So if you threaten a lawsuit against an SD poster and then ask nicely you can get a thread taken down? Any word from Ed if this is available to everybody?
Stop [del]discussing facts[/del] “posting additional comments on this matter”!
And Ed said this was a one time deal. So that’s a no go for having your “Go to hell and Die, Rosa Parks!” thread hushed up.
Only to those who want to put everything behind them and move on. Then wait a few years, contact Ed and threaten lawsuits, and follow up by asking nicely.
Be sure not to mention any names, or rehash the incident.
Regards,
Shodan
Good one. I was sure somebody was going to come back with the Hillary Clinton tapes of '74 when I posted that.
As has been seen before, if you are a poster and threaten legal action it’s an instaban. As it should be.
Have you read the Oh that Kayaker, he is such a dumbfuck thread?
And if you are a poster and ask nicely, they will delete a thread wherein you were disparaged. Except they usually don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m curious: up 'till right now, there’s been an immovable bright-line. “You’re a member? Threaten to sue the board? Instaban” rule.
Redacted is a member here Straight Dope Message Board - Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.
He threatened to sue the board.
He was not banned.
DPWhite? Threatened to sue the board because Scylla changed stuff in a quote box (before there was a “Quote Boxes are sancrosanct” rule–I’m pretty sure this is what caused the rule) and DPWhite was instabanned.
Melin (earliest example I can think of) claimed her rep was being smeared by the SDMB because of stuff posted on the usenet(IIRC) and was instabanned (I came in right as she was banned, but that’s what I remember–regardless of what she was suing for/about, the threat of a lawsuit=instaban).
KGS was being “defamed” and threatened to sue…he was instabanned
Why is Redacted not banned? What gives him the (literally) unique exemption to the hard and fast, unambiguous rule that “it’s been clear for years–even before I became a mod–that threats of lawsuits against the SDMB will earn you a one-way ticket off the island.” (from Moderator SkipMagic)?
Some weeks ago, I had posted reference in a similarly-themed thread here in ATMB to this affair expressing concern about alluding to people in the public sphere and whether we (I) could look forward to future threat of legal action if we (I) did so. I take it that it’s still okay to do so? I mean, if they get their feelings hurt by it in a few years, we’ll (I’ll) cross that bridge when those chickens hatch, right?
On an entirely unrelated note, **Loach **said that if you’re a poster and threaten legal action, it’s an instaban (I take this to be short for “instant ban”). Is this accurate? If so, I may have transgressed a teeny, tiny bit in my one and only complaint to moderators.
On preview, I see Fenris is concerned as well.
If that is in fact him it would be a symbolic ban at best. 0 posts. Its not like being banned keeps you from seeing the board.
But yes those other examples confirm my faulty memory. Although I can’t find it in writing anywhere as a rule its a good one. The threat tends to be part of an extortion (do what I say or else!). No need to keep those people around.
Just so we are clear on the rules:
Its right there in the agreement. Ed could have done it quietly without fanfare but I appreciate that he made it public so opinions could be expressed.
Nobody’s arguing that they didn’t have the right to delete the thread. They could change my username to Loves2Splooge if they wanted.
I’d be ok with a symbolic ban. It would at least be consistent.
Look at the last link in my last post–Skipmagic clearly states it as a rule.
I’m guessing that all his posts were in that one now disappeared thread. Therefore the post count went down to zero.
As a registered Guest he retains to privilege to post again, maybe here in this discussion thread. I agree that for consistency a ban should be imposed. Although for all we know allowing him the right to return and post to defend his reputation was part of the agreement that the lawyers who should have been consulted and weren’t would not have allowed through.
And there’s the problem with one-of-a-kind special order exceptions. Say that they don’t apply to “A” and pretty soon you’re trying to deal with why they don’t apply to “B” and “C” and “X”.
The handle was only created in order to threaten Equipoise, I believe.
Yeah, i don’t think he ever actually made a post.
Nor did he accept my friend request.
Does anyone? 
There’s a tear in my beer. Actually,more of a barley-wine.
The decision to forgive and forget should have been Equipoise’s alone. Ed should have consulted her. He should have demanded that Michael apologize to her for his threats and bribes and such if he wanted a chance of having the thread removed from the internet.
I like Crazyhorse’s memorial/tribute to the voices that were silenced without consultation.
Of course, I am aware of the “things can be deleted for any reason or no reason,” and I do think it’s nice Ed even gave us a reason at all. The fact that he rehashed the entire thing was pretty epic and hilarious, to boot.
He just needs some time to get to know you better.