I’m a little uncomfortable about a specific rule that only he has to follow. I was a little uncomfortable with the rule in place for Reeder. The same rules should apply for everyone. I think that there is enough room in the “don’t be a jerk” rule to cover most situations.
I find VC03 entertaining. I think that he livens up the place and that his threads can spark interesting discussions. I don’t think that he’s trolling in that I believe that he really does hold those opinions no matter how silly we may find them.
There already is precedent, Einstein. Of course, if you’d read the thread, you would know that.
You have nothing to worry about unless you’re a troll. I’ve never gotten that impression from you, and I actually enjoy reading your posts. When someone does as much to single-handedly lower the quality of one forum as VCO3 has in the Pit, action must be taken. He’s a troll, and since the mods are reluctant to ban him, they have to do something.
In your User CP, you can set it to automatically subscribe to threads you post in, you can set it not ot email you when you get new messages (so you don’t flood your inbox).After that, every time you click User CP you’ll see a list of the threads that have had new responses since you last posted in them, and then you can click the little checkbox next to each thread to go to the first new post.
The “new” rule is part of “don’t be a jerk”, which has been explained specifically to VCO3, specifically because Giraffe didn’t feel like banning him for a pattern of trolling, jerkish behavior. This has been explained; I don’t know what’s so difficult about it.
Actually, I think it’s good for the board. If he drops a shit bomb and doesn’t return, you have to remember that those participating in the thread have a choice, and they have chosen to participate amongst themselves about the topic at hand. I don’t see the harm in that at all. A many interesting discussions have derived from these types of threads from willing participants. It’s also hardly a burden if one doesn’t like what VCO3 does, and to not read his threads. They’re free to move on.
It’s still bad precedent. 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. Handy’s behavior was jerkish in that he was doing it as part of his pursuit of being the poster with the highest post count therefore it was quantity over quality. He didn’t seem to care that his “advice” was wrong or dangerous, so long as he got another post for his post count.
Because it is unnecessary, that is what is “so difficult” about it. The reasoning is behind the special rule is clear, I think it is a bad precedent. The danger with differing rules for one poster is that it can spread.
Er, aren’t you the one complaining about the rules here? Guin was arguing in support of the mod’s actions, not against them, so your comment to her doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense.
Bad precedent for what, exactly? Reeder’s special restriction was, what, four years ago? Since then, we’ve had two similar rulings limiting what a particular poster can or can’t do. One poster-specific ruling every two years doesn’t exactly strike me as moderation run amok.
I thought that the only reason reeder’s restriction was unique to him was that he was the only person doing it. I believe he was forbidden from starting more than one pit thread about George Bush per day, right? I don’t have anmy problem with that being a rule, and it would probably apply to anyone who started that many threads on the same topic.
No, you’re totally right. Clarifying a rule for VCO3 is the first step; next you and I are going to have special rules against us, and then people are going to be banned left and right, and then CL will start burning books, throwing innocent Dopers in dungeons, etc. Especially since that’s what’s happened every time a poster has had a specific rule directed at them.
If the rule only applies to one person, then it certainly isn’t clarifying the rule.
Do I fear that there will be a flurry of unique rules against me? Probably not, since I don’t post all that much, but I can see it happening against a few hot button posters, and then the board becomes a lesser place.
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.
It’s not so much that it’s a rule that only applies to one person as it is that only one person needs this rule. If someone else begins to engage in a similar pattern of hit and run shit-stirring, he or she would probably be told “just as VCO3 isn’t allowed to do this, you aren’t either.” And if someone started posting daily Bush bashing threads, or dispensing unreliable medical info, or whatever – it’s not that this individual or that is doing something, but that this or that pattern is a specific way of being a jerk that is being warned against.
It doesn’t really though. Presumably if a similar problem arose with another poster, a similar solution would be implimented. Nobodys serially creating and then abandoning Pit threads except VC03 though. As saiorse mentioned, its pretty much the same deal with past cases such as reeder.
Meh, as others have pointed out, it happens less then once a year. Honestly, I doubt the Mods particularily want to keep track of a bunch of special cases.