[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
But if that happens outside the Pit, it would be an insult and would be moderated anyway. And if it happens in the Pit, it would be in poor taste, but there’s really no need for moderation.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry I don’t mean to be short but I’ve got to go out back and move the horses.
You missed my next point – the fact that the real detriment is to the mods who have to parse all the Reports – completely. Now a mod has to go over to the tardpit, read up, figure out Poster B’s history, etc et fucking cetera.
The Pit does give people a certain accountability to being called out, but there’s a difference between that and persistently preying on popular victims over and over. That’s frankly where the QED/GED problem comes in - I take that as a reference to that sort of discourse (you may not have meant it that way). It’s fine, and in my opinion good, that we call people out for saying stupid things and acting like fools. It’s not fine to link to people’s websites, find an image of their family, link to it and talk about banging their developmentally disabled son or whatever. It’s not cool to follow someone around the board and harass and bully them. That’s the huge, huge gap between the Pit and the offboard site - that’s the bread and butter of that community, no doubt in large part to the fact that it’s simply not allowed here.
[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem is, though (and, of course I agree with you that it’s inappropriate to do things like link to images of a poster’s family or talk about banging their family members) is that often, the popular victims are popular victims for a reason, generally because they have some personality traits or one-trick-ponyism that makes them annoying to other people. I don’t think people pick on QED because there’s an organized campaign to get him. People pick on QED because they think he’s an annoying and insulting poster. In short, a lot of the “harrassment” is calling the person out and saying he or she is acting like a fool.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Heh, I used to think that too before they gave me the damn mod hat.
I’m not sure everyone would agree that we should warn poster #1 in this case. Poster #1 would argue that his posts were not against the forum rules, since you’d have to know the backstory to catch the references. I think the behavior is clearly jerkish in this case, but is it the type of jerkery that we as mods should try to stop?
[/QUOTE]
The recent autism/vaccination blip we had here might be good “precedent” material to look over. That was clearly the continuation of a floating internet feud.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
The recent autism/vaccination blip we had here might be good “precedent” material to look over. That was clearly the continuation of a floating internet feud.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but it’s a pretty common, controversial topic. Not sure it being a continuation of an off board feud would make it any more or less acrimonious.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
That’s myopic. You could be a target. Imagine what might happen if Anonymous Snarker A says “it’d be funny if somebody called Guin out on living in her parents’ basement” and then Doper B rather innocuously posts it as a playful jab here. We have a possible conflict.
[/QUOTE]
Guess what? It’s been done before. Many times. And I really don’t give a shit.
You missed my next point – the fact that the real detriment is to the mods who have to parse all the Reports – completely. Now a mod has to go over to the tardpit, read up, figure out Poster B’s history, etc et fucking cetera.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I’m wondering why it is that the mods are considering adding this kind of aggravation to their workload, especially since the impetus for doing so seems to be self-generated.
If these changes are being considered in order to make the place a more enjoyable environment for us posters to inhabit, I salute the effort but seriously question whether it’s worth it.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
Perhaps, but it’s a pretty common, controversial topic. Not sure it being a continuation of an off board feud would make it any more or less acrimonious.
[/QUOTE]
Well, but here it seemed to be people who had specifically already interacted on other message boards. Also, I wasn’t implying that it would be more or less acrimonious - just saying that some of these issues might have already been explored during that incident. I’m pretty sure some bannings were involved.
I don’t see why people are thinking this would be a massive amount of work for the mods. Certainly not extra work, because it seems they basically do it already. Like I said page 1, if some poster recognizes an off-site reference that is sneakily breaking the rules then he should be able to provide a specific url to illustrate it to the Mods he is reporting it to. If it is required to be a research project then say screw it, it’s not worth the warning.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I’m wondering why it is that the mods are considering adding this kind of aggravation to their workload, especially since the impetus for doing so seems to be self-generated.
[/QUOTE]
Quite the opposite, actually. We’ve always had rules about keeping off-site conflicts off the boards which existed when we signed on as mods. The recent Q.E.D./GED kerfluffle got me wondering how you guys felt about the issue, and if you saw it as a necessary way to maintain peace and keep jerkhood at bay, or if you think we’re just being dicks who warn people for stupid stuff that doesn’t matter. I’m not proposing a specific change to the rules at this point, I’m trying to get a read on how people feel about the status quo.
At no point are we ever going to appoint ourselves Internet Detectives and start searching the internet for off-site drama. The question is how to mediate these types of disputes when they’re brought to our attention. Ignoring them completely is certainly one option.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
The recent Q.E.D./GED kerfluffle got me wondering how you guys felt about the issue, and if you saw it as a necessary way to maintain peace and keep jerkhood at bay, or if you think we’re just being dicks who warn people for stupid stuff that doesn’t matter.
[/QUOTE]
A nickname only works if there’s some truth behind it – ask any kid named Charles who broke a tooth before age 5. Why anyone as demonstrably smart as QED would object to GED is beyond me.
So the pertinent question is did QED report the use of GED? I know you can’t tell me but I bet he can.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Quite the opposite, actually. We’ve always had rules about keeping off-site conflicts off the boards which existed when we signed on as mods. The recent Q.E.D./GED kerfluffle got me wondering how you guys felt about the issue, and if you saw it as a necessary way to maintain peace and keep jerkhood at bay, or if you think we’re just being dicks who warn people for stupid stuff that doesn’t matter. I’m not proposing a specific change to the rules at this point, I’m trying to get a read on how people feel about the status quo.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, thanks. It appears I misunderstood the question.
Anyway, like I said upthread and FWIW, I do indeed see the current policy as a “necessary way to maintain peace and keep jerkhood at bay.”
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
We have had rules that parodying a person’s screen name is usually pretty much jerkhood, regardless of forum. That’s personal insult that is over the line (even the Pit has some lines.)
[/QUOTE]
How about parodying a person’s real name? Seems that would be even jerkier, but maybe that’s just me.
Even if every SDMB poster had skin thinner than Paul Tilley’s, it’s futile to give the impression members will be ‘protected’ from vague, anonymous, references that originated on another website. Continue forbidding links to those off-site blogs, that’s the only realistic expectation that can be set by the administration. To attempt to do more will just lead to a balloon effect, push down on the live-journal end and everything gets squeezed over to urbandictionary or a wiki.
Since there’s all these rules about the content of these boards being the property of the Chicago Reader, my first thought is that quotes from other boards here and vice versa might lead to some legal/copyright issues.
But as no one seems to be concerned about this, I have to assume these occurences are realy indirect allusions and what amount to inside jokes that you won’t get unless you’re in on it through another venue.
I don’t really see a problem at all that needs to be addressed by rules or Mods. Half the discussions on this board are among people who have some specialized arcane knowledge and speak in tongues until others remind them that many of us are not tracking because we don’t know the terminology. So we ask, and we are either informed, or referred to some kind of dictionary to help us out.
That’s how this place is supposed to work.
As to Board Wars, well, how many have there been? I remember a bunch of Nazis from a board whose name I won’t mention… is it even possible to determine what triggered that? If there were others they whooshed right over my head.
Is this a case of using elephant repellant in the middle of downtown Chicago? I have to agree, it’s worked so far – no elephants in sight.
[QUOTE=Duck Duck Goose]
It’s kinda like listening to a D & D session from the other room, with the geeks arguing over esoteric points of rolling a Cleric. Like, we totally don’t care.
[/QUOTE]
What she said.
If these secret code posts are being reported to the mods, the mod would be well within their right to say, "Hey, if this bothers you so much, *stop going over there.
Or they could privately email the offender, tell him to knock it off.
As far as the derogatory name alteration, big deal. I’ve done it inadvertently, I’ve done it on purpose. There are some truly poetic name alterations, let’s not stifle that outlet of creative insults.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
<snip>
I’m not sure everyone would agree that we should warn poster #1 in this case. Poster #1 would argue that his posts were not against the forum rules, since you’d have to know the backstory to catch the references. I think the behavior is clearly jerkish in this case, but is it the type of jerkery that we as mods should try to stop?
[/QUOTE]
I think if the victim of the cross-board references is finding it jerkish enough to report it, it’s probably jerkish enough to ask the perpetrator to stop it. That’s the basis for stopping most jerkish behaviour, isn’t it? That someone who doesn’t deserve it is being annoyed by it? Other than that, I would also vote for ignore it - calling attention to other boards gives them attention they don’t deserve (in the case of bad behaviour). It’s sort of troll-feeding.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
You missed my next point – the fact that the real detriment is to the mods who have to parse all the Reports – completely. Now a mod has to go over to the tardpit, read up, figure out Poster B’s history, etc et fucking cetera.
[/QUOTE]
I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to a real insult that originated in the tardpit, not some veiled coded insult that only other tardpit members would understand.
In that case, I say fuck 'em. Who gives a shit what anonymous cowardly bastards say on their secret board? I still think starting a board to anonymously talk shit about people on another board is the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
To those of you who are saying it’s not a big deal, does this translate to feeling that we should get rid of our rules about off-board cross-posting? Or is it more of a statement of “I don’t care what you do, it doesn’t really affect me?”
Not to be nitpicky, but I’m trying to get at people’s opinions on what our policies should be, not just how they feel about stuff like the snark blogs.
[/QUOTE]
I think the rules about off-board cross-posting are fine. We don’t need flame fests started on another board or blog site carried over here. Our folks do fine at flaming each other as it is, we sure as hell don’t need the junior high school babbling “did you see what A said about B last night?”
However, as far as a mentioning some phrase or word that may have a meaning somewhere else, I’d say don’t worry about it unless the target complains and can show where it originates, or it escalates between them, or it becomes incredibly obvious that it is part of a fight going on somewhere else, in which case we’re back to no feuds from the other boards allowed.
That still makes it a judgment call by the moderator, so maybe it’s not much help. But I trust you moderators. I think a rule wouldn’t be enforceable all the time anyway, and in general I’m a fan of fewer rules, not more. I very much like the assumption that people can act like adults, and then smack them down when they don’t. Again, I know this leaves it to the judgment of the mods, but given the history of moderating on this board, I have no problem accepting that judgment.
So if someone says some other board equivalent of “fnord” and nobody else shouts, what the hell. Let the children think they’ve gotten away with a dirty word, the adults can continue talking.
[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Who gives a shit what anonymous cowardly bastards say on their secret board? I still think starting a board to anonymously talk shit about people on another board is the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.
[/QUOTE]
I have to admit, I agree with this pretty much completely.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
To those of you who are saying it’s not a big deal, does this translate to feeling that we should get rid of our rules about off-board cross-posting? Or is it more of a statement of “I don’t care what you do, it doesn’t really affect me?”
Not to be nitpicky, but I’m trying to get at people’s opinions on what our policies should be, not just how they feel about stuff like the snark blogs.
[/QUOTE]
I say let it go. If a board invasion happens, deal with that ad hoc. They’re usually glaringly obvious - I recall the StormFront one, and some Fundie Christian (Hi, Lib!) one.
Don’t try and police established members just because they (shudder) hang out at more than one board. Even if it means stupid catchphrases etc. Mod people for the content-free posts (and surely a “tldr” or “no, u!” falls under the same jerkishness umbrella as “lawnchair” posts, and rate a warning as such,) not for where they got the content. IOW, treat the SDMB as a closed system as much as possible, and only worry about it when real Real Life stuff comes up, like the Stage Manager thing or the thing about the couple who had money troubles (or whatever - can’t remember enough to search.)
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
At no point are we ever going to appoint ourselves Internet Detectives and start searching the internet for off-site drama. The question is how to mediate these types of disputes when they’re brought to our attention. Ignoring them completely is certainly one option.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I don’t have time to read boards whose names cannot be mentioned, let alone care about any of it, but it reminds me of what my friend once told his kids.
His four- and six-year-old daughters were fighting over something, and came to him to referee it. He interrupted their protests and said “This seems like a children’s fight. You kids figure it out.”
