Check again, because it looks like you are, with 4 posts and a point-by-point in here already. But when you make a statement that you’re not going to post until a certain condition is met, not following up on it makes you look somewhat comical.
By last count there were 4 Admins and 13 Moderators here. Try someone else if no one answers the phone. You could also just keep continuing to be a Member here and continue in the discussions and debates until Lynn or someone else responds to you. Or maintain dignified silence.
I just spent an instructive afternoon with a dial-up connection and the search function. I am sorry that time grows too short for me to link directly to the posts today (I will happily accommodate any requests for such tomorrow), but here is the scorecard thus far:
Lynn Bodoni: two posts directed to Aldebaran; the one cited by Una, above, and an admonition not to be a jerk.
Czarcasm: no posts directed to Aldebaran.
Gaudere: two posts directed to Aldebaran, one of which featured her in her Moderator Hat, saying, “Back Off.”
Coldfire: Four posts directed to Aldebaran; one, thanking him for his good wishes on the occasion of Coldfire’s nuptials; one, popping into a GD thread to warn him on his posting style; one, in a Pit thread fifteen minutes later, warning him about his agressive responses (full disclosure: Aldebaran was the subject of the thread); and one that closed that thread, in which our esteemed Clog-boy notified Aldebaran that his banning was about to be recommended.
FTR, that thread was closed last June, and I have no idea what transpired with respect to the recommendation.
I have not yet completed my search for Moderator-Aldebaran interactions. However, I can state for a certainty that Lynn was not mistaken or misleading in stating that Aldebaran had received two posting-style-related warnings in the past. Indeed, she appears to have understated the actual case. As to Aldebaran’s complaint that there were not two warnings for making threats, I don’t think Lynn’s post needs to be parsed in such a way as to require them.
What utter bollocks. If the Mods wanted to ban you they’d just ban you and be done with it.
In any event, you are so clearly in love with your on-line persona that I seriously doubt you’d ever willingly give up all the attention you’ve been getting here. I think you’ll be barking insults at the other members again inside a week.
What a fucking drama queen. And, BTW, I’d cheerfully say that to your face.
implies Aldebaran had made a “direct threat” which I think is not a reasonable interpretation of the post which prompted the warning. Whatever Aldebaran’s past posting history may be, the fact is he was warned now about threats he did not make.
And I’m not sure why one thread on this topic wasn’t enough.
Please do not make me side with Aldebaran. I hate it. But fair is fair and the post which prompted the warning cannot be reasonably construed as a threat.
When someone has been warned twice (or more) the “short leash” rule come into play: that person is considered to be walking on thin ice and hadn’t better even consider going where other, unwarned posters might be able to tread.
I know that if I’d received a couple of warnings in a relatively short period of time, I’d be hesitant to start a thread in MPSIMS that said, say “I’m Suing The SDMB For All The Productive Time I’ve Lost!”. Suing the SDMB is a no-no. They are, quite understandably touchy about the topic. My thread would clearly be a joke, but it’s a joke on a very sensitive topic–one I’d be hesitant to start even unwarned. And while an unwarned me might be able to get away with it, if I’d already been warned twice? Not so much.
I see warnings as second chances–if you’re warned, you’ve done something bannable but the Mods are being generous. You don’t demand more/get pushy when someone’s already giving more than you (not you in particular Sailor ) deserve.
I can think of a couple of examples off-hand where this rule came into play, but we’re not supposed to mention banned posters…but think of all the threads where someone warned multiple times did something fairly minor, was banned and the usual suspects came out saying “But what s/he did wasn’t so bad!”.
If you’re warned, it’s time to walk the straight-n-narrow path for awhile, IMO
It is not a matter of degree. Either there is or there is not a threat contained in the post. What you are saying is that there was a threat and we can discuss how serious. What I am saying is there is no threat and I do not see how any reasonable person can find a threat. Any threat. I just can’t see it. If there is no threat then the warning is not justified.
Well if umm Zenster was it? Can get banned for saying he’d beat anyone that crosses a picket line with an axe handle then Aldebaran can get banned for saying he’d be waiting for any doper that invaded his country.
I don’t see too much of a difference. Though I’m not sure if I agree at least there’s consistency there.
I believe that the reference was to nuking his country. You really can’t see the difference in someone crossing a picket line and someone nuking your country?
What a strange world!
I just don’t see his remarks as a threat either.
Aldebaran, it would be helpful if you would not twist Lynn’s words to mean something which she didn’t imply. You inferred that from what she said and you are responsible for thinking that she was saying that you are scum – not she.
She has probably given a thousand warnings. My understanding is that most warnings are discussed among the staff. That is not done out of a need to trash anyone or say vicious things. I would think that it is done to help keep a balanced view of what is happening and to make other moderators aware of what has transpired. You were not singled out for this treatment. It is SOP – Standard Operational Procedure (if I understand the process correctly.)
Note to mods: It might be helpful if all warnings are labelled as warnings – if this is not already the practice. If a mod says, “Knock it off,” should that be considered an official warning?
Don’t they already do this? I don’t believe I’ve seen a warning where:
[list=a]
[li]The moderator hasn’t expclitly said that it was an official warning, or[/li][li]The moderator hasn’t wrapped the post with a “Moderator hat ON” statement, or[/li][li]The moderator hasn’t signed the post “SomeModerator, for the Straight Dope”.[/li][/list]
Any one of those seems sufficient to to establish that the warning was official.
So if they even ‘dream’ of invading his country he’ll ‘welcome’ you. Seems pretty clear cut as a threat to me.
Zenster wasn’t even as direct as that (if memory serves) I’m not saying I think people should be banned for saying “if you do X I will do Y as a response” but this would clearly be consistant with the policy so far.
That is plain stupid. You can call it a promise but not a threat because it is conditioned to a violent act on the other side first. To be a threat a reasonable person has to feel threatened, has to feel fear. If anyone feels fear after hearing that either (a) he is planning on invading Aldebaran’s country (unlikely since we dont know which one it is) or (b) he is a complete idiot (more likely).
That anyone saying he would defend his country from American invasion would be considered a threat is mind-boggling but I guess that is where things are these days. I expect we may be seeing in the registration agreement a clause swearing allegiance to the USA and promising to aid American forces should they choose to invade your country. Either accept that or you can’t register because “if you are not with us you are against us”. And click on the pledge of allegiance every time we sign in. In these times of so much terrorism you can’t be too careful.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my point or what?
Zenster:Said he would beat someone with an axe handle if they crossed a picket line. Conditional statement:Do X I will do Y. Was banned for it.
Aldebaran:If you dream of invading my country I will kill you (implied)
Conditional Statement. Even pointed the finger at two posters in particular.
What’s the difference between the two? And how many times do I have to say that I’m not personally supporting this just pointing out the obvious fact that it isn’t picking on Alderbaran if it’s been used to ban posters in the past?
Darkhold, I do not know what happened with Zenster nor do I care. I am judging this case by what I know of it and on its own merits. I have no idea what happened in the other case and I do not think I need to know that one to judge this one on its own merits.
But Darkhold- you should KNOW by now the “rules” are not written down- that "the line’ is invisible and is in a different place for each Staffer, and that “being a jerk” depends to a certain extent upon the poster, not only what they do. Of course- most bannings are just- they are blatant trolls, socks, or spamsters. And I commend the Staff for their excellent work in keeping them out.
But such dudes are Satan & DITWD were apparently banned for offenses that didn’t even so much as get other posters warned. I say “apparently” as there certainly could have been private emails where dudes told Lynn & co to “go fuck yourself” or something. But from the posts still in the archive- there was no clear line of “jerkness” either one (or several others I don’t remember) crossed. Oh, don’t get me wrong- I am not saying either shouldn’t have been banned, but if their bannings were just, then many others should have gone with them.
So you don’t care that the rule has been known and applied in exactly the same way? So in your mind it’s all an pro-American conspiracy to ban a poster well known for his antics and borderline behavior?
Well ok…I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that part of it.
As for the merits I do think it is slightly shady to jump on him because of that. However considering how he’s been treading the line for awhile now I’m not going to say the last straw simply wasn’t heavy enough.
