How exactly does this work? I know it’s fairly straightforward in a case where the offender is insulting a fellow member, using profanity in anger, or issuing threats.
But I have seen cases where a user was threatened primarily on the basis of content, or so I interpreted it. Manhattan
put doper Homer on notice because he’d posted a link to what
apparently was a very offensive picture of a deformed child.
I didn’t look at it myself, so I don’t know what all the
brouhaha was about. True, in this case a fairly heated exchange ensued between Homer and one of the respondents,
and it approached the level of profanity and insult. On the other hand, some of the respondents had some thought-provoking and useful comments to make.
I do not speak for a moderator or the SD or SDMB or anything else.
Homer’s been posting stuff similar to what he posted today. Mods have been deleting or otherwise changing the links. They’re tired of it, and consequently him.
As I understand it.
And now a mod will most likely tell me to politely be quiet when I don’t know all I’m talking about.
Actually, iampunha, you’re pretty close to the mark there. We’ve been having a lot of problems with Homer lately, and this was just the second-last straw. Hopefully, the last straw will never come.
On the broader question, some rare folks do things so egregious that they’re baned immediately. Many other apparently new usernames are actually posters who are already banned and returning, and as soon as we find those out and have enough evidence, those usernames get banned too. Usually, though, there’s at least a warning before we ban anybody.
The first time someone makes a posting that is unacceptable in our eyes . . . or posts a link to a site that is ugly or nasty or a site that fills the viewer’s screen with multiple windows until their computer crashes . . . we remove the post or the link and we say “don’t do that again.”
And if they do it again, we throw them out.
Homer knows better. If he didn’t know before, he knows now.
Our rules are not difficult and they’re not unreasonable.
There are no hard and fast rules. Mods can adapt to new situations, new users, and new threats to the continued usefulness of this board. They are all nice people, and will give all but the most hardened (such as concrete by his varied names) a few chances to be assholes before the final step, banning, is taken. And even then they have a second chance (as much as it pains me to say it, this is still possible, doubtless always will be) if they can get a new username and act respectably. Of course, banning is not an invitation to come back with a new mask, but if you act respectably nobody will notice you were once a troll. Silo is a perfect example of a butthead that went straight and is now a respected member of the SDMB community. So nothing is written in stone. This has lead to some flame wars in The Pit (some of which, regrettably, begin here) but is essential to the continuing usefulness of this board. Common sense is the most often used law here.
Judging from Chronos’ comments, I am about to get bashed for my ‘life-after-banning’ remarks. Let it come, but I will be right until the hole is fixed (it never will be).
From the top of my head, though, all I can think of is:
Being a complete and total asshole on Halloween last year, and a few weeks after the fact
Performing an ill advised (read: incredibly stupid) “prank” on GQ in May (somewhere around there, at least)
This recent link postage.
Others that may be considered borderline that I can think of are:
Admitting to tripping online, and posting while doing so?
Admitting to (near constant) underage drinking?
Re-posting the horrible, infamous “goat” link, as well as sending it to people who requested it? (upon senses return, I asked the link be removed)
Firing off about someone in ATMB a couple of times.
Encouraging revised speeding and drug laws?
I can’t really think of anything that bad that I’ve done that’s not at least 6 months old. #s 1 & 2 were incredibly, incredibly stupid, but I think it can be said that I’ve ‘learned’ and ‘grown’ from the experiences. In fact, things of that age I would have assumed would be removed from a ‘permenant record’ by now, instead of building up in the system like arsenic.
I realize I’ll never be moderator, but I would think I’d by now be considered a member ‘in good standing’. A year and a half, and 2200 posts, should let you know enough about a person to make a judgement about personality, intelligence, and character, among other things, and I would have hoped that the mods (and teeming millions) would have realized that I was asking this question not because of “gee, look at the freak!” or other prurient interests, but because I genuinely wanted to know what had happened to the poor child.
I do realize that manny has a personal dislike for me (from what I can tell, it is relating directly to #1, although I know from experience it is quite risky to assume) but I do not think that anyone here is unprofessional enough to allow that to interfere with a person’s moderating capabilities or actions. Yet, this subtracted from the picture, I cannot imagine what else would cause such a vicious reaction.
In addition, while I now have to “labor under different rules than other members of this message board,” I was not informed of this at the time of my posting. That clarified, I, personally, do not think that if any other member had asked the question and posted the link, would they have been treated so harshly. I’m not complaining about the statement made by manny above, while I think it’s rather unfair that
I suppose I must abide by them, even though it basically limits my freedom to ‘me too!’ posts. People live vicariously through me. My drinking, my drugs, my lack of concern for my own safety, and tales of wild abandon are all trademarks of my life and posting. Without these, what will my devoted followers do? Turn to Xena or something? I hope not!
Secondly, if I may explain my actions, I wanted to know what was wrong with the baby! Not because I’m a sicko, but because… well… I can’t describe why. The same reason Eve wanted to know who the dead girl on the car was, I guess. I admit I was way too reactionary in the reply, and I apologize for it. On top of that, I had six warnings that explicit material was going to be linked to, as well as writing:
at the bottom to explain the impossibility of linking directly to the picture, and therefore bypassing the Stile porn links and ads and such.
Third, I would like to know the reasoning behind the offense taken and warning, because I, personally, do not think that the question or picture were inappropriate. The Stile banners, yes, but I’ve already explained myself for that. My response to Primaflora was inappropriate, but then, so was her initial reaction to me. I do not see why my her vitrol did not prompt any reaction whatsoever. Why does a person ask any question or make any inquiries?
Are these not two opposites?
Finally, I do hope you don’t think I’m “mod bashing” or anything. I’m not. I don’t question your tactics or behavior, I simply don’t, in this instance, agree with all of them, and would like to know the reasoning behind them.
I think I’ve rambled and edited and such enough, so it’s time to post.
it truly did not come across to me that you were seeking education and fighting ignorance with that link. I truly felt that you were pointing and jeering at the circus freak baby. I got all hot and bothered and furiously angry because I have a baby in my past that you could do the same thing with. And that hurts in a way I hope you never learn.
::sigh::… I guess IMO people who genuinely want to learn more about fetal development and what can go wrong don’t go looking on the likes of the site you posted. It is possible to find that info on legitimate sites.
I reacted to your post out of extreme pain. It’s going on nine years now and I still grieve. If that were a real baby, Homer, there are parents out there with broken hearts and that obscenity of a site is adding to their pain. What if anything could begin to justify that?
That information is available on legitimate sites. Go and look there. Or as I previously suggested, go and look in a medical library. At least there you will get accurate information and it is more likely that the photos are used with consent.
I’m not going to apologise for being vitriolic. Take me to the pit if you really want to see vitriolic.
I have no reason to take you to the pit. I understand your anger, sadness, and frustration about the situation, and I hope you can understand the frustration I felt after reading your response.
Again, I’m truly sorry that you had to experience something as heartbreakingly awful as you have.
As I see it, Homer’s major offense here was the content of his link, disregarding his past history. Now he did copiously warn the potentially curious that his link might be offensive. Now granted, there are some folks who will look at such a link exactly because they are told it is offensive, but I think it should be up to the Dopers individually to decide whether they want to go there. Same for resource intensive links that open a lot of windows on your computer. As long as the poster warns of this fact, I think it should be O.K.
I have to agree with javaman here. I read the thread when it first came up. I saw the warnings and decided I really didn’t need to see the picture. (I’m sure I’ve seen much worse IRL and I don’t need to dredge that up again). It didn’t affect what I got out of the thread (hoaxes vs. diff. med. conditions)
I do remember thinking “Boy, Homer sure is posting a lot of disclaimers here. Wonder why?”
Guess I know.
No. If you have to post that many disclaimers, don’t post it, or check with a mod.
I am sure that Homer feels like shit about this, as he always does. I get the feeling he’s cringing at the hurt that thread occasioned. I’m pleased he’s still around, but he should know by now his judgement on these matters is somewhat suspect, and when alarm bells flash for him he should hold off posting.
What Picmr just said.
Constructive criticism time: Homer, as I read your explanation above, I kept flashing on the “hitting the donkey with the car” episode. Was that included in your list? You started a thread saying, rather breathlessly, “Hey, wow, everybody, listen to this really gross and upsetting story!” and then when people complained (loudly) that it was gross and upsetting, you got all apologetic and started explaining that no, no, you hadn’t really meant that you were LAUGHING when the donkey died, it was just shock or something, you would NEVER laugh at something so tragic.
So this is more of the same kind of thing. And we know you aren’t a troll, which is why it’s all the more annoying. If we thought you were just another troll (remember Bedboy and the picture of the naked female centaur?), we could just shrug you off. Instead, we keep feeling this deep need to march you into the principal’s office and sit you down and say solemn things like, “We’re very disappointed in you”, and “We know you can do better”. Doncha just love it when people do that to you? :rolleyes: I know.
From now on, I think you need to stop and think, count to 100 or something, when you start feeling that need to post something that you know people are gonna get upset about. Don’t snigger and tell yourself, “Well, they need ME to wake them up, all those serious old fogies debating about taxes.” Don’t tell yourself piously, “I’m just looking for information.” If you think you really are, then use Preview and sit there and look at it, and put yourself in Manny’s shoes. Ask yourself, “Is this gonna make Manny’s blood pressure go up?” or “Is Manny likely to delete this link?” and if the answer is “yes”, then either find some way to rephrase it, or don’t post it at all. Or send an e-mail to somebody you know here at the SDMB and ask his opinion. “Here’s a link–whaddaya think, should I post it?”
FWIW, and for future reference, there was a decent way to post that picture without having Manny and other people jump all over you. If I had encountered that picture on the Web, and had really wanted to know what had happened to the baby, I would have said something like, “Here is a link to a picture of a dead baby with some kind of birth defect.” I would have gone on to describe in words what it looked like to me, how the head and stuff looked. Then I would have gone on to say, “I would like to know whether this is real or a fake, and if it’s real, what the name of the birth defect is.” Very calm and scientific. NOT this:
See the difference? The cumulative effect of all your warnings about graphic content is only to pump up the volume–you come across as someone drooling over a gross picture from a really sick website, not as someone looking for knowledge. When communicating with pixels, it’s what you say, not how you say it.
In closing, [the audience breathes an audible sigh of relief and starts reaching for their coats] I’d like to say that I’m glad the mods, ESPECIALLY Manhattan are so quick on the trigger, to shut down these links. This sort of thing seems to come up in GQ more than in other forums, there being a lot of clueless lackwits out there who don’t really have anything to say except, “Hey, everybody, lookie here (heh heh heh)!” (I hasten to add that IMO, you, Tim, are not one of these, okay? Which is why you’re in the principal’s office right now, staring at the picture of George Washington on the wall. If we didn’t care, you wouldn’t be here, and I’d be in another thread right now).
I have two teenagers who surf the Web, and yes, they look in at the Straight Dope every so often. I have my IE5 Internet Tools Content Filter set on Medium, which lets the Straight Dope through. Not that my parenting agenda includes never, ever letting them see pictures of naked women or mutilated babies on the Web, but I like to think it’s something I don’t have to worry about them seeing here at the SDMB. And I’m sure there are other folks who feel the same way.
Actually, Homer mentioned another thing when attempting to recall his past transgressions–advocating changes in the
drug laws. It’s one thing to post while drunk or tripping,
but is it also verboten to invite a reasoned discussion
about this or other controversial subjects?
With regard to congenital deformities, recently there were two posts, one by myself, asking about ‘pinheads’, as they
used to be called. As I recall mine wasn’t answered, but
the other one was, and I found out what I ‘needed to know’.
As I’d said in my post, the cult film Freaks had just
been on TCM and I was honestly curious about the condition.
I hope I didn’t offend anybody, but on the other hand I merely posted the question in text without any links.
Changing laws and questions about laws are certainly within the permissable realm. The debate about whether to legalize marijuana comes up periodically, and the pro side is always well represented. However, discussion about marijuana use is a bit more closely watched. Discussion relating to how to illegally procure marijuana would be forbidden. As is discussion relating to instructions for other illegal activities.
It can be hard to set strictly delineated areas, especially in GQ, as there is a subtle, yet vital, difference between “how is money laundered?” and “how do I launder money?”. The first can invite general comments on how it has been done without getting into actual instructions. The second is asking for help in committing a crime. Of course, inevitably someone will know how to launder money quite well, and the first will devolve into the second. Hopefully, the relevant questions have been answered by then.
picmr had it right: when in doubt, ask a moderator or administrator. Preferably the most relevant mod to the forum.
If you read manhattans note in the thread at hand, it is obvious that we didn’t warn Homer for posting a graphic link alone. He’s done it before (among other things) - sure, he’s always been apologetic in hindsight. And I’m certain he is sincere when he apologises.
That doesn’t change the fact that he keeps making the same mistakes over and over again, possibly aided by considerable alcohol intake.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Tim.
You can only test someones patience for so long. In this case, it lead to a final warning. We can’t continuously clean up behind the same people. There are rules here, and these need to be observed. You make a mistake? Not disastrous in and of itself. Just don’t do it on a regular basis.
And, once again, the best advice in this thread: should you have any doubts about something you’d like to post on the SDMB, do not hesitate to ask a moderator or administrator. It’s what we’re here for, and we appreciate the courtesy if you consult us first with content of a questionable nature.
