# Giraffe/VCO3 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 23, 2007, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992 "2007-12-23T02:59:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/81 "2007-12-24T04:14:37Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] Dude, if you’re that annoyed by a friggin’ _smiley_, then maybe you should find another board. [/QUOTE] Yeah. It was your smilie that annoyed him. Yeah, that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/82 "2007-12-24T04:20:39Z")
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict] The danger with differing rules for one poster is that it can spread. [/QUOTE] Perhaps it will help you to feel better about it if you remember that in the case of handy and Reeder (both who were banned) in effect the special rule for them was akin to a probation. It’s very possible that if the special rule had not been made that they would have been instead immediately banned. I can’t speak for Evil Captor as he’s still here. I actually wish there were more “final warning special rules” for more people. I can think of a couple of dozen continual irritants who, when they’re not trotting out their special ego pony to do tricks, can actually behave themselves and be interesting people. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/83 "2007-12-24T04:24:40Z")
[QUOTE=Southern Yankee] Not at all. My post was a response to **picunurse** ’s post that asked “Isn’t returning to one’s own thread just common courtesy?” It had nothing to do with rules. I just stated my opinion. **Guinistasia** apparently has a different opinion and wanted to show how hers was _better_ by using the roll-eyes smilie. [/QUOTE] While hit-and-run thread starting may or may not, in general, be against the rules, it is definitely against board culture and tradition, and board members may certainly chime in in the hopes that peer pressure will prevent an undesired change in that culture and tradition. Board culture and tradition also comes down on the side of not having an animated barfing smilie, so it’s not all bad. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/84 "2007-12-24T04:26:56Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] If all you want to do is “get something off of your chest”, get a Live Journal, or a MySpace. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Dudette, if you don’t wan’t to read about someone’s concern or rant, maybe you’re in the wrong forum. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Muhammud ---
**Author:** ![Southern\_Yankee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/southern_yankee/32/2800_2.png) [@Southern\_Yankee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Southern_Yankee)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/85 "2007-12-24T04:58:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by \*\*Guinistasia \*\* > > Dude, if you’re that annoyed by a friggin’ smiley, then maybe you should find another board. > > Jesus. Do you _own_ a mirror? ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/86 "2007-12-24T05:12:01Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] Perhaps it will help you to feel better about it if you remember that in the case of handy and Reeder (both who were banned) in effect the special rule for them was akin to a probation. It’s very possible that if the special rule had not been made that they would have been instead immediately banned. I can’t speak for Evil Captor as he’s still here. I actually wish there were more “final warning special rules” for more people. I can think of a couple of dozen continual irritants who, when they’re not trotting out their special ego pony to do tricks, can actually behave themselves and be interesting people. [/QUOTE] I can understand your point of view. It just seems cleaner from my point of view to tell him that he’s being a jerk which works perfectly under the existing rules and then ban him or give him another warning. My complaint is mostly procedural as opposed to substantive. While I find the guy amusing, I can see why others don’t. My point, which Hostile Dialect doesn’t seem to get, is that making special rules for people is messy. The reason people like bright line rules is that they let you know what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t. Hostile Dialect doesn’t seem to understand the difference between clarifying a rule and making up a new one for someone. From Giraffe’s warning. > [@](#): > > Note to all: this rule applies **only** to VCO3 and his adherence to it will be judged by the mods (rather than some arbitrary minimum quota of posts per thread). > note- bolding mine. That is not clarifying a rule. If the rule applies to everyone, then it is a clarification, if it applies to one person, then it is a new rule. Do you see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/87 "2007-12-24T05:12:38Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] Dudette, if you don’t wan’t to read about someone’s concern or rant, maybe you’re in the wrong forum. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Muhammud [/QUOTE] Again, it’s NOT about someone’s rant. It’s about simply posting an OP and then running off. This isn’t the place for that. [QUOTE=Southern Yankee] Do you _own_ a mirror? [/QUOTE] How can one be an attention whore without one? ---
**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:** [December 24, 2007, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/88 "2007-12-24T05:14:53Z")
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict] The danger with differing rules for one poster is that it can spread. [/QUOTE] My God… at the rate individual rules are being created, we’ll all be under the jackboot in 600 years! TOPS! ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/89 "2007-12-24T05:33:44Z")
I for one welcome… Oh, never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/90 "2007-12-24T05:45:12Z")
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict] That is not clarifying a rule. If the rule applies to everyone, then it is a clarification, if it applies to one person, then it is a new rule. Do you see the difference? [/QUOTE] Possibly. Would you be more comfortable if they had instead said something akin to “Poster X is on probation, and as part of that probation they are no longer allowed to use the word ‘Bush’ on this message board.” ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/91 "2007-12-24T05:59:04Z")
> [@Caffeine.addict](#): > > I can understand your point of view. It just seems cleaner from my point of view to tell him that he’s being a jerk which works perfectly under the existing rules and then ban him or give him another warning. My complaint is mostly procedural as opposed to substantive. While I find the guy amusing, I can see why others don’t. The point is to give him a specific way to get out of trouble without having to ban him. Just warning him would have had no effect, which we know from how he’s changed after being warned several times and then suspended (read: not at all). > [@Caffeine.addict](#): > > My point, which Hostile Dialect doesn’t seem to get, is that making special rules for people is messy. The reason people like bright line rules is that they let you know what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t. Oh, I get it just fine. It’s just a fundamentally flawed way of thinking about the Dope, which ignores precedent and common sense. > [@Caffeine.addict](#): > > That is not clarifying a rule. If the rule applies to everyone, then it is a clarification, if it applies to one person, then it is a new rule. Do you see the difference? It’s not that black and white. **Giraffe** ’s post, even though it had the word “rule” in it, was a clarification of exactly what **VCO3** needed to do to prove that he could turn off “jerk mode” and thus merit not being banned. This really isn’t as difficult as you’re making it out to be, trust me. ---
**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:** [December 24, 2007, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/92 "2007-12-24T08:44:09Z")
Meh, VC’s an unsympathetic combination of bigot, nut and troll. Or as I like to abbreviate it, a b’ut’oll. ---
**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:** [December 24, 2007, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/93 "2007-12-24T11:02:20Z")
I agree with Lute. There has been a long history of moderation against ‘Let’s you and him fight’ threads. And from that perspective, this _is_ just a special ‘You. REALLY no you and him fight threads’ clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/94 "2007-12-24T14:30:46Z")
Every time this has been done its a precursor to banning. Its like a parent counting 1, 2, 2 and a half. So the “special rule” sits around for a long as the poster manages to walk the line - which is never long. So don’t worry about it, the rule disappear along with the poster it applies to in relatively short order. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/95 "2007-12-24T14:49:46Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] My God… at the rate individual rules are being created, we’ll all be under the jackboot in 600 years! TOPS! [/QUOTE] **Bryan** , starting now you are to stop saying things that make **Vinyl Turnip** laugh. This rule is arbitrary, indefinite, and unenforceable. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/96 "2007-12-24T15:13:07Z")
[QUOTE=Dangerosa] Every time this has been done its a precursor to banning. Its like a parent counting 1, 2, 2 and a half. [/QUOTE] **Evil Captor** ’s still around. So it worked in at least one case. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/97 "2007-12-24T15:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > It was bad precedent when it was done with Reeder and I think it was bad precedent when done with Evil Captor. I can understand why it was done with Handy, his bad medical advice was conceivably dangerous. If someone’s bad behavior rises to the standard of jerkishness, then give him a warning or ban him. Life is not so black-and-white as that. And, I repeat what I said lo! these many posts ago: it’s not really a “rule” per se, it’s more a probation. We’ve used this approach when we have borderline cases. A poster does something, not jerkish in and of itself, as a one-time act, but becomes obnoxious when repeated over and over. The prime example was probably the poster who would start five to ten different anti-GWBush threads a day. We’re not trying to say that starting such a thread is jerkish behavior; the jerkish behavior is overdoing it. Similarly in this case. Starting a controversial thread and then not posting to it again is NOT jerkish behavior. Doing it dozens of times IS. We don’t want to ban people, we give a couple of warnings, but we need to be specific. So the “warning” (or probation) is in the form of: here’s the behavior we want you to avoid (or, in some cases, tone down.) We’ve done this perhaps four or five times in the past many years. Most cases, sadly, the poster doesn’t heed the warning, and so gets banned. At least two cases that I can think of, the poster did indeed heed the warning and so is still here. Again, it’s really not a “rule” even though that word may have been used. It’s a term of probation expressed in very clear and specific terms so that there’s no confusion about what is meant. Does it apply to only one person? No,on several levels: (1) The process of giving probation has happened before, when we see a behavior that is not jerkish as a one-time event, but become jerkish with repetition after repetition. (2) When we have others who start many (many!) controversial threads and never return to them, we will handle them the same way we’re handling this one. So, speaking very loud and clear: **NO, it is NOT TRUE that this is applied to one person only.** ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/98 "2007-12-24T15:34:53Z")
My brain hurts! It is not a rule even though the word “rule” was used. It is not true that this is applied to one person only, even though the post in question says, and I quote: > [@](#): > > …this rule applies only to VCO3… Really, you folks generally do a fine job, but I think you should all get together for some in-service training. Get a hotel room, a keg, and some note pads, and come up with some consistent language to use when lowering the boom. ---
**Author:** ![Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@Key\_Lime\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Key_Lime_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/99 "2007-12-24T16:44:03Z")
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven] … many (many!) controversial threads and never return … [/QUOTE] It sounds like somebody went to the trouble of tallying them up. Do you mind sharing the figures? I would be less outraged if it is truly (many!). Also, I really DO question the hit-and-run assumption. How can you tell when an OP isn’t simply reading & learning? (When VCO3 pre-emptively said he wasn’t going to respond, I took it to mean he wasn’t going to be baited.) ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2007, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992/100 "2007-12-24T17:17:06Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] My brain hurts! It is not a rule even though the word “rule” was used. It is not true that this is applied to one person only, even though the post in question says, and I quote: [/QUOTE] Well, if it makes you feel better, when I posted I meant it to be a rule that applied to only one person. 😛 However, I think **Dex** ’s view is accurate (despite the semantic quicksand he’s struggling against) – given **VCO3** ’s past warnings and probation, this is as much a guideline about how to avoid future banning as anything. And while the current restriction applies only to **VCO3** , anyone who did the same thing would end up with a similar restriction, i.e. we’re not doing this because we like/dislike **VCO3** more than any other poster. Really, I don’t care what we call it. I just want **VCO3** to participate in his Pit threads. I have no interest in banning him, and I hope he follows this new rule/guideline/whatever and sticks around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/giraffe-vco3/430992.md?page=6)