Ah, but what would we do without the Jerry-Springer-Induced Pit Threads? Okay, it always sucks to be on the receiving end of such a thread but sheesh, one needs their entertainment.
It’s so nice over here I have to go to AOL to watch the name calling and blood shed. And shoot, that only lasts for a while, at least with The Pit you can read it over and over and over.
Izzy, as I understand it, the idea has always been that we are to behave like grownups. In theory, more specificity should not be necessary.
I once saw this (I think in the sig of some doper): “In theory, theory and reality are the same. In reality, they seldom are.”
Well Izzy, andros has the right idea. We think it’s better to let the members have as free a reign as possible. This better promotes the exchange of ideas and information. While you wish for more and stricter rules, there are others that would wish for fewer and less strict rules. There’s a balance that must be found somewhere. And we think we’ve found a reasonable one. If you are looking for a more strict place, they’re out there and like TubaDiva always says, “This place ain’t for everyone.”
Now that I’ve said all that, please do not confuse my menaing. I’ve not said, “Take a hike.”
We’re an autonomous collective, really.
[coy] you’re so sexy when you talk political-like [/coy]
jarbaby
Enough with the politics, Coldfire, we 'aven’t got enough mud!
You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship. … A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
err…
Listen – strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
This is the first time I’ve called a Mod on his or her actions, but I’m pretty confused right now (and I could get angry).
In this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58605&pagenumber=3
Shayna posted:
In bold, no less, with a bullet, directed at Cartooniverse.
Down the page, Cartooniverse stated the followed (tell me if you notice any similarities) :
This was directed at Oldscratch.
Then Eutychuss55 posted this warning:
I really want to hear that this was a misunderstanding on Euty’s part. I hope he didn’t actually condone Shayna’s words and then chastise Cartooniverse for the saying the same thing, word for word. If this has anything to do with post count number or board respect, I will be seriously angry. I’m hoping that TubaDiva closed the thread before Euty realized his mistake. Please tell me this is true, or I will be terribly disillusioned. If the “Don’t be a jerk” rule applies here, and I think it does, it applies to everyone, not just members who don’t have high post counts, or members who are on the losing end of an argument.
In any case, Cartooniverse was grossly mistreated and did not deserve to be warned when Shayna was not.
To quote Nacho4Sarah shouldn’t this be taken to email?
Or would that make too much sense for you to recomend something and then actually do it.
Astute observation, Sara. I would also like an explanation of this.
but I closed the thread because I thought it had degenerated into . . . well, a dogfight, really. 
As to why Cartooniverse got yelled at, I note that while he may have had every right to be angry and upset, he really did go too far in his name calling and etc.
Hope this helps explain our actions.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
To explain my warning to Cartooniverse :
1 : His specific post (not Shayna’s) was brought to my attention. This really isn’t my forum, and to be honest, I didn’t have the time (or the inclination) to read the entire thread.
2 : The more specific reason why I warned him was that his post was stated as a “legal” warning, implying that legal action might be taken , or that he might demand that legal action be taken by us on his behalf. That turns his post into a completely different monster altogether and what raised my hackles.
I hope this explains my actions better.
Oldie,
Sara was right to ask this one here. to me, it looked like a board policy question, which is better cleared out in the open in a civil manner, as this has been.
If it was along the tone of “Euty, you’re a great big poopyhead” type of personal attack, then it would be better taken to e-mail.
do you all see the benefit of this?
Fair enough - so you didn’t see Shayna’s post then.
Similarly, if you had seen Shayna’s post, she too would have got a warning?
What does this mean as far as these two exclusion orders go? Should 'Toon consider Shayna’s threat valid? Should oldscratch consider 'Toon’s threat valid? If those two parties consider the answer to that “yes”, should they (and I really really really don’t want to say this) be [sub]banned[/sub]? I think we still have some ambiguity here.
pan
Well, keep in mind WHY Shayna said what she did, and why Cartooniverse said what HE did.
Shayna was responding to what she percieved to be Cartoon’s dishonesty.
Cartoon was responding to accusations of being dishonest.
One was a response to actual harassment, IMOSHO… the other was a response to getting called on assholic behavior.
I’m sorry Spoofe, but I don’t see the relevence. It is the behaviour itself that is in question here, not the reason for it - as is evidenced by Euty saying
And I do think that Shayna, catooniverse and oldscratch all need to know whether[list=A][li]the threats should be taken seriouslyGiven A true, if those who made the threats are welcome on the board[/list=A]I know that this particular case is not really my business. As a precedent however, I’d quite like to know the answers to A and B.[/li]
pan
Though I can’t really speak for Euty, I’ll tell you this. Shayna responded to Cartooniverses allegation that she called him a “Mother Fucking Liar”. Since this never happened (it was actually oldscratch that used these words, and it’s quite possible that Shayna never even saw that), she wanted him off her back and told him to stop responding to her. She added the fact that she would consider any form of contact harassment, and would be reporting it to his ISP. That’s just her telling him to back the fuck off. She can do so in the Pit. Whether her statements have any legal validity, I honestly don’t know. And it’s hardly relevant either. Shayna didn’t call her warning a “legal notice”. Cartooniverse DID, subsequently copying Shayna’s post word for word. Euty told him that such behaviour is not appropriate. Had it been me, I’d also told him it’s rather tacky to copy someones words in their entirety.
I have no idea. He should at least consider that she might report him to his ISP for harassment when he accuses her again of doing something she didn’t. That’s the way I read it, at least.
Same answer, obviously. The fact that Cartooniverse named his post a “Legal Notice” doesn’t make it so.
So if someone considers a “threat” legally valid, the Straight Dope Staff is then obliged to ban the poster making the “threat”? I don’t think so. It would be another thing when the “threat” actually was a legal notification, beyond doubt. And since we don’t want legal battles here at the SDMB (don’t make me drag up the links again), Euty warned Cartooniverse for even insinuating one.
Doesn’t seem ambiguous to me, since Shayna never assigned any legal bearing to her post. Cartooniverse did.
Fair enough. I for one had not noticed that 'Toon had prefaced his with “legal notice”, whilst Shayna hadn’t. Guess I didn’t play enough “spot the difference” games as a kid.
I don’t really want to argue with the rest - it’s a path that will ultimately bode no good, just ending up with posters picking over the minutae of exactly what was said when and to whom. As a general rule though, I’m guessing that threatening to sue fellow posters for harassment will not exactly be smiled upon
pan
You’ve aparently misunderstood me. I am not advocating more or stricter rules. I am advocating that the rules that already exist be spelled out more clearly.
As an example, one mantra of the Doper population is that the cardinal rule of the SDMB is “don’t be a jerk”. Problem is that there is too much rom for interpretation is just what constitutes being a jerk. The result of this is that when Moderator A decides that Poster B has been a jerk, this may not be nearly as clear to Poster B and his allies as it is to Moderator A. In fact, Poster B may be basing his interpretation of acceptable vs. unacceptable behaviour on on the actions of others and the moderators’ response to them, which may diverge from the interpretation being adopted by Moderator A in this specific instance.
The same goes for rules about what type of thread is appropriate for which forum.
Bottom line is that it would appear from numerous “Complaints about the moderators” threads that there is a large amount of genuine confusion as to what the meaning of the various SDMB rules are, and this from otherwise intelligent people. It would seem to me that this confusion could be lessened to a degree by defining these rules more clearly.