And that’s worked out so well for you. Bravo again, you’re sure showing me.
You brought up the warnings as if it proves something is being done about it. If typing useless words that have no consequences is your idea of doing something about it then you have a career in politics ahead of you.
Worse – I’ve been deemed to be dense.
I really don’t know what to make of the guy.
My teeth are ground to the nub already. Child molesters don’t deserve the amount of energy that it takes to strike a match.
Unless it was to light one on fire.
I can’t believe this is even being discussed.
WA FU?
Is Creative Loafing absolutely sure that no posts will be made on this board that won’t be kiddy porn at any time in any thread? Do you apply this standard usually? I assume you think the boards should be shut down? It seems the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
I am pretty astounded by this. I am not being critical of Marley, but the practice. I would have thought SOP would have required a history of warnings etc.
First of all, if your read of the situation is that “people are constantly inviting him to bring up the subject,” you’re seriously disconnected from the board you’re supposed to be moderating. You can argue that all the outcry is counterproductive because it’s just indirectly giving him what he wants, a la “feeding the trolls,” but come on: it’s clear that the goal of all this outcry is to make him stop bringing up the subject of having sex with babies and children. For you to suggest that suppressing this discussion would be inconsistent with what the board is “inviting” is jaw-droppingly disingenuous.
Second, it’s my impression, based on various recent rulings uproars and quotings-of-user-agreements in this thread and others that you can moderate someone for pretty much whatever you guys want. Plenty of examples have been given here, from asking about faking being british to admitting you pranked wikipedia to telling someone to fuck off in the forum specifically designated for telling someone to go fuck themselves. And yet somehow your hands are tied when it comes to whether or not to let a fucking pedophile run around pooping on the board, and hmmm, you just don’t know yet whether he should get a pro-pedophile thread.
This is just bizarre. The scenario you just described was not “people giving him an opening.” You apparently recognize this pattern of hijacking, but for some reason you are powerless to stop it before anyone responds, and then you blame them for it?
Wow. Are you telling us that he hasn’t been formally warned for this? I don’t understand this at all. I’m curious why he hasn’t been banned for it, let alone warned.
Regarding the question of whether or not the thread should be allowed, here’s my two cents: I personally think it’s unfathomable that the SDBM is considering allowing him to have the thread, given some of the other (ridiculous, IMO) restrictions on what we’re allowed to talk about here. It’s weird to me, as it is to many others, that a board that finds the phrase “fuck off” to be too offensive to use in the fighting forum might be ok with a poster espousing a pro-child-molestation stance. Furthermore, I’m not particularly sure I even want to browse a board where the thread topic “Ask the pedophile” pops up on the front page. It would be an embarrassment to me and, I would hope, to Ed Zotti, the rest of the staff, and to Creative Loafing. Sure, I understand the argument that some have put forth that learning doesn’t hurt you even if you’re learning about something repugnant, but I personally don’t agree that learning about that particular topic is worth offending the majority of the board, and I also don’t agree that such a thread is even going to provide any new learning on the subject – it’s just masturbation on this guy’s part that a few people are buying into in some kind of (IMO) misguided idealism. Not worth it.
On the other hand, it would give the guy the rope to hang himself, and if you guys are going to be as ineffectual about keeping him in check as you have been, maybe letting him go way over the line would finally prod someone into banning his ass and we’d be done.
On the other hand, any number of threads have been shut down as being just too fucking gross–my “favorite” was one where Opalcat was talking about how soon she’d take a poo after an operation: shut down within about an hour-and that’s the norm.
There’s a precedent: Ace0Spades was a good guy. Ace Of Spades was generally a total dick (he got banned for extreme dickery, so…) Heh–he was also nicknamed “The Acehole” for his level of jerk-ness.
“Acehole” was forced to change his name so Ace0Spades (who had the name years earlier) wouldn’t be confused with him and tarred by the ill-will
On review, Cesario’s request has been denied.
This decision was not based on the topic of the thread, but on the poster’s posting history in regards to this topic.
-xash
Administrator
Actually, there were two “Ask the Child Molester” thread examples–one “disappeared” thread (that may have been Stage Manager–I can’t tell but more I think about it, the more the dates don’t seem to support it–where “something was actually happening”…maybe. If it was Stage Manager.) and one that was just closed because, per Gaudere “Since sex with underage persons is illegal, and this thread seems to be inviting discussions with how to do same, this thread is locked.”
Note that the OP of the closed thread didn’t discuss anything more than Cesario wanted to discuss–less actually. Cesario wants to lobby for raping kids. The OP there point-blank said “No civil rights debates”–he didn’t want to lobby for changing the laws and drool about how he finds 2 year olds such hot little tarts like Cesario does.
And it was still insta-locked within like 8 posts. Why is this so hard now?
So…someone else could start a “Ask the Pedophile” thread? Great–someone should find a pedophile board and tell the inhabitants that the SDMB Administration welcomes them and would like them to feel free to post here for a larger audience. The SDMB administration is happy to give them a platform.*
Seriously–what changed? The board rules used to be clear: no “Ask the Pedophile” threads. Now they’re OK? Good lord why?
*Hyperbole–don’t actually go out and do this folks.
Allow me to quote myself from my first post in this thread:
What’s keeping me amused is people’s attempts to come up with rationalisations which by and large make no sense, in order to just what ISTM is really just being driven by their feeling that it’s “too fucking gross”.
So…again I ask: what’s changed?
Xash- this is really pretty ordinary- not the disallowing but the reasoning. If I mention umbrellas in a few threads will I be not allowed to start a thread about umbrellas?
Why can’t the administration have enough balls to say “There is a line in the sand- paedaphilia is beyond that.”
Ruling on the narrower issue was sufficient in this case. We did not need to rule on the broader issue, therefore the assumptions above are invalid.
-xash
Administrator
On the contrary. Respond more until he crosses the line and hope he gets banned for it.
The alternative is banning him for breaking an existing rule. Not for being gross.
So when we actually need the moderators to, y’know, moderate. They aren’t up to the task?
Would rather split hairs, can’t hear the users begging you to do something, like, maybe, moderate, for Christssake.
But bad words they are on top of?
This boy is using you and using your board, in a fashion that is not just unseemly and off putting, it’s extremely offensive. EXTREMELY.
So you are all willing to either stand around harumphing on one foot trying to decide this ‘delicate’ issue, or busy dancing around trying to make it somehow ‘passable’ to allow this nonsense.
Think you’ve seen train wrecks before? Stand back, this boy here has the potential to send this entire board down in flames, in my opinion.
Now man up and do your damn jobs!
What if they’re girls?
Ed Zotti has changed his mind, as evidenced above at post 116.
Bolding mine.
Ha ha ha…that’s hilarious. No bad language, though. No calling someone a motherfucker. We need to raise the tone of the board, after all.