]

Ooh, look! An invisible post! Too bad it makes so much sense in this argument.

[lissener]

@Maureen

Well, probably because you totally misrepresented my post then attacked that misrepresentation.

Again, will you please be specific?

[Skywatcher]

@lissener

Um, duh, I got that your suggesting my post was made of straw was a clever way of saying it was a strawman. (First clue? “Straw.” I know, I’m quick.)

The reason I asked you to be specific was because I didn’t want you to come back and just tell me that my “argument with Maureen has become one big strawman.” Silly me.

Please explain what it is about my “post content” that makes you characterize it as a strawman.

My apologies. I thought you had seen this.

[Syntropy]

@NoClueBoy

Ooh, look! An invisible post! Too bad it makes so much sense in this argument.

And spot on, as always.
lissener, I wasn’t trying to defend EC or elevate him to martyr or even say that he shouldn’t have been suspended. My one and only point was that the content of his posts was relevant to his suspension. That’s it. In a nutshell.

[Ensign_Edison]

@NoClueBoy

Ooh, look! An invisible post! Too bad it makes so much sense in this argument.

If people don’t notice it, it’s not a hijack. That’s where your invisible argument seems to fall down.

[Excalibre]

@Maureen

If I said something nasty about you in any of those threads (I don’t think I did) I apologize.

No worries. I wasn’t talking about you - I don’t think you did so.

[Excalibre]

@Maureen

lissener, I wasn’t trying to defend EC or elevate him to martyr or even say that he shouldn’t have been suspended. My one and only point was that the content of his posts was relevant to his suspension. That’s it. In a nutshell.

Well, it would be irritating behavior either way. It is relevant in that he often appeared to have gotten a special little thrill about bringing people into the conversation who didn’t want to talk about it. That’s a particularly icky thing - it’s a bit akin to someone exposing himself to you on the subway. It doesn’t hurt you; it shouldn’t damage your psyche (unless you’re a trauma survivor to begin with) - but that is the icky little maraschino cherry on the sundae.

Seriously, maraschino cherries are gross.

[Loach]

@tomndebb

In their dreams.

I was not even aware that the snarkers had started their 18,000,000th snipe fest about E C until his name came up in staff discussion based on reported posts–and the Mods who introduced the topic to the staff are not the Mods who do vist the snarkers. (The snarkers have gotten so boring I rarely visit more than once a week.)

Loach has provided the best synopsis of the staff discussions–including the fact that we hardly paid any attention to the specific contents of his hijacks so much as the fact that he continued the hijacks even in his own threads. The discussion focused on one-trick-pony nature of the hijacks, (because E C does participate with more varied topics–when he is not hijacking threads), not on the content of the hijacks.

Holy shit I got something right? I’m marking this down on my calander.

[lissener]

@Lute Skywatcher

My apologies. I thought you had seen this.

Um, I said he was suspended for his jerkish behavior, not for the sexual content. She implied that this was as utterly ridiculous as trying to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge; that he was suspended for the subject matter, not in fact for the jerkish hijacking. I pointed out that many people have been admonished for hijacky jerkishness.

Still not seein the straw.

Now, with all of your and Maureen’s clever little obliquities, would you please just say what you fucking mean so we’re not forced to parse implications and metaphors (Brooklyn Bridge?) in order to attempt a response?

If you parsed Maureen’s cleverness differently from how I parsed it, how does that make me the straw peddler? Just say what you fucking mean already.

Jesus. Non-clever cleverness can be really fucking annoying sometimes.

[AncientHumanoid]

@Ensign Edison

If people don’t notice it, it’s not a hijack. That’s where your invisible argument seems to fall down.

Well then, for you, imagine it says hijack ATTEMPTS. And then go fuck off in a big pile of bloody shit.

[eleanorigby]

@lissener

All respect an all, but this continued mischaracterization of why EC has been frequently taken to task continues to muddy the waters. The sexual content of his post kept him, if anything, protected from suspension for a long time. The real issue here is his jerkishness, not his squickiness.

Christ on a cracker-you really are a pain in the ass. Are you able to recognize common humor when you see it?
Yoohooo! Lissener–lighten up and get a sense of humor while you’re at it.

I don’t give a shit what you conside the “real issue”–the Mods know the “real issue” and they aren’t talking. Anything here is pure conjecture on our parts.

Frankly, like I said before, it matters not to me whether EC stays or goes. YOU, on the other hand–I’d be happy to hold the door for.

:rolleyes:

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@Guinastasia

If anyone thinks he didn’t get off on talking about it where it wasn’t expected:

This was a thread about some guy who wanted to tell a coworker he wacks it while thinking about her. Evil Captor said his fantasy in that case would be some big bondage thing.
He likes making people uncomfortable. Whether he gets a sexual charge out of it, or just a big laugh, it’s inappropriate.

(bolding mine) It sounds perfectly expected in that kind of thread.

[Excalibre]

@lissener

Um, I said he was suspended for his jerkish behavior, not for the sexual content. She implied that this was as utterly ridiculous as trying to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge; that he was suspended for the subject matter, not in fact for the jerkish hijacking. I pointed out that many people have been admonished for hijacky jerkishness.

Still not seein the straw.

Now, with all of your and Maureen’s clever little obliquities, would you please just say what you fucking mean so we’re not forced to parse implications and metaphors (Brooklyn Bridge?) in order to attempt a response?

If you parsed Maureen’s cleverness differently from how I parsed it, how does that make me the straw peddler? Just say what you fucking mean already.

Jesus. Non-clever cleverness can be really fucking annoying sometimes.

The odd part is that at the same time as you and Maureen have managed to argue about the meaning of what she posted, I also managed to post about it and receive a satisfactory explanation. It’s funny how you seem to have missed that whole section.

[Syntropy]

Hey, I can wait all night for him to catch up.
And I agree with you about maraschino cherries. Anything soaked in formaldehyde will not be ingested into THIS body, thankyewveryfuckinmuch.

[What_Exit]

@Maureen

Hey, I can wait all night for him to catch up.
And I agree with you about maraschino cherries. Anything soaked in formaldehyde will not be ingested into THIS body, thankyewveryfuckinmuch.

I could be a long wait. He will worry this point (what is his point anyway) like a Pitbull with a chew Toy.

Jim

[Revtim]

Maybe I missed it skimming through four pages, but has anybody given a serious response as to why they didn’t just put EC on their ignore list if they’re so unhappy with his posts, for whatever reason? Are folks simply unaware of the feature?