You had to ignore the rest of my post to continue this argument, so I’ll restate it here, using your analogy.
You’d have to add to the above that someone came in to defend the person tied to the chair, by stating that others deserved to equally be tied to said chair. I’d then ask you to provide evidence that the atrocities committed by others were just as horrid as the person tied to the chair. It’s quite handy to point out the level of atrocities that the tied person has committed, to ensure that the defender doesn’t come back with something that pales in comparison. In doing so, giving a name to the atrocities is hardly that over the top.
If someone came to the defense of my post, it would be perfectly valid for you to point out the idiocy of my post in order to justify why it should be locked in the first place. If this required you to call my post a steaming pile of fecal leakage, in order to show just how poor my post was, so be it. The defenders of my post invited comparison, and you obliged.
Well, if those quotes were indeed taken out of context, you’d have a point. They weren’t, so you don’t. Once again, if someone invites comparison, they will often get it, but it’s not always going to turn out the way they’d like.
This isn’t some hypothetical logic exercise. In the thread in question, I didn’t take a stance on his banning initially, but did question the comparisons being made between him and other posters. Further comparisons warranted searching on my part, at which point I realized that not only is the comparison invalid, but that milroyj is a much bigger ass (and therefore deserving of a banning) than I’d initially assumed, so I stated such. Where’s the problem?
Look, Demo, we all know about you and Liberal’s tempestuous romance. We know there’s hurt feelings, and recriminations, and torn clothing. But couldn’t you do this someplace else? After all, if Lib’s turning every conversation to himself, you’re helping him to do so.
At any rate, I emailed Giraffe to share my thoughts on the situation. I just don’t like the idea that we’re now bound by rules of civil conduct and human decency in the pit, because that’s not what the place is for. Whether it’s ill-mannered or not to bash those who can’t defend themselves, it just strikes me as not a matter that merits administrative action. Good manners are just that - they’re not laws that bind us. They shouldn’t work that way here on the SDMB either. It should be up to each individual person to decide whether or not to act gauche or “unseemly”, since that’s what the pit exists for anyway.
Besides, the pit’s getting too nice as it is without the mods suddenly having to become the Nice Police.
As regards bannings, it almost seems that the end point is “complaints about the mods belong in the Pit, but you better not agree with them about a banning or the thread will be locked”.
And Harborwolf, the only other Doper whose banning was met with universal rejoicing recently was Boy Scout some number or other. In, a slew of violations, and out, all in a week or so. Rarely has the board come together with such unanimity.
I wonder, if I were banned, if I would continue to read the boards or not. Don’t know.
Liberal, can you clarify what you want, exactly? Are you simply appealling to folks to not engage in post-banning bashing, or do you wish moderators to enforce it?
FWIW, either way I admire your goal for its roots in your sense of fair play. I don’t agree with it, but I see where you’re coming from.
I’m generally reluctant to comment on current staff rulings given my past status here, but this issue is pretty cut-and-dried. There just ain’t a lot of wiggle room.
This ruling isn’t exactly anything new. It has long been something the staff has imposed with fairly even regularity. While threads damning/lauding the actions of the mods in banning an individual have been permitted, it is when that thread turns largely to the personality, the staff has stepped in to close it. Threads like this are permitted to continue for a short time so that members may comment on staff actions; they’re not supposed to provide a forum for crapping on the banned member. Of course, some measure of recounting the assets/deficits of the banned member is unavoidable in most situations, but after five pages, all that can be said, probably has—at which point pre-emptory action is entirely justifed. There’s little point in continuing a thread merely to heap abuse on someone for whatever flaws on perceives in their character, especially if they’re a private individual unable to respond. (Which is exactly what that thread had devolved to; the last pages are little but an accounting of milroyj’s perceived flaws and attempts to quantify them in terms iof the perceived flaws of previously banned members. That, a few silly quips and a very sparse commentary on staff actions in general.) Further, if a thread had been started primarily for the purpose of pissing on millroyj’s (or any other banned poster’s) grave, it would likely be closed as soon as a staff member ran across it. I know that when I was modding, I locked many such threads here in the Pit—even tho’ my turf was officially staked out for me over in MPSIMS.
A final point: it has always been permissible to start/participate threads lambasting public individuals in here. There’s a fairly distinct and obvious difference between these public figures and our ex-members. Anyone who believes otherwise is being obfuscatory for some reason of their own.
The problem, here, is that we (the board) are still working out the culture on this one. We have, indeed, closed threads where the primary (or sole) purpose of the thread was to bash the departed. Some of you may not have agreed with it, then, but it never created a firestorm of protests. On the other hand, we do allow criticism of the staff for bannings–at which time we obviously also allow people to defend the banning by pointing out the faults of the posters.
Where is the line? I don’t know.
When I read the milroyj thread, my first impression was the number of people who pointed out (accurately, in my opinion) that milroyj had contributed nothing but mean-spirited carping in his entire sojourn on the SDMB. Liberal pointed out that some of those comments had wandered away from observations about his behavior to simply bashing.
We have closed bashing threads in the past. Has everyone who is now complaining about this closing complained about the previous closings? (I am genuinely asking this for the information; I haven’t paid that much attention to a lot of the “farewell to the banned” threads.) Is there some objective criterion by which we can identify which threads will remain open and which we should close?
FWIW, I’ve got no beef with the closing of the thread; I’d prefer to see MORE threads closed when they devolve into nothing more than back-and-forth venting. But I don’t think the problem is with hurting-the-helpless, since I don’t think that’s what’s going on; the only problem is with, as Unclebeer points out, the lowering of the tone of the boards that results.
(This is a change from my previous post in this thread; Unclebeer persuaded me.)
Well, if, objectively speaking, the poster was a mere ninny, then you should close the thread. But if the name of the poster implies that he’s a pedophile, you should leave the thread open. And, just to make everyone happy, if it’s a thread about a public figure that’s not a member, you should disappear the thread, ban the OP, and kill a Bothan.
I guess I should have been paying more attention to the bashing threads before I becae a Mod. UncleBeer makes it sound a lot clearer than I had figured it to be. Now I have to figure out whether I need to read the bashing threads more often or avoid them completely.
Well, I think you just answered your own question, in this particular case. Wait for a large number of people from the last thread to post, post here. Personally, I see no reason to close a thread, since I see no problem with endlessly bashing an idiot, but here is a partial list comparing who has posted in the last one, and here, since I have nothing better to do:Last thread, but not here: Contrapuntal, ivylass, Fear Itself, Douglas Quaid, (Quaaaaaaiiiiiiddddd!) , jsgoddess, holmes. That is just a few that have not had a say in the new thread. Then again, they may have already had their say in the last thread, and have no reason to post in the new one, so I guess we are back to square one.
I guess my answer is, "I see no problem with insulting another poster, in the pit should you be frustrated with them, and see no reason not to keep a thread open. Of course, I am also not a mod, and have no real idea of the scale of problmes endless threads wreck on servers.
I haven’t, but then I also don’t often read that sort of thread. I did come across the linked thread, though, and I thought Miller made a good point in it which Giraffe didn’t seem to satisfactorily address when closing the thread. So, I started this thread to get a fuller response.
UncleBeer covered the reasoning and precedent behind closing that thread quite nicely.
A few comments:
My analogy was…poor. If it helps, I will almost certainly come up with far worse in the future. It’s a problem.
Closing that thread does not represent an admonishment of those who posted to it, or a new rule about being extra super nice in the Pit from now on, or a new era of jack-booted control and oppression. Don’t take the closing personally. Sometimes threads are closed simply as a preventative measure, and the discussions moved to new threads. When that should be done is a judgement call, and not a very clear-cut one.
Feel free to continue discussing the banning in another thread. Point to all the examples you want to about how milroyj’s behavior made his banning fair/unfair. Don’t post only to wax eloquent about how much you hated him or how happy you are he is gone.
If it turns out that the more experienced and good-smelling staff would have left the thread open, I’ll admit the mistake and try to do better in the future. I’m still figuring things out on this side of the intraweb.
On preview, I see tomndebb has already initiated a useful discussion about when such threads should be closed, so I’ll submit this.
Scott_plaid, I removed your Livejournal link. Discussions on Livejournal should not be brought here, especially as a way to connect with a banned poster.
And was quite out of place doing so. My apologies to you Giraffe, the Pit mods more inclusively, and the entire staff in general for stepping into a discussion regarding the managment of the boards. I don’t belong in these discussions, and have even less place in one than the membership at large given my past association with the SDMB.
A note to the membership: Please don’t construe my ill-advised post to be anything official in any manner, shape, or form. The rules here contiune to evolve, just as they do in the real world and a person who no longer is involved in the evolution of those rules should refrain from commentary. I’d ask that my post be taken only as a historical commentary and that it may, or may not, reflect the actual current management methods of the SDMB.
I disagree. You are, as much as any other member, allowed to put your oar in. Also, by now, I would think less than half the members would know that you ever were a moderator.
Speaking for myself, I didn’t find your comments inappropriate. You were speaking to the history of how such things have been handled in the past, not attempting to sway how things are handled now. I thought the tone of your post was one of experienced member, not wannabe mod, and I found it very helpful.
It is the ethical equivalent of descending vultures, the aesthetic equivalent of slinging boogers, the intellectual equivalent of burning witches. There is nothing redeeming about it whatsoever. It is pedomorphic to the extreme. In my opinion, whoever gets joy out of bashing people who are administratively prohibited from responding has every character flaw of the person he’s bashing — plus one. I submit that finding the behavior repugnant among people of honor is competely natural, and that whoever wishes to engage in the behavior ought to explain why and what they want, exactly.
Whether it’s ill-mannered or not to bash those who can’t defend themselves, it just strikes me as not a matter that merits administrative action. Good manners are just that - they’re not laws that bind us. They shouldn’t work that way here on the SDMB either. It should be up to each individual person to decide whether or not to act gauche or “unseemly”, since that’s what the pit exists for anyway.
, jsgoddess, holmes. That is just a few that have not had a say in the new thread. Then again, they may have already had their say in the last thread, and have no reason to post in the new one, so I guess we are back to square one. 