# Lessons of SnakeSpirit: The burden of patience is on the majority. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 27, 2004, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415 "2004-10-27T09:24:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415/121 "2004-11-01T13:16:20Z")
Damn coding. Italics, italics… ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415/122 "2004-11-01T20:54:16Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Except that it’s not really self-interest but _species_-interest. In the example you provided? Not necessarily. On top of which, there’s a legitimate question of how much separation there is between the two. If you’re a human, than advancing the interests of the human species is ultimatly a selfish goal. > [@](#): > > I don’t see, however, too many posters coming forward who say, “I was so pissed off when SnakeSpirit attacked me!” I think just about any post directly attacking **SnakeSpirit** is saying that. I mean, if I tell a guy to go fuck himself, I expect it to be understood that I’m pissed off at him. > [@](#): > > Ah, but he wasn’t stable in this medium. Which I readily admit. The question is, What do we do with such insightful but not-quite-tuned-to-the-medium people? I should like to think we can avoid humiliation and banning. Insightful posters? I thought we were talking about **SnakeSpirit**. Okay, cheap shot, but what can you expect when you set me up like that? Speaking more seriously, though, posters who add substantively to debate are given siginifcantly more latitude around here. **Collounsbury** and **lissener** are both good examples of smart, knowledgable posters who were given extensive and repeated warnings about their behavior before they were banned, above and beyond what would be given a less informed Doper. **SnakeSpirit** simply doesn’t qualify for that sort of leniency, because even when he wasn’t acting out, he still had very little substantive to contribute to a debate. I’d be very interested to see a cite to the contrary, if you’re of a mind to dig one up, because from what I saw of his posting behavior, it didn’t amount to much more than him posting something anecdotal and/or unprovable, and then going ballistic if anyone questioned it. That’s not insightful, in my book. Inciteful, maybe. > [@](#): > > I would agree if SDMB set itself up as such a harsh environment. But I don’t see that. Well, that’s just not true, is it? Because you’ve been arguing for a kinder, gentler SDMB in this very thread. The fact that, in this entire imbroglio, the only poster to receive mod warnings was **SnakeSpirit** is itself evidence that the rough handling he took from other posters is condoned by the board culture. I should also add that my comments, despite discussing the board as a whole, were written more with the specific enviroment of the Pit in mind. I should have been more specific there. > [@](#): > > I think it’s possible. You can sense weaknesses or even quote from other posts. For example, I’ve been called a “mad nutter” because I believe that remote viewing/clairvoyance is real. This kind of thing. SnakeSpirit had his war-wound stories turned against him, etc. Cite for anyone attacking **SnakeSpirit** because of his wound? A lot of people simply didn’t believe him about being wounded at all, because by the time that came out, his credibility was pretty much totally shot, but where did anyone accept his story as factual and then use it as a basis to attack him? However, you are correct: if you share intimate details of your life on the board, you are leaving yourself open to a genuinely wounding attack. Which is why I don’t post anything here about my life if I can’t handle it being turned into an insult. This is just common sense. You wouldn’t share embarassing details of your personal life at a crowded party, why would you do it here? If being called a “mad nutter” (Who the hell said that, anyway? That’s like calling someone an insane crazy person. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s incompetent insults.) really hurt you, don’t air your beliefs where just anyone can hear them. It is not the responsibility of this board, or the moderators thereof, to safeguard the emotions of its posters. That is your look-out. No one else’s. > [@](#): > > Time decides these things. The whole point is that what seems to be working now might not seem to be working later. Well, that’s pretty obvious. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution to any problem or situation. This applies to your philosophy in the exact measure it applies to mine. > [@](#): > > I don’t disagree! He was an undisciplined poster. I cautioned him myself, and he didn’t listen. Payback was a bitch. But the overarching truth is that the board has lost, not gained, by his banning and the processes that led up to it. Well, I suppose we “lost” something, in the same way a cancer patient “loses” something when he has a tumor removed. What did **SnakeSpirit** bring to the boards that was new, interesting, or useful? His spiritual views are under-represented on this board, true, but he was a spectacularly poor advocate for them. Better that position go without an advocate at all, for a time, then the entire position get sabotaged by someone so uniformly unsuited to arguing it. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t disagree. The next step, I should think, is to transcend the manipulation of the psyche that anger and aggression effect. I’m right there learning with you. Totally wrong. Anger and aggression are as important as love and co-operation. To lose any one of these attributes would be to lose what makes us human. > [@](#): > > I stand by the original point I made. The current system lets people shit all over the board until they’re _finally_ banned. The proposed system allows far less merde to explode before a “cooling off.” YMMV. And then they come back, and start all over. Instead of **SnakeSpirit** shitting all over the boards for a month, he gets to spread it out over at least a quarter of a year. Yeah, that’s much preferable. > [@](#): > > It’s a good point. For the longer term, I think improvements could be made. The problem is balancing the needs of the board with the workload of the moderators. Most every “improved” system, yours included, means more work for the moderators, more avenues for complaint, and, ultimatly, ever increasing difficulty in finding _anyone_ who’d be willing to volunteer to try to run this place. What we have, works, and works damned well. Why change it just for the occasional fruitloop like **SnakeSpirit**? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415/123 "2004-11-01T21:58:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In the example you provided? Not necessarily. On top of which, there’s a legitimate question of how much separation there is between the two. If you’re a human, than advancing the interests of the human species is ultimatly a selfish goal. I see–we’re doing the old “everything is done for selfish reasons” argument. That’s semantic, so I think we’re at cross-purposes on that. > [@](#): > > I think just about any post directly attacking **SnakeSpirit** is saying that. I mean, if I tell a guy to go fuck himself, I expect it to be understood that I’m pissed off at him. I guess what I mean is that in these threads only the skeptics have come forward to say, “He pissed me off.” And that wasn’t because they were victimized by Snake. No one on this board was victimized by him. > [@](#): > > **SnakeSpirit** simply doesn’t qualify for that sort of leniency, because even when he wasn’t acting out, he still had very little substantive to contribute to a debate. I’d be very interested to see a cite to the contrary, if you’re of a mind to dig one up, because from what I saw of his posting behavior, it didn’t amount to much more than him posting something anecdotal and/or unprovable, and then going ballistic if anyone questioned it. We’re bound to disagree about what he contributed to the “paranormal” debates, but I could dig up cites from non-p threads. I might do that but I don’t have time right now. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s just not true, is it? Because you’ve been arguing for a kinder, gentler SDMB in this very thread. The fact that, in this entire imbroglio, the only poster to receive mod warnings was **SnakeSpirit** is itself evidence that the rough handling he took from other posters is condoned by the board culture. No disagreement about the board culture, but I don’t see where SDMB defines itself as harsh; on the contrary, I think it has a slightly distorted self-image as a place of genteel and rational debate. > [@](#): > > Cite for anyone attacking **SnakeSpirit** because of his wound? A lot of people simply didn’t believe him about being wounded at all, because by the time that came out, his credibility was pretty much totally shot, but where did anyone accept his story as factual and then use it as a basis to attack him? You seem to recognize here that it indeed did come up. I can’t get into the heads of those who were nasty about it to determine if they really believed Snake or not. > [@](#): > > However, you are correct: if you share intimate details of your life on the board, you are leaving yourself open to a genuinely wounding attack. Which is why I don’t post anything here about my life if I can’t handle it being turned into an insult. This is just common sense. You wouldn’t share embarassing details of your personal life at a crowded party, why would you do it here? People have their reasons; some are looking for therapy for, or insight into, their problems. > [@](#): > > If being called a “mad nutter” (Who the hell said that, anyway? That’s like calling someone an insane crazy person. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s incompetent insults.) really hurt you, don’t air your beliefs where just anyone can hear them. It is not the responsibility of this board, or the moderators thereof, to safeguard the emotions of its posters. That is your look-out. No one else’s. It was in my Bush supporters are mentally ill thread. I forget who it was and really don’t care. We have a different opinion as to how the board should be run. > [@](#): > > Totally wrong. Anger and aggression are as important as love and co-operation. To lose any one of these attributes would be to lose what makes us human. I’m not saying we should lose them; I’m saying we should deal with them better. > [@](#): > > And then they come back, and start all over. Instead of **SnakeSpirit** shitting all over the boards for a month, he gets to spread it out over at least a quarter of a year. Yeah, that’s much preferable. I don’t think you’re really engaging with my point here. I’m saying specifically that people should not be allowed to shit on the board for _any_ length of time. Once they do something that requires a warning, they should be sent off to cool. If they’re cooling they can’t post, can they? They can’t shit. > [@](#): > > The problem is balancing the needs of the board with the workload of the moderators. Most every “improved” system, yours included, means more work for the moderators, more avenues for complaint, and, ultimatly, ever increasing difficulty in finding _anyone_ who’d be willing to volunteer to try to run this place. What we have, works, and works damned well. Why change it just for the occasional fruitloop like **SnakeSpirit**? Again, I don’t think you’re seeing the point. Under the proposed system, a mod’s workload wouldn’t increase. There would be a one-to-one relationship between an e-mail warning (current system) and a cooling (proposed system). If anything, a mod’s workload would go down, since they would not have to watch posters like a hawk right after a warning, when the poster is likely to be pissed from being warned but unlikely to have pondered much his or her poor behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415/124 "2004-11-01T23:00:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > No disagreement about the board culture, but I don’t see where SDMB defines itself as harsh; on the contrary, I think it has a slightly distorted self-image as a place of genteel and rational debate. I don’t know what you’ve been reading (or smoking) but this false-dichotomy stuff is a sham. The SDMB is **neither** harsh **nor** a place of genteel and rational debate, and I don’t believe that either premise is commonly believed. I may be wrong, of course, but I try not to prove my case by making accusations against unnamed people, as I’ve seen you are (and Snake was) fond of doing. From what I have observed, the SDMB is a place of _entertaining_ debate that can roam from the rational (in GD, mostly) to the furiously profane (in the Pit, mostly). Snake could not or would not pick the appropriate places and methods to express himself, which isn’t exactly rocket science, so out he went. The burden of patience was well and truly met long before he got the well-deserved boot. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415/125 "2004-11-02T00:27:36Z")
I have a dear friend who “believes in everything!” It’s her religion, and her philosophy. Aliens, the illuminati, ghosts, tarot, phrenology, everything. She also claims to believe in Christ, and Buddha, and some guys I never heard of. She “tunes the harmonics” of her home with new crystals. I wanted so much to help her find out about her ignorance. I provided cites, and references to debunking pretty much everything she said to me. How surprised I was to find that she read many of them. But she won’t continue to read any book that has a tone of negative judgement on the matter being discussed. Why? Because she hates hearing people being smug about their “education.” I always assumed the woman had only a high school diploma, if that. I only learned after ten or so years that she has a BA in English literature, and an MA in economics. And she can tell you the birth and death date of every major philosopher since Socrates, and all the emperors of Rome. The woman just would not be as ignorant as I wanted her to be. I decided that there was an error in my plan to help her overcome her ignorance. First off, I had to overcome my own prejudice that folks who disagree with me do so because of faulty information. There is a realm of human interaction and behavior where her map of the universe works better than mine. I began to understand that more when I had experiences that did not surrender to skeptical observation. I had knowledge, without proof. I could ignore the knowledge. Ignoring knowledge is called ignorance. If you contend that your paranormal phenomenon are real, then I will only ask to see one. If you cannot reproduce them, I will accept that there are things I cannot describe in entirely materialistic terms. If you want money to help me become adept, I will let you know that money is one of those areas of human interaction where hard facts and evidence are relevant. If your examination of practitioners of the paranormal art you describe has never turned up even a single charlatan, I will be skeptical in the extreme. There are loads of pretend scientists, who make bogus claims at science, and evidence. Dishonesty is not paranormal, nor is it uncommon. But over all, I will be polite in your living room, or its electronic surrogate. I will respect your belief system pretty much as far as your belief system respects me. And I have learned that right/wrong is not the most important aspect of human expression. If I want to fight ignorance, first I have to fight mine, and then I have to find a way to keep you listening to what I have learned. Along the way, I will find out that some of my knowledge is just a special case of ignorance. ## Tris “As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.” ~ Josh Billings ~ ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415/126 "2004-11-02T03:08:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I see–we’re doing the old “everything is done for selfish reasons” argument. That’s semantic, so I think we’re at cross-purposes on that. It’s not a semantic argument, because we’re not arguing over the definition of “selfish.” Of course, now we’re arguing over the definition of “semantic,” which is a semantic argument. Also, ridiculously off-topic. > [@](#): > > I guess what I mean is that in these threads only the skeptics have come forward to say, “He pissed me off.” And that wasn’t because they were victimized by Snake. No one on this board was victimized by him. I don’t think anyone on this board has ever been victimized by anyone else on this board. Short of using this board to track down someone in real life, I don’t think it’s possible to victimize someone in this medium. Now, if you mean to say you don’t think **SnakeSpirit** was the _instigator_ in his various flame wars on this board, then I absolutely disagree. > [@](#): > > We’re bound to disagree about what he contributed to the “paranormal” debates, but I could dig up cites from non-p threads. I might do that but I don’t have time right now. Only if you feel like it. I’m willing to take your word for it. I’d just like to see one out of curiosity more than anything else. > [@](#): > > No disagreement about the board culture, but I don’t see where SDMB defines itself as harsh; on the contrary, I think it has a slightly distorted self-image as a place of genteel and rational debate. What **Bryan** said. What this board provides is a forum for almost any form of debate, from genteel to chummy to sharply adversarial to full-out wars of vulgarity. That’s what’s wonderful about it, and I’m generally opposed to any effort to change that. > [@](#): > > You seem to recognize here that it indeed did come up. I can’t get into the heads of those who were nasty about it to determine if they really believed Snake or not. No, I do not. I didn’t see _anyone_ give him grief about his alleged war wound. What I did see people attack him for were severe, and fully justified, doubts about his _veracity_. Saying “I don’t believe you were wounded in the war,” is not attacking him over his war wound. Saying “Shut up you dickless freak,” is using his war wound to attack him, and that would be beyond the pale even to me. If you’ve got a counter-example, feel free to share it. > [@](#): > > It was in my Bush supporters are mentally ill thread. I forget who it was and really don’t care. Ah. That was you, huh? You hear that sound? That was the moral highground sliding out from under your feet. I mean, I’ve insulted a lot of people in my tenure on the boards. But I’ve never insulted over a hundred million people at one go. Bravo. I’m very impressed. > [@](#): > > We have a different opinion as to how the board should be run. I think it’s pretty clear that it extends to a lot more than just how the board is run. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying we should lose them; I’m saying we should deal with them better. It sounds to me like you’re saying we shouldn’t deal with them at all. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you’re really engaging with my point here. I’m saying specifically that people should not be allowed to shit on the board for _any_ length of time. Once they do something that requires a warning, they should be sent off to cool. If they’re cooling they can’t post, can they? They can’t shit. So, you’re saying one post out of line and you can’t post for a month? Surprisingly draconian. How many suspensions does a poster get, under your system? > [@](#): > > Again, I don’t think you’re seeing the point. Under the proposed system, a mod’s workload wouldn’t increase. There would be a one-to-one relationship between an e-mail warning (current system) and a cooling (proposed system). If anything, a mod’s workload would go down, since they would not have to watch posters like a hawk right after a warning, when the poster is likely to be pissed from being warned but unlikely to have pondered much his or her poor behavior. I don’t see how this system could result in anything but more work for the mods. They’d still have to keep track of how often a poster has been warned, but they’ll also have to mess around in the database three times as often to change posting priviledges and keep track of how long each poster has been sitting in the penalty box. Plus, if I’m reading your “anything requiring a warning gets a suspension” idea earlier correctly, they’re going to be suspending huge numbers of posters on a regular basis. 99% of the people who get a mod warning shape up immediately, and even continue to participate postively in the same thread they were warned. In your system, that can’t happen. They’re out for a week or a month, or however long, and the conversation moves on or dies. Not only is your system unwieldy, but it would be greatly detrimental to the purpose of the board. You want to overhaul the entire system to grant _yet another_ chance to a tiny minority of posters who are never going to get their shit together, no matter how much time they get to “cool off.” **SnakeSpirit** was going to get banned no matter what, because he was just too damned stupid to follow the rules. This plan would create a _massive_ hassle for the mods, alienate most of the regular posters, and not do a damned thing to help out the people you’re trying to help, because there’s simply no helping them. It is, I am sorry to say, an _incredibly_ bad idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lessons-of-snakespirit-the-burden-of-patience-is-on-the-majority/271415.md?page=6)