Over in the recently closed Liberal Pit thread about Lib’s style, I posted a short (slightly mocking) summary of his pet topics. TVeb not only removed all the included SDMB thread links but the whole content as well. I was left with a warning for being a dreary little troll. Nothing is left of my post to suggest otherwise.
Now I understood Giraffe’s original warning. My first offlink was a little much. So I thought I specifically toned it down and played well within the bounds.
Veb I get the distinct impression you have made a decision on my character which is not letting you see my posts clearly. I know I kind of jabbed you with a stick a couple of weeks ago but I wish you would see that I’m not driven by malice.
Well Ethilirist I guess it’s impossible for you to compare that definition to what I was warned for, seeing as how it was deleted. But it was as I described: a short pet topic summary on Liberal.
I guess I’ll address this, as it seems to indicate a common misconception. I’m not a character in a book and I’m not the member of some underground internet brotherhood. I don’t have some over-arching “drive” for posting on SDMB.
In this instance I wanted Liberal’s current attention drive to be rerouted.
I fail to see how posting a short and civil response with links to threads as an example is a problem. I confess I am a bit baffled. Either this guy is a member and is entitled to post a response in a Pit thread, or he is persona non grata. Granted I didn’t see the links, but the deletion makes it look like he linked to porn sites or something. Count me in as puzzled.
He linked to some threads by Liberal. Sure, it wasn’t in the best of taste, but that’s why we have the pit. I fail to see how he violated any rules, but I guess that’s up to the mods to decide. There’s another poster who keeps a list of Liberal’s links that he cut ‘n’ pastes into messages, and who’s never gotten warned for it.
CarnalK, look back at the threads in which you’ve gathered five warnings in the past two months. Along with your other recent posts, they paint a picture of a poster whose primary purpose here is to cause problems and create drama. We don’t need posters whose only raison d’etre is to incite conflict so they can crow about it on the anonymous snark blogs.
On top of all this, your personal snark site (the one I removed the link to) is a big flashing neon sign reading “my only purpose on the SDMB is to stir shit”. While we don’t normally bother reading poster’s personal websites to try to guess their motives, it’s pretty hard to miss when they link to them as part of a shit-stirring campaign. For you to continue dumping content from it on the boards right after you were warned about it is a clear statement of your true motives. Our goal is not to help you find technicalities that allow you to keep stirring shit. You need to decide if you want to be a normal, non-shit-stirring poster here or not.
Dude, we’re not stupid. We can read what you write on other websites, especially when you advertise them here. It doesn’t take many cases of you trying to cause problems here and then bragging about it over on the anon blogs before we decide you’re an irredeemable troll who the board would be better off without.
Which would be a relevant point, Giraffe, if this was a banning (and thus the topic of discussion was ones “pattern of behavior.” However, the question at hand is why popping up a list of links to SDMB threads is a problem. It’s not unprecedented - what makes this instance different from other such incidents?
The problem wasn’t that he had a private list of links about a given poster. The problem was that he had a public website mocking specific posters and gleefully hashing over past conflicts, pretty much a Shit-Stirrers Desk Reference. After being warned about linking to it, he cut and pasted the section he’d linked to the first time and posted that.
Could he have gotten away with it had he not first linked to the site and called our attention to it? Probably. Did he link to the site? Yep. Can he now get away with posting content from that site now that he’s shown it to us? No, he can’t.
I think the difference is the link to the off-site “snark” blog. Have you seen any those things? They’re just about the saddest, pettiest, most pathetic things you’ve ever seen in your life. The board can’t prevent people from creating them, but I gots no prblem with them coming down hard on anyone who admits to running on of those cesspits.
Actually Giraffe, I didn’t just cut and paste it. I editted it so that it would be appropriate for the forum. Did you compare the texts? I made no mention of my site in the post Veb warned me for.
The purpose of my site is to set the record straight. You are simply wrong about your flashing neon impression.
BTW, as a courtesy to me, could you link those 5 warnings? That seems high.
This is bullshit. If it’s valid information (and I don’t know that it is because I didn’t see the post before it was deleted) then why should it matter where it came from? It’s no worse than cross posting to another site which I thought was allowed if it is your own stuff.
Yes he did Ex.
Or at the very least if we are to split hairs, to a page with much of the same content which included links back to other snark “communities”.
And so it seems here you are claiming right of first publisher on all my Pittings?
Also it’s pretty FOS to bring up bullshit descriptions of my “crowing” on the anon boards when I’m not allowed to post links showing my real demeanor over there. Pretty cheap, dude.
