Liberal, my main question was whether or not you wish this to be something that mods enforce, or simply something you are asking members not to do.
You’re a gent, UncaBeer. I beg to differ that you didn’t have a place commenting here, though. You’re still a Doper, man, and you summed up the situation very well. Don’t be a stranger, now, hear? (Or any stranger than you’ve always been, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.)
Giraffe didn’t misstep. Pieties aside, a big part of closing threads that bash banned members is because what real point do they have? After a fair amount of time for posters to dissect the banning itself and vent about the banned, it amounts to beating a dead horse. In a sense it also validates a troll’s satisfaction in riling people up. Frankly I’m not overly concerned about milroyj’s dignity because he didn’t show such respect to others. (And before you pitch yet another hissy fit over semantics, Liberal, people aren’t banned for good behavior. It’s artifically coy to ignore the blatantly obvious.) The process becomes counterproductive after a short while.
It’s human nature to indulge in “Could you believe that guy?” after a dust-up but after a while, chewing over it–on one side or the other–but comes a time to move on. Those limits are admittedly subjective but that other thread had just about petered out.
I, too, want Giraffe to go for the pirate thing. Parrots. Gang planks. Flogging vs. keelhauling. Rape. Rum. Pillage. Maybe more parrots.
Veb
Oh, no, I’m not appealing to the mods, just expressing my own opinion. The mods are like anyone else: those with the class of Tuba will forbid it; others will rationalize it and let it slide. In the closed thread, I expressed my opinion as I always do. This time, one or two people challenged it. I responded, discussions ensued, and here we are.
I don’t know why you’ve taken to bitching at me lately. You’ve become like the lazy roadside robber who jumps out at the slow wagon. But I do not pitch hissy fits over semantics. You are merely feckless with words.
Liberal, I see your view and although I disagree with it, I consider it a reasonable one.
Can you see that the people who feel that it’s not such a terrible thing, and no mod should bother with it, also have a reasonable view? And that these people simply have a different opinion, and are not necessarily lacking “class”?
No, but I am always willing to listen to a compelling argument and change my mind. Perhaps you can explain it to me. What reason is there to bash someone who is administratively prohibited from responding?
Whether there’s a reason to do it or not is completely irrevelevent to the fact I don’t find it such a big deal.
But you specifically asked whether they have a “reasonable view”. I readily admit that they have a view. But for it to be reasonable, there must be a reason.
I meant “reasonable” in the sense that the view itself is not an excessive or extreme view. Not that the bashing has a good reason behind it.
I think that the crux of the issue is that some folks assume that a banned poster won’t be back to the boards in any capacity. As such, what you say doesn’t really matter to them, and might be a good way for you to vent. And, in a way, banning is almost volitional. By the time someone’s racked up a good bunch of warnings it becomes their choice to shape up, or ship out. So if someone has chosen to leave the board, and they were a jerk while they were here, some folks want to vent a bit since the schmuck is gone.
The counter argument to this seems to rest on the person browsing the Dope and seeing their name mentioned. I’m not quite so sure that would indicate any form of masochism, as some posters have claimed. Heck, were I magically banned tomorrow I might still haunt GD or GQ, what have you. I might even, out of morbid curiosity, want to ‘go to my own funeral’, although I hope I wouldn’t.
To be honest I’m not really sure which side I’m on right now, or if I’ve got all the arguments correct. It seems to me though that this is analogous to taboos against speaking ill of the dead. While some people think you can’t vent about someone who has died, others figure that a dead person doesn’t exist anymore, so what would they care anyways? And, I have to admit, if a poster is banned, never coming back, and doesn’t browse the Dope, then it doesn’t really matter much if people add a parting shot to a ‘good riddance!’
But of course, there’re complications, and some people do still browse the Dope even after they’re banned, and it does seem to me to be somehow… un-sportsmanlike to slam someone, and have them reading it, and not have them be able to give their side of the story.
And after spilling all this ink, I’d just like to say: Goddessdamn! I’m glad I’m not a mod, they have fucking hard jobs!
Reason 1: It does no harm to the bashee, since they’re not around.
Reason 2: It does good for the bash-er, since they get a chance to vent their frustrations–a very human need.
Counter-reason: It may lower the tone of discussion on this board.
Your comparisons to witch-burnings, vultures, etc. ignore the central point: the person supposedly being bashed is not the least-bit harmed by the bashing. It’s the intellectual equivalent of saying, “Wow, what a jerk!” after a jerk leaves the room: no more, no less.
Daniel
I disagree. Some years ago, when I voluntarily had my privileges revoked, in order to take a break from posting, there were some things said about me in a Pit thread that I found to be extremely hateful and wrong. The remarks hurt me deeply. To this day, I am thankful that TubaDiva had the class to step in and stop it, admonishing people that it is unseemly to bash someone who can’t respond.
Human need? Do you mean to say that you recognize a human need to vent frustrations, but not a human need to defend one’s reputation or parry an attack? If you were prohitibed from responding to this post, perhaps it would fill my need, but would it fill yours?
I understand your point of view, but it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between being dead and being administratively banned. But let me ask you this: is there no limit at all on what may be said? May someone say, for example, that MilroyJ had been arrested for bank robbery? Now that he can’t respond, is it open season for whatever assuages the “need” to vent?
I just don’t get the need to keep on reading. For me, this place is a community: if I’m not welcome in the community, it’d be bizarre for me to keep frequenting it.
There is sometimes a need to defend my reputation, but only from people about whose opinion I care. If a group has decided to eject me, why the heck would I care what specifically they think of me?
If I do care about my reputation with a group, of course, I’ve got a positive duty not to grind my reputation into the dirt. If I shred my own reputation, I can hardly be upset when people notice that.
More saliently, I think it’s fair to say that milroy never once evinced any sign that he cared what members of this board thought about him, unless he was pleased at garnering outrage.
Daniel
Are you asking if breaking libel laws ought to be legal because of his absence? Or are you simply asking whether it suddenly becomes moral to bear false witness against someone due to their inability to respond?
The limit is simply the one that always should hold on these boards: no member of the board ought to say things that are intentionally deceptive.
Daniel
We’re talking about someone who appeared to actually take pleasure in being hateful to people. Did you read the link I found in the other thread? Geez, the boy was a slimeball, and had I seen that while he was a member, I’d have gone off on him a lot worse than I’m doing now. There are plenty of not nice things being said about him, but I have yet to see a single thing that was wrong.
Once again, I don’t think all of us were even venting. I was merely stating a rebuttal to the stance that his banning was no more called for than certain other posters. If you’re argument is that there it is not called for under any circumstances, I’ll continue to disagree with you. If you’re just wanting to eliminate gratuitous drive-by bashings of a banned poster, I’m on your side.
Do you think that posts questioning the banning of a poster, or defending the behavior of a banned poster, should go completely unchallenged? If you hadn’t had those types of posts, a large number of us would have had nothing to post in that thread.
Well, that’s the nature of needs, isn’t it. I understand mine just fine; yours not quite so much. And apparently, vice-versa.
You have been ejected by administration. Meanwhile, people remain about whom you care.
Some people might say you have a good reputation; some might say your reputation sucks. People are banned for specific infringements or rules. Many, like Satan, still have good reputations among lots of us here.
You’re entitled to your view. I know practically nothing about the man. Seldom, if ever, did I encounter him as best I can recall. But why should you, or some group of members, decide who is and who is not worth of defenseless bashing? Why not simply rise above the disusting practice altogether and be done with it?
I agree with you on this point (and in fact I share your views on the situation in general) but I think it’s fair to say that many banned users very clearly don’t share your opinion. Look at all those who come back as socks (especially the ones who come back multiple times) or who still frequent the snark communities. There’s a lot of people who don’t seem to be able to let go of the place when it lets go of them, sad as that may appear to outsiders.
I can’t imagine he’s shedding many tears if, indeed, he’s reading this. Further, I guess I don’t think the mods have a duty whatsoever to banned users, beyond things like not revealing their credit card data. Bannings are not arbitrary; people who are banned have multiple chances to improve their behavior beforehand and I can’t help but see it as a personal decision on their part. A bad one, perhaps, and one they regret, but it is by their own hands. So I don’t think they’re deserving of our community’s protections when they’ve rejected our community.
Further, I simply don’t understand why mods should be enforcing human decency. Perhaps posters should conduct themselves in a certain way (though of course those standards differ from person to person) but to ask the mods to enforce a code of good manners when it’s not directly serving the interest of maintaining the community’s viability just seems heavy-handed. It’s excellent that they work to make sure relations are smooth between posters, but there just doesn’t seem to be a compelling benefit to the SDMB for them to enforce propriety when there isn’t a risk of disruption or unpleasantness here. It just doesn’t seem appropriate to decide it’s a mod’s duty or right to set down standards for good behavior.
But who says what is intentional and what is deceptive? Don’t the mods have enough to do without combing newspapers for verification that MilroyJ has not robbed a bank? Suppose I don’t even say that he has been arrested for bank robbery. I suppose I just call him a bank robber, just because I think that’s a demeaning term, like shit face or something. When I compared Veb to a roadside robber waiting to pounce on a slow wagon, was I being deceptive?
Your conscience.
I’ll continue this debate once someone makes that accusation with the intent to deceive.
I do not believe you wanted us to believe that Veb is literally a roadside robber. Since you did not want us to believe that, then no, you were not being deceptive. If you did want us to believe that, you’re the lamest liar in the history of lying.
Because in small doses it’s not disgusting, that’s why.
Daniel