:eek:The Night of the Long Posts!!!:eek:
I think you’re wrong. I remember at least one specific case where a poster in the Pit was banned for urging another to commit suicide (he said something to the effect of “You’re such a worthless piece of shit. Why don’t you go and take a knife and cut your throat and spare the world your ignorance”. Those aren’t the words he used but they’re close to the tone)
I can’t find the thread in question though.
Fenris
Fenris: Monty is just having a whine about an incident in another pit thread. Another poster told Monty to drop dead, or something to that effect.
So, rather than address the issue directly, Monty is trying to gather support for the general proposition that “urging other posters to commit suicide should be a bannable offence”, before revealing that it was in fact Monty himself that was “attacked” in such this faishion.
Fenris: I recall a poster who urged someone to shoot himself and someone else to consume dishwasher fluid. He was banned but subsequently allowed back ( only to be banned again for something else).
Yep I think exactly the same*. I posted in that thread and it’s only because a workmate asked me to do something for him that I didn’t go further and get banned myself.
I do think that a few of the mods are going way OTT about some things of late. Yes it’s a thankless unpaid job but if you’re too overworked or bored of the repetition to do it without getting pissy all the time then maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. My useless 2c.
- Not that I’m under any illusion that I’ll be a great loss to GQ BTW
If that’s the case, don’t count my post in support of a "No ‘Drop Dead’ " policy. I’m fine with the idea that banning someone who advocates suicide for another poster. But: telling someone to “drop dead” is not the same thing (IMO) as advocating a poster commit suicide, IMO.
Jabba: I may be thinking of the “shoot himself” incident.
Fenris
Here it is. DaLovinDJ…violence is NEVER justified?
Having read the linked thread in the OP, all I can say is that he missed one in that thread.
(no, I’m not referring to the OP here either)
As for the banned in the OP - well, I didn’t know two of them, but I liked two of those guys quite a lot, and it’s really terrible to see them gone. It’s really hard to see javaman go especially, even though we did argue a lot about engineering.
Originally posted very wisely by Fenris:
Yes, and I would also like to see something to stop this following shit:
- People who answer questions with “I dunno”
- People who repeatedly knowingly post dumb-ass answers which are completely contrary to any logic.
- People who repeatedly give out false information which could be hazardous.
- People who repeatedly give out false information which is rebutted with cites, and continue to post it again and again, with no care for logic, facts, citation, or scientific method.
- People who continue to give out off the cuff legal advice with no backing whatsoever.
- People who manage somehow to inject a little partisan slur behind every single post, and think they won’t get called on it because they are a “scientist”, when what they really are is a worthless troll. :rolleyes:
GQ is a sick forum. I used to go in and read every single thread in there, and now it just makes me so unhappy I can barely cover 2 or 3 threads. The signal to noise ratio in there is simply out of control, and I don’t know if a hundred bannings would fix it (but it’s sure worth trying). There is a profound lack of respect for the forum and its purpose, which is especially alarming given its key importance to the Mission of Cecil.
Never mind the fact that no one whatsoever seems capable of using the goddamn search engine. How many motherfucking threads have their been on Absinthe? Or on mp3s? Or on the best oil for your car? Are there really no new questions of human discovery that we have to rehash these same things again and again?
Even on energy questions I have to keep searching for past posts and posting the same things I did in prior threads, because people keep asking the same exact goddamn questions, and cannot use their opposable digits to use Search or Google.
Oh, but wait! We can’t keep telling them to go to Google, or else they’ll get taken to task for it in the Pit, like Duck Duck Goose was. God forbid we should try to answer people’s questions and direct them to a faster, better way to find info. God forbid someone should spend their time in the core forum of GQ trying to answer people’s questions, rather than using the SDMB as a giant freaking chat room.
I don’t know what else the SDMB Staff can do. They warn, and warn, and warn, and post sticky notes, and warn, and warn, and people keep either blatantly ignoring the warnings or get carried away and disregard them. What else can they do besides ban? They have to do something of last resort, because GQ is a forum which is out of control.
No, it doesn’t take any script hacking at all. Do you actually have a copy of vBulletin or run a vBulletin Board? Because all you have to do is this:
- Create a new User Group.
- In the Forums and Permissions panel, just give that group access to post in all forums except GQ.
- Move those that are “banned” from GQ into that group.
However, it is an Admin hassle which I imagine no one would go for. Shoot, I wouldn’t even do it. If a person can’t behave in one forum such that you want to ban them from the forum, that sorta begs the question of why you keep them around anyhow.
No, this is not true. You can create User Groups that cannot read anything on the Board at all. My Board has two groups that cannot read anything, and several that can only read certain forums.
I agree. This wasn’t a surprise rule change. This was a point of enforcement for a while, and these choads intentionally ignored it, and the OP’s express request. The mods and admins made the right move. The place for partizen assclownery is the Pit.
Haven’t we had enough of these Mod Police threads already? :rolleyes:
When I was admin for a forum that used vB, we most certainly did have topic by topic access with different user groups. The regular members couldn’t read or post in the admin topic, there was a section set aside for those posters who had been around the forum since it started because they wanted a place to discuss serious things (inspired after one of the old-time members died).
So it is possible to do that, it’s even possible to set it up so that the user group ‘member’ can’t see the topics set aside for ‘admin’ and ‘moderator’ groups. It’s also possible that those topics exist in this forum, but are not visible to people in user group ‘member’. Note, I’m not saying it does here, only that it could, without the knowledge of those who have ‘member’ beneath their username.
As others have pointed out, the line between fact and opinion is very fuzzy. IMHO, if somebody asks a question about militant Christian countries, it’s not outrageous to point out that there is a lot of Christian influence in the United States.
IMHO, it’s better to err on the side of letting people communicate. If a GQ thread slides into a debate, the better practice would be to simply move the thread (IMHO). It’s perfectly possible to have a productive discussion in the GD forum.
This of course bothers me too. I think the appropriate solution is for those of us who know better to simply point it out and caution others.
One other point: I do think it would be good if forum-by-forum banning were possible. I can think of one poster who was banned recently whose behaviour was inappropriate for GD but was fine for the BBQ Pit.
Public figures are a different issue than fellow posters. I have asked posters in GD before to not urge their fellow posters to commit suicide (IN PARTICULAR those who appear to have suicidal leanings in the first place). However, I think that “drop dead” does not really count as a request that someone commit suicide.
Having read the thread in question, I don’t think anyone was deliberately hijacking the OP.
Attempts to provide factual answers gave way to attempts to thrash out what the relevant facts were, establishing the criteria to be used, and from there it shifted without hijack into a debate. That’s a very different thing from someone asking, say, “Explain the voting process by which you Americans choose your President” and then someone replying with snide comments about the election of 2000 and diverting the thread into another angry debate about chads and Florida and the Supreme Court decision and whatnot.
Furthermore, I could easily see myself reading such a thread, getting to the bottom, and entering into the discussion taking place, and in doing so contributing to the politically loaded debate portion of the thread. Then I’d have BANNED under my name 
If the purpose here is to send a shockwave rippling through the board so as to get our attention, and the posters in question are expected to regain their posting privileges on short order if they ask for them nicely, that’s one thing, but there’s no way the offense merits permanent banning.
So, Desmo, are you going to go ahead and quote the other posts where TPC stated he actually meant what he said?
Also, as Jabba did, I seem to recall (kind of thought I made that apparent earlier in this thread) that there was a prior incident of someone getting banned, or at least warned, for telling another poster to go take himself out of the realm of the living.
:smack: Aha![sup]*[/sup] Now I remember what it was that I was misremembering! :o It was a bunch of posters jumping all over another poster who made such a comment to someone who apparently was on the verge of contemplating suicide. As I’m not even close to contemplating suicide, to heck with it. 
Hey, sometimes the mob does rule wisely. 
[sup]*[/sup]Why isn’t there a “Eureka!” emoticon?
There certainly was a hijack to that thread. The OP asks:
Some ways down, Krokodil responds with:
How is that a factual answer to the question asked? Does the U.S. require people to be Christian, or outlaw other books? No? Then it’s not a fucking answer. While I have nothing against those people, I’m glad they were banned, and if this action keeps some people from posting in GQ, well, their contribution might be missed, but if they were the type to supply non-factual posts, then I’ll be glad they’re gone too. I hate reading a potentialy interesting thread only to see someone get a lame joke, political dig, or something equally as tiresome, in.
I actually read that thread yesterday, before the bannings, and considered starting a “why do some people think the GQ rules don’t apply to them” thread here in the Pit, but decided it wasn’t worth it. Now I’m glad to see it wasn’t necessary. The only problem I have with Manny’s action what that Calculus of Logic wasn’t banned too, for his “answer”.
Viva la jackbooted mods.
The only suggestion that I would offer is that the sticky thread could be a bit more specific.
Perhaps the thread title could be changed from A note on politics in GQ to something like Zero tolerance policy for political potshots in GQ.
Also, I’m going to start knocking some heads when there are violations could make the consequences more clear. Maybe Violators are subject to immediate banning. No warnings. One strike and you’re out.
I’m not complaining, I just think that “knocking heads” is a bit ambiguous.
:o
I have done it myself.
My apologies to the board. I could definitely be staring bleakly at the word “BANNED” beneath my name
I will not do it again.