Exactly what rule did this violate?


Bone gave Chingon a warning for this. Might I ask why? It was not a specific insult to any Doper, and metaphorically I find Chingon’s comment quite accurate, in my experience.

I’m not going to read 103 posts to see if there was anything previous, but yeah, that does seem like a bit of a reach.
I’ve never heard the phrase before, but it doesn’t seem much different than saying ‘John gets a real hard on/boner about this kind of stuff’.

No one is actually implying sexual gratification.

It is specifically against the rules to claim that one’s opponent derives some sort of sexual gratification/whatever from their positions. Claiming something works on someone like viagra certainly fills that space.

IIRC, This was a rule that Ed imposed back in the day. It’s as silly as many of the other rules of his that have since been rescinded.

There’s no possible way to curb all negative characterizations of liberals or conservatives. Here’s one that works for (or against) either side. (The terms used so far are solely about male sexuality, but I assume Dopers are creative.) Those are rare and should be encouraged.

Rather than enforce the silly stuff, you mods should be tossing out Ed’s dicta like a housecleaning after a parent dies. None of the heirs want the stuff. Throw it all in the trash and bring in some better modern furniture.

as I said in the other thread on this I didn’t see anything wrong with it ……

[Checks GD rules]…well how 'bout that. What an oddly specific rule.

Turns out you also can’t say that someone ‘soils themselves in glee due to recent news events’.
It seems to me it wasn’t broken. It was stated the the these threads are right-winger viagra. That’s not about posters (just a group of people, as a whole) nor is it referencing “recent news reports, political iconography, contemplation of ideological positions, etc”, but rather a type of thread.

I don’t want to go looking for loopholes, but that’s an awfully narrowly defined rule and the post in question doesn’t fit any part of it.
“News like this is like viagra to [poster]” is different than “These types of threads are like viagra to [entire political group]”.
Further, I assume it was meant to combat statements along the lines of “[Poster] always gets off on [news event]”.
Viagra isn’t sexual gratification. It appeared to be a ‘moth to a flame’ type statement.

Note to Mods: sorry, I didn’t notice this thread when I opened mine, I just reacted when I saw the infraction.

Anyway, I understand there’s a rule, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a rule that would be obvious to everyone. I could certainly understand an unofficial warning just to make someone aware of the rule, and then hammer them down if they do it again. I just disagreed with going straight to the warning. That’s all I’m saying.

Thats one of the dumbest fucking warnings I’ve seen in a long time. Well done everybody.

The rule is against saying that other Dopers get sexual gratification, which I would agree is “attacking the poster.”

This was, however, was a statement about a political group. And normally we can say negative things about those. The only exception is when it’s clearly an attack on a person by using their beliefs as a proxy.

Damn… I always liked the phrase Fundie-porn. Looks like I won’t ever get a chance to use it.

While sildenafil is most known for it’s use in treating male impotence, it is also used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and improve exercise capacity. Might we have a simple misunderstanding here?

While what Chingon said is not directly aimed at another poster, in the context of that thread it’s not a very subtle dig at other participants. The rule exists because we don’t want to have people asserting that others jizz all over themselves, get erections left and right, etc. Stating that other people get sexual gratification in this fashion is not conducive to discussion.

Typically I do give people the benefit of the doubt. In this case however, there has been a pattern of pushing the limit over various posts. In looking at the posting history, I can’t help but think that the intent is more aimed at attacks and sneering more appropriate for the Pit. Here are three previous notes to the same poster:


While not the same rule, all of these indicate to me a pattern of behavior pushing the line. As a result, I’m less inclined to split hairs and rules lawyer this instance. This warning is a stronger message to modify this pattern of behavior.

I know your’e a relatively new poster and might not know the rules but JC explains it well in post 3 and might I give you a kudos for round-aboutly breaking the rule again with this post. Albeit in a way that will not get you sanctioned. I am all for breaking the rules in a way that technically will not get you sanctioned. It is what has kept this forum alive for so many years. And we all want this forum to go on as long as possible so the racists and sexists can still have a place on the internet to be ugly.

Hence why you are posting as close to the jerk line as you think you can get away with?

I can’t put a date on when I first started reading the column in the Baltimore City Paper and the Washington City Paper, but it was probably sometime in the late 1970s, early '80s. I wasn’t on AOL or Usenet, so I didn’t find out about the boards until sometime in late 2002.

Cecil had answered one of my questions back in 1990, and over the years I submitted several others that he didn’t answer in the column. (I’m not counting the question that someone else asked, but that a friend on mine who worked at the Baltimore City Paper put my name on in their edition.)

At some point, C. K. Dexter Haven sent me an e-mail in response to one of those questions, suggesting I ask it on the SDMB, which I knew nothing about at that time. I might not have paid as much attention to the suggestion if his handle hadn’t been the name of one of my favorite characters in one of my favorite movies.

So I joined the SDMB in 2003 and started my first thread in March 2003. My 16th anniversary will be in 10 days, and this is my 6,745th post. Average of 1.06 posts per day.

FWIW, the warning seems on point to me. It certainly read as though Chingon was using the assertion against posters here, not a random group of conservatives.

The Philadelphia Story has always been one of my favorite movies as well, and when I first saw CK here, I certainly took notice of the name.
However, I’m thinking you meant to post this in the 20th Anniversary thread.

I could see having made it a note instead of a warning, but if there’s a history of skating up to the line, it makes sense to me as well.

:eek: Yes, I did. Will repost there. :smack:

Never mind, that’ll learn me to refresh before posting!