I have been warned

I don’t think I’ve ever started a pit thread but I could be wrong. So as far as my memory goes, this is my first one so hopefully it doesn’t suck too bad. There won’t be much raging because I’m not actually that mad.

I’m pretty much a non-entity around here which is how I like it. I don’t try to start any trouble and most of my contributions have to do with kittens and that sort of thing. So I was quite surprised when I got a warning for this:

My goal in posting that was hoping someone would take pity on me and let me know if I could completely ignore someone.

Many of my childhood memories consist of being tossed a towel so I could wipe the ejaculate off myself. Not really a fun thing for a 7 year old. Reading about someone who wants to be allowed to fuck babies is a bit distressing to me. I’ve never called for anyone to be banned, I just personally don’t want to read about the fantasies of a pedophile. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

I wasn’t even angry about the warning, it was sort of a bit funny to me. This is how it kind of seems from my perspective:

Thread about children
Cesario “I wish I could fuck babies”
Moderators “…”

Thread about sex
Cesario “I wish I could fuck babies”
Moderators “…”

Thread about breaking the law
Cesario “I wish I could fuck babies”
Moderators “…”

Thread about something else
Cesario “I wish I could fuck babies”
Moderators “…”

FloatyGimpy “I wish I didn’t have to listen to him”
Moderator "WARNING WARNING!!! Permanent yellow square by your name which will NEVER EXPIRE!!!

I actually don’t know if I’ve done something wrong by making this thread and posting it in the pit so sorry if I’ve broken some other rule.

You did nothing wrong by starting this thread. They go in About This Message Board now. I’ll move it for you.

Pit Moderator

Moved from The BBQ Pit to About This Message Board.

Ok, thank you.

You’re welcome. :smiley: I’ll let **xash **respond to your OP, now that we’re in the right forum.

Egregious. Just plain egregious. Sorry you have been burned.

I posted this in the linked thread:

I don’t think a warning is in order. She didn’t identify the poster, and it’s not clear who the poster is to anyone who did not read a certain thread or threads.

Yes, she could have posted the question without the example that caused her to ask it; but I think an official warning is not merited.

I think the rule that one can name names in the Pit but nowhere else is a little precious to begin with.

I think warning someone for not naming names, but supplying facts that might permit an inference in a non-Pit forum–and then when a third party asks for the identity of the ignored party, the warning mod invites creating a thread in the Pit to name the person–is mod behavior more fitting for a Sicssorjack-esque surrealist parody, not actual enforcement of the board’s rules.

This particular trap for the unwary should be undone, the rule should be strictly construed (actually, the rule should be eliminated, but dare to dream–who has ever heard of the SDMB ruleset decreasing in number?!), and the warning should be expunged.

Particularly since the end result is that this pit thread containing the name now sits in ATMB.

Taking into consideration your intentions and the circumstances that prompted you to include that information, I will rescind your warning.

I am sorry if this has caused you any pain. My intention was merely to apply the rules, and my initial read was that you included that information as a dig at the poster in question; I see now that you did not include that information in bad faith.

I do hope that my solution to your question in the original thread allows you a better experience on these boards.


Wow, thank you so much! :slight_smile: And your link did completely rectify the problem so again, thank you.

xash: I applaud your decision.

Classy move.

I do think, since this kind of complaint is being moved to ATMB now, that the same leeway for naming other users (not abusively, but like the OP did in the other thread) should apply here, too.

I just don’t understand this rule. Either the contents of your ignore list should be private and undisclosed, or it shouldn’t. Being able to disclose it in just one forum seems daft. What’s to stop someone starting a thread in ATMB, not naming the ignored person, and simultaneously opening another thread in the Pit, referencing the thread in ATMB, and naming the ignored person?

I appreciate that that would go against the spirit of the rules, and could be considered jerkish, but…

It should be completely private, or completely open.

I think you’re missing the point of the rule. We don’t particularly care if other people know who is on your ignore list. However, telling them who is on the list is essentially an insult. You’re basically telling them, “Nyah! Nyah!, I’m not listening to you.” As an insult, it is permitted in the Pit, but prohibited elsewhere on the board.

In this case, the primary intent seems to have been to obtain information about how the ignore list functions, rather than to directly insult another poster. The issue is insults, not the list itself.

Excellent rescission, xash! The sign of good moderation is to always be open to rethinking a decision when appropriate.

Heck, I remember a GD argument that had someone ending a post like:

Post in GD:

“…but you only claim that {url=link to new pit thread}because-{/url}”

OP of Pit thread:

“-you suck!”

Or something to that effect.

Something I’ve been wondering for a while…

You’re in a discussion in GD(for example), and poster asks a specific question regarding a post you’ve made there.

poster happens to be on your ignore list, so you don’t see his post. Everyone else does see it though and start asking you to respond.

How do you tell them why you haven’t replied, without revealling the fact that poster is on your ignore list?
Or does the ignore feature work differently to the way I’m thinking?

“I didn’t see his post.”

“Could you look at it now and respond to it?”