Nice one. thank you.
I still don’t quite understand why this need be the case, and i think that a more laissez-faire attitude would work just fine, but it’s not a big deal.
Well, just for the record, that wasn’t up to me alone or my doing/decision singly…it was a staff-as-a-whole decision (although I was for it).
This is a great decision.
I’m strongly in favor of laisse-fair moderating, but there comes a point where a poster needs to be protected from his/herself. I’m fine mocking posters, but to me, it seems if a poster has real, legitimate issues, and this new rule seems more about protecting the poster from himself. (And in this case, protecting his wife)
Are you familiar with the history of this poster? As he’s indicated in his own threads, he has some significant mental issues. Unfortunately, JohnClay has not shown very good judgement in the topics he’s started. He’s posted quite a few threads that have gotten seriously negative responses, to the extent that virtually any new thread is going to devolve into discussion of those other issues. In fact, the very first response in that thread was to tell him to go away, rather than discuss what he posted in the thread. Preventing these kinds of responses would probably require almost constant monitoring of his threads by a moderator.
If posters are following him around and harassing him about stuff that has nothing to do with the current thread, I would say they are the ones who need punishment. Start handing out a few Warnings for it, and you wouldn’t need to watch so carefully. If you have a problem with a poster in general, and not just the current thread, such a response goes in the Pit, as Ellen’s mod note so graciously says.
Punishments of posters should be solely for their own actions, and not the actions of others who they can’t control. I’m not saying you don’t have reasons like that, as I stopped reading the guy’s threads a long time ago, but this post here has not in any way made a case for it.
What is JohnClay doing that requires him to have a restriction on what he can post? What others do to him is immaterial. You guys have made it extremely clear that the last thing you want here is mob rule. No one should be restricted from posting because other people can’t stop themselves from harassing him.
When a poster continually opens threads and makes revelations about their own behavior that consistently attract negative attention, we have to consider the possibility that they may be trolling. So far we’ve given JohnClay the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he just can’t evaluate his own behavior or the response to it very well.
I don’t regularly get involved with such discussions, and I have rarely, if ever, posted to a JohnClay thread. I’m aware of them, I read them, I don’t post.
But why on earth are you making the inability of other posters to refrain from being rude JohnClay’s problem? I seriously don’t get this.
Every. Single. Poster. Here. posts in order to get responses. It’s what message boards are about. If nobody did that. SDMB would have died long ago. Why is JohnClay being singled out when he is not actually violating any rules or mandates? I can think of quite a few other posters who are 832x more annoying than him but, whatever. I can ignore them both literally and figuratively.
This is fucking insane. No, seriously. Some of you people need to realize that the SDMB does not equal real life.
I disagree, on two counts. First, this place is essentially a bar where we all gather and hang out. If someone is generally at the center of conflict, it’s appropriate to talk to that person, asking them to behave different so as not to generate conflict.
Second, of course the SDMB equals real life. I don’t go to fantasy land before I type. It’s me, flesh and blood, sitting at the keyboard, just as it’s you, flesh and blood, reading my words. Sure, we’re not vibrating air with our larynxes to vibrate each other’s eardrums in order to communicate, but we’re communicating nonetheless. Separating the Internet from the rest of life is a false separation and not a grand idea.
So no responsibility on the responders, who could just as easily let go? Okie dokie. Let’s just blame the easy target.
No. SDMB is actually not real life. If it’s actually real life to you, I am sorry that you don’t get the difference.
Online life is a part of real life, and and ever-increasing one. It’s not a replication of flesh-and-blood “life” but rather an addition to it. There is nothing imaginary to it; in the sense that only one person experiences it.
As you admit, you aren’t getting it. You seem to be entirely misunderstanding the issue here. As I said, JohnClay has some significant mental issues. He’s posted things about his relationship with his wife (for one example) that some people, perhaps justifiably, respond negatively to.
This is not about people reacting negatively to another poster’s opinions about TV shows, but someone putting on display deep aspects of their life that probably shouldn’t be.
See, this is why you don’t get it. As has been pointed out, it is a part of life. It may not be real life at all to you, but it’s a significant part of life for some posters. We have some OCD posters who become utterly obsessed with what happens on the board. This can have actual real-life consequences. You shouldn’t brush this aside so cavalierly.
Okay, Idle Thoughts issued a Warning to John Clay. After reading the responses to this Warning, IT rethought it and rescinded it. Though his last thread is still closed.
Am I the only person who sees what happened is that IT made a good decision from making a bad decision? Sort of like the topic of JC’s thread that was closed.
Maybe it’s just me.
Mind. Blown. 
I would like to point out an error in that thread. In this post, it’s stated that it’s against the rules to change your username. That’s both kinda true and misleading. You can change your username, but it requires an email to (I think) TubaDiva. Granted, it’s against the rules to set up a new account. But that wasn’t what JohnClay said. What he said was
Maybe I’m overthinking it, though.
Actually, I said it was against the rules to make another account in that post, which it is. I didn’t say anything about it being against the rules to change one’s username.
From his post, I felt it sounded more like he was considering making a new account than changing his username, but YMMV.
That’s fair. I guess I interpreted it differently.
Thanks for retracting that warning. But as they say “all good things must come to an end”. BTW if I did change my username I guess the new name would show up on my old posts so then people would know my true identity…
Awesome.
Spider-Man ?
How is real people communicating with each other not real? The internet isn’t some fantasy haven that exists only in your mind. You do realize that things that happen in online discussions can have very real consequences? The law certainly doesn’t consider online message boards as bring “not real.”