I’m baffled by this agonizing over the interpretation of the rule. It seems perfectly simple to me. Leave the guy out of discussions on this subject. Referencing his name in this connection or his previous statements could quite easily provoke him to enter such threads.
Maybe I’m wrong and the rule isn’t that sweeping but it’s certainly the safest way to look at it. And why on earth would we need to keep bringing his name up? It’s totally irrelevant to any serious discussion of the subject.
aldiboronti, in case you haven’t figured it out, there are some posters around here who, no matter what rule or ruling issues, will work their hardest to try and create trouble out of the situation, usually by pretending to be some sort of rules lawyer looking for loopholes. They aren’t doing it for any reason other than to stir up shit over something the mods did. 
I also, fail to see the problem. Just don’t name him.
How hard is that?
You know, a simple membership decision could take care of this. Just a suggestion of my own.
It is an awful lot like the previous circumstances; I hope you can understand why I am drawing parallels.
My point is, as I said earlier, we often referenced Evil Captor after he had a somewhat special ruling instead of just being banned. I can easily anticipate situations where Cesario will be referenced in the future.
You may refer to him – as you did by starting this thread, which is still open, you’ll notice – but not in ways that would incite him to come in and defend himself against accusations, aspersions, or personal remarks.
If I remember correctly, Evil Captor was annoying but nothing more. Cesario was annoying but also has extremely unpopular views. Posters would be unlikely to bait Evil Captor into getting banned but the same cannot be said for Cesario. Think of it as like putting a pedophile into solitary confinement in jail for their own protection.
I tried this: I googled “----philia Message Board” and we were on the first page! (the first four letters removed to not add fuel to the “invasion”.)
So yeah, if you want this to stop, stop posting about it or at least using that word so it will drop off the front page of Google results!
Doesn’t Google’s search algorithm operate based on the number of external links to a given site? If so, the problem might be someone deciding to advertise this contravercy off site (for whatever reason).
There are significant differences, in that bondage (engaged in by consenting adults) is not a crime; Cesario’s predilection, if actually engaged in, would be a very serious offense. Also bondage, although considered a bit squicky by some, does not inspire anywhere close to the degree of revulsion and outrage that Cesario’s subject does. And the latter case has brought far more controversy to the board than the Evil Captor case did.
Actually, no I don’t. Your previous post makes me think you have some other agenda here rather than simple “fairness.”
Perhaps, but it shouldn’t be done gratuitously, as in the case of your previous post.
Partly, but this board is indexed: often I will google some phrase in a message board post I have just typed a couple hours ago and it will return my post in the first page: I hardly think that I am popular enough that people will link to me so often 
(although I do think I have been on the front page due to links a couple of times, the speed and consistency with which it happens means that it can’t be due to links primarily.)
My WAG is that Google indexes due to links, but also puts recent message board posts pretty high too (and, in the case of my search, aggregates them: I think the reason it came up under that search was that there were 3 threads found for my particular search so it ranked the SDMB that much higher in the results.)
Doubtful. If you look more closely, you’ll see that google identifies a number of other threads on that subject at the SDMB. It’s not the Cesario discussion that put us on the front page of search results.
Google shows almost 800 separate threads on the topic in question at SDMB.
Come on, seriously? You truly don’t see the connection, or you’re trying to score a point?
I admit I might not know something about Cat Whisperer’s posting history, but you can see the connection he (she’s) trying make.
I think the problem is that most message boards actually devoted to this topic are smart enough to turn Google indexing off. The last thing they want is for people to find them on Google and troll them.
It may sound bad, but this topic is one of those things people like to discuss. It’s kind of like rubbernecking at a car crash.
Fortunately, anyone stupid enough to think this board is devoted to this will be quickly found out. And other people aren’t going go bother looking it up. Only Dopers and ex-Dopers are going to know, unless there’s someone who is a big enough jerk to go spreading it around.
So what? What difference does it make?
Which is part of why I’m not getting why the kid-glove-handling of Cesario.
I’ve stated my only agenda here already. If you have suspicions about my motives, why don’t you just ask me, instead of implying something? I’m not planning anything, but I’ve been here long enough to know how things go.
“Gratuitous” is an awfully subjective term - I thought that was a valid example of what I was asking about.
It makes as much difference as anything that goes on on an internet message board.
Not really. If the mods decided that it was against the rules to criticize the current U.S. president, that would make a huge difference to this board. Saying we can’t mention Cesario’s proclivities, not so much.
Frankly, if it were up to me, Cesario would have been banned in September. Since he wasn’t it would be best to stop talking about him in the hopes that he will go away. The fact that it’s a rule only helps matters.
There’s a board full of assholes that delight in doing that kind of crap. I won’t name it, but it rhymes with jackshit.
Google doesn’t index posts from the snackpit, nor does it index references from it.