Overreaction in banning this guy?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=77332

OK, I understand why his original thread was closed, the mods are pretty consistent on closing threads of this nature. The guy asked why they did that and where he could read a list of the forum rules. The original reply to his post was pointed out to him, and he clarified that he read that, but was wondering what the reasoning behind that rule is, and where he can see a list of the rules.

Moderator jumps in, calls him stupid, and bans him. Overreaction? Manhattan seems extra touchy about drug-related threads, I can see another thread closing but I don’t think a banning was necessary when he was explaining what kind of answers he was asking for.

Is he banned? It doesn’t say it, and there was no announcement that he was. Just a note that he needed to e-mail Tuba. Yes, I know what that implies, but…was he actually banned?

Oops, I misread it - I just read it again and manhattan said to contact Tuba “regarding the continuance of your posting privileges.” For some reason I read that as “regarding the return of your posting privileges.” Sorry about that.

It still seems like an overreaction. I know that if I was called stupid by a moderator when I was a new poster in a similar situation, I probably would have been turned off to the boards and left. Since it was a while before I started getting called stupid by mods it was too late, I was already addicted to the boards.

Would it have been so difficult to explain the reason behind the rule and give him a link to the forum guidelines? A simple ‘We don’t allow posts of that nature because it exposes the people who provide the forums to legal liability, here’s where you can read the rest of our rules’ would have worked just as well, I’d think.

If you ask me, which no one ever does, the guy seems a bit of clod.

His first question(why was it shut down?) was answered clearly. His second question, to my mind, seems like he wants to start an argument. Also, isn’t there a list of rules we have to read when we sign up?

Maybe this is just my interpretation, but I thought he was asking why we had that rule. I think it’s pretty obvious, but it might not be to everybody - not everyone lives in a country where someone who runs a message board that someone else uses to help obtain drugs can face criminal prosecution. This guy posted, had his thread closed with an explanation ‘We don’t talk about how to get drugs here’, he asks why and where can I see these rules, and he gets berated and possibly banned.

Actually I was disappointed at the result of the Henman Ivanisevic game. I honestly think that if the game had continued on Friday, it would have been a very different story.

Yes Gary, but saying that it seemed to me that Ivanisevic had regained his form just prior to the rain on Friday. But who knows?

I note two things however:

  1. you said that Henman would lose. You got this correct, but now seem to be suggesting that you were lucky to predict this, since only the rain led you to be right.

  2. I said 3-2 and I was correct. Since I didn’t say who was going to win 3-2, I now claim that I meant that Ivanisevic was going to win.

Hope this clears things up.

pan

Do you obtain some kind of pleasure from hijacking serious threads?

I don’t know. I haven’t hijacked a serious one yet.

Let’s see, the original thread was closed with an explanation by the administrator (not a mod, mind you, but an administrator) and instead of, oh, say e-mailing the mods/admins with further questions about it, he opens another thread with this line in it:

interesting tone to take if all you were asking for is clarification.

Don’t be silly. They never, ever overreact when banning someone. It just doesn’t happen.

I’ve noticed you have a tendency for always backing the moderators when issues come up like this. Is it a popularity thing? Do you want to become a mod yourself, perhaps? If so, you should be a bit more open, instead of attempting to subvert threads through random inanity.

Yawn. Someone disagress with you, accuse them of being the teachers pet? Haven’t seen that since kindergarten.

I’m such a fan of the mods that I’ve had heated rows with most of them (Unclebeer - guns, Czarcasm - magic, etc). How about we try a different hypothesis. Just two days after a thread whining about someone getting banned for doing something stupid, you raise a similar thread about someone who didn’t get banned (yet) for doing something even more stupid. And then you wonder why I find that funny?

Well, why is it funny? Sounded like an honest question to me. If you really think the thread’s so pointless, why are you even bothering to post in it?

IMO:

  1. Reasons given were pretty simple and straightforward.

  2. Manhattan’s reaction was again a bit over the top and the issue could have been handled a bit more diplomatically.

You may call it a hijack. I call it making a point.

pan

Well, I’m curious - and no, I’m honestly not trying to be insulting…

When one brings up a tennis hijack, what is the real purpose? Is it to express total contempt at the OP and/or the thread, without resorting to flaming the OP - thus, it is a “kinder, gentler” sort of flame?

Or is it an expression of disinterest - saying “whether or not you have a point, the existence of your OP/thread offends me, and I am going to talk about tennis here”?

Could it be an expression of the overwhelming nature of such an epochal event as Wimbledon? A simple overflowing of emotion and feeling of the majesty that is tennis - displayed so prominently in the glorious cavalcade of Wimbledon - that it simply demands that it be discussed in unrelated threads?

Or is it a willful act of Thread Vandalism - a drive by L.A.- gang - type - drive - by thing? Like “Yo - yo - yo - Dawg! Let’s go and pop some caps in this thread!” “Hey home-slice! Word this out - my bro Ivanisevic totally fused that boyachik Henman!”

I’m open to other suggestions, as like the mystery of the Top Quark, tennis fans have yet to be understood…

(Anthracite, who does watch tennis actually…)

Damnit. Now I’m thinking of Ali G. as a commentator at Wimbledon.

Respect. :smiley:

I thought the womens’s final was amazing.

At first you have these seeming opposites: The large, black, outgoing, busty American Venus Williams, and the tiny, wispy, pale, reserved European Henin.

But, if you watch, they play exactly the same. Aggressive, hard-hitting, and apparently there are parallels in their family lives as well. Both have had problems with their fathers. Both showed real class. The second set was epic.

Hi Badtz, how ya goin’ mate?

It’s embarrassing to admit but I did respond in another thread the good Doctor started (now of course I can’t find it) and I was aware he did that thing where [ul] [li]he asked a reasonable question about how do you do something in the USA (was it about ice in drinks?), but never came back into the thread to respond to the answers people offered him. [/ul]Anyway, I posted something asking where he was posting from - Singapore? - and how it’s always good to give other posters a little background when you ask a question.[/li]
And then a moment ago I said his name out loud - Doctor Goo Fee.

[sub]Oh, NOW I get it![/sub]

Redboss