I defy you to find any post in which I supported the idiocy of gonzomax. In fact, it will be easier to find posts in which I compared his posts to those of ralph124c.
Gonzo’s general sentiments were fine, it’s just that people would be discussing something in GD…interacting, responding to questions and the like…and he would pop in out of nowhere with these declarations that weren’t in response to anything and would be better suited to the comments section of a blog or article as opposed to a thread. Then he would squabble with people who responded to him and derail the whole thread.
Frank, I never said you specifically did. And I guess most of the lamentation in this thread is more theoretical, and not specifically about gonzo…but I’m a bit surprised how much is. Aren’t you?
-XT
No, I’m not, due to my experience of being attacked by such as elucidator, Shayna, et. al., because of my opinion that gonzomax was politically an idiot.
I don’t see such a political defense of him here. I’m unsure as to where you’re getting it.
I guess it’s not political…just surprised anyone is defending him I guess. I didn’t know you were attacked for saying that stuff about gonzo either. :eek:
-XT
I’m not feeling the love. My impression of this thread is that there are a number of people lobbying against the banning because they are worried they’ll be next.
In some cases people have accumulated some warnings or have come off a recent suspension so they have a vested interest in discouraging future bannings, in other cases people who haven’t even had a warning feel like the banning came from nowhere so it could happen to them (despite the “he was warned about 15 times in the last two years” part of the ban announcement).
I am sorry but that is a very stupid decision.
A warning is given, even in part, for posting thoughts about what a policy is or is not on this message board, in the forum “About This Message Board”, the forum designed for comments about message board policy? Because you take umbrage at being told he thinks you are incorrect when you think you are not?
That is very goofy.
It is even goofier in the context of this thread in which it was explained what the purpose of warnings is supposed to be:
Fenris had, without warning being issued, already apologized for the post and stated that he would do it differently in the future already. Behavior change already achieved.
So what is the point of warnings, since clearly changing future behavior was not being accomplished in this case? Slapping down someone who disagrees with you? (In this case about something you state is established policy rather than an unofficial tradition that many of us who post here have never heard of as official policy/rule before?)
But again, what should the likes of Fenris care about getting one stupid warning? He does not have a long pattern of rule breaking, isn’t about to start having such, and is not going to get suspended let alone banned because of one capricious and ill thought out mod decision.
Which brings me to Gonzomax’s banning … if he was given explicit warnings that certain repetitive rule-breaking behaviors continuing would result in banning, no more second chances, and he then continued in those behaviors, well then, so be it.
The problem this board has always had - and I go way back - is it’s ‘values’ reflect the cyber equivelant white, middle-class, midwest academica. Which is trying too hard in the first place.
That’s not to say everyone is white middle class and from the midwest, I’m talking about what is deemed acceptable here.
In the end, it excludes all those who either don’t naturally fit - or who aren’t willing to conform to - a kind of provincial, parochial, beige sweater, behavioural template.
Thus it remains provincial, parochial and utterly predictable.
You’ve named the problem, yet left the description vague enough that it can’t be refuted. Not bad.
How about being a bit more specific about which “values” aren’t welcome here(examples would be nice.)
I’m sure staff doesn’t take banning someone lightly. I can see their point that it really is a last resort to many as the refuse to follow the required drummer. However, I can think of two relatively recent bannings that I believed hurt this board more than helped it. Should they have been allowed to set their own rules? Probably not. But in all honesty, I don’t believe all the warnings which led to their bannings were justified. There are some of us here, I assume, who weren’t bothered by their behavior, and actually, enjoyed watching it at times. Kind of like being a teenager again and watching your father sneak in and brake dance at your senior prom. As embarrassed as you’d be, a part of you would be proud for him.
And you are here why? I’m truly puzzled when posters take this position and then continue to post and read here. If it’s so bland, I would be long gone myself.
I believe said as much. Look, I hardly take this place to heart nor I am given to cyberfriendships, thus in that context Gonzo was just so many (sure, at times not quite coherent) pixels on my monitor. All I am saying is that I feel he took a lot more than he gave – and what he “gave” was, overall, rather harmless.
But hey! That’s the way the cookie crumbles. Wish him & his beagles well, that’s all
Even I have to admit the PSOE had to go – that said they took all sorts of flack for actually applying the very economic measures Rajoy & Company will have to follow…and then some. It’s the Merkel/Sarkosky show in the EU for now. So not so sure things are looking up just yet.
But yeah, sure, score one for the right.
Again, not much to do with popularity, and yes, in fact many a time he hurt more than helped his side – which is by and large mine as well – but rather the fact that the whole thing is, IMO, rather lame. That’s all.
Obviously not, or we would both have been banned by now.
Yes. There is a line that you and I don’t cross (as a rule). gonzo did, a dozen or more times. Your earlier post seemed to be implying that he was being treated unfairly in some way, or not allowed to respond when he was attacked or piled on. And I don’t think that is even in the same zip code as “true”.
I am not sure if you have ever been Pitted, and I have been only a handful of times considering my tenure here and the general unpopularity of my views, but don’t you think it is indicative of something that someone like gonzo, whose political views are a lot more congenial to the SDMB culture than mine, got Pitted and/or piled on to the extent he did?
I guess I agree with you there, but it doesn’t strike me as much of a razor’s edge.
gonzo had that annoying habit of posting stuff that he obviously half-remembered, misheard, or outright made up on the spot, and then when challenged, he would cite something that was either almost completely unrelated to his claim, or even contradicted it. That’s the part of ‘not fitting into the SDMB culture’ that bothered me about him. Most people who do stuff like that either shut up, figure out how it’s done and do it, or get banned. gonzo never seemed to do the first two, so that last was pretty much inevitable.
The other thing is something I posted to him a while ago. Insults in the Pit should not be taken all that seriously. We are sort of “playing the dozens” there. I don’t think gonzo ever got that, and unfortunately it spilled over into his postings elsewhere besides the Pit.
I have mixed feelings about his banning. No matter how irritating he could be, it was hard to dislike him, because he was obviously sincere, albeit not overburdened with brains and rather pig-headed to boot.
It appears that my telling him that he was pulling something out of his ass that put him over the top and his response got him banned. I regret that, which is why I tried to withdraw the remark. The trouble is, he did pull it out of his ass, and he was never going to come up with a credible cite.
If it wasn’t me, it would be someone else, but it still shouldn’t have been me.
So gonzo, if you ever read this, I apologize again. I wasn’t baiting you, and I wish you well.
Regards,
Shodan
At first glance, it might seem as your post was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but in reality you only added that one straw(which you retracted almost immediately)-he was bound to react the way he did to just about anything critical of his arguments, and it’s just not feasible to ask other posters not to treat him as they normally would treat all others.
The SDMB’s razor-edge? Good Lord, if I used an edge like that to shave with I’d have a beard as long as Rip Van Winkle’s and Methusaleh’s together. Least irksome and most easily understood rules ever.
Shodan, I should have added “in The Pit.” And yes, I also agree with you that postings there should be taken with a grain of salt – in fact, most of the junk sent my way either makes me laugh or roll my eyes. But I can understand how/why others may not be so thick-skinned.
And yeah, I’ve been Pitted two or three times in my stay here – IIRC, XT took my Pit cherry and so far as I know we’re cool with each other. The other ones were by Finn…so hilarity ensued. But yes, I get our point vis-a-vis Gonzo. Suppose I didn’t really notice how many times he was taken to task. Like you say, for whatever reason I just couldn’t help but like the guy. Oh well.
Anyway, good on you for sending good vibes his way.
You are funny.
Just from The Pit Rules – and as far as I can tell, it isn’t a parody of George Carlin :
That clear 'nuff for you? 
A few posts on page one of this thread. Numbers 30 and 36 to be specific. That’s not a lot but it is some. Maybe XT should have said “at all popular” instead of “so popular”.
Same reason why most come here, GQ.
Harrumph!
Guess I’m chopped liver. 
His sidekick act with FX Mastermind on the nuclear treads was sad as it was clear that FX was pulling a lot of BS and gonzo just continued supporting him even after me and many others had already showed how wrong FX and gonzo were.
Now when are they going to close FX’s blog in the Pit?
Heck, if he is so popular, un-ban him and treat this as an especially threatening suspension. I always thought he represented the opinionated old-guy demographic myself, a guy who didn’t grow up with anything digital of any kind, let alone internet message boards. I don’t think he debated well, but he did sometimes have a really good cite.
If it is like taking a cork off a bottle and then putting it back on again, then the mods get to silently declare, “We were right!” If he comes back and manages not to get himself banned again, then he can remain a posting manifestation of the notion that the mods are fallible and sometimes wrong in particular cases.
I bet the mods will just luuuuuv this suggestion 