As per your post in: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6188655&postcount=41 where you suggest not to mention shooting animals in General Questions. I must say that killing pests, whether rabbits eating one’s garden or cats defecating in it, is a perfectly normal thing for many people to do. It is both ethical and most times legal. You shouldn’t let your pro-animal rights or anti-gun bias interfere with your moderation. SlyFrog apologized for his post, which wasn’t made in an offensive or provocative manner, when the OP pointed out that she didn’t want to hurt the cats. It was in no way comparable to Atroxe’s threat to murder Slyfrog’s children.
One would think that advocating the murder of another poster’s children would be banned.
SamClem warned SlyFrog not to suggest shooting animals.
Then Sam told Atroxe "DO NOT come back with a statement like 'here’s what I say to people like you : if you shoot cats, I’ll shoot your kids.’
Sounds like a pro-animal and pro-children moderator to me.
To quote Slyfrog: You fucking moron. (post #37) Slyfrog and Atroxe got into a mutual pissy fight which threatened to derail the thread. Sam stepped on them. Good for him, that’s his job. Course, they used to ban people for calling someone a moron in GQ…
I am shocked though that the thread made it to 50 posts without someone mentioning Alligators.
Huh? SamClem warned both posters for posts unsuitable to GQ. We don’t go looking for reasons to ban people, even guests. Just because he didn’t clobber somebody first time out with ol’ ban stick doesn’t remotely translate into bias of any kind.
I’m not sure how you came by your opinion that I’m “pro-animal rights” or have an “anti-gun bias” unless you’ve talked to me. Animals have no rights as far as I’m concerned. Who would have given them rights is beyond me. But I’m not in favor of killing anything just because that’s the easy way out.
As to my having an “anti-gun bias,” I probably do, but I don’t bring it up. It’s a non issue with me.
Killing pests is a big thing with me. I crushed about 100 black ants this week in my house. Sumbitches are everywhere. I live in Akron, Ohio, USA, and this time of the year they seem to come into the house all the time. I get almost orgasmic when I hear them crunch.
But, I don’t think I could muster a hard-on if I had to pull out my shotgun and kill a cat that just took a dump in my garden. Surely there must be a better way, unless you live in some backwater or third world country, where you can take delight in defending your patch against wild felines, determined to destroy your petunias or cabbage.
This one is a bit murkier.
I really didn’t have much problem with SlyFrog. But I had to include him in the warning. I don’t think he and I have a problem. He was wrong. He apologized. Good on 'em.
The murky part comes in on why I didn’t ban the guest Atroxe. It was a judgement call. I still think I made the right decision. Atroxe, being a guest, may not have been very aware of our prohibition on wishing death on someone. I didn’t take his/her statement as actually wishing death on SlyFrog’s kids. That call was up to me. You may disagree. If it had been a long-time poster with warnings out the wazzoo, they would be toast.
I appreciate you keeping me on my toes. I make mistakes. I don’t think I did this time.
I think the bias the OP is talking about was giving SlyFrog a warning at all, not for giving him a warning that was somehow disproportionate to the warning given to Atroxe. I don’t spend a lot of time in GQ, so maybe I don’t have a handle on the culture of that particular forum, but it don’t see what rules were being violated with that post. I don’t particularly like that solution to the OP’s problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid solution.
SamClem specificaly said “Don’t suggest shooting animals.” as his warning to SlyFrog, not anything about any other posts. SlyFrog had already admitted that he missed the qualification in the OP about not hurting them. What in SlyFrog’s post that he was warned about was not suitable for GQ? If he was being warned about content of other posts, why the warning about “Don’t suggest shooting animals”?
Well if SlyFrog had suggested using a BB gun then I’d see no grounds for giving him a warning. A BB gun is a non-lethal method to deal with cats that is employed by lots of people (I don’t agree with this, but it is indeed a common practice.)
Now obviously that would have violeted the “no harm” criteria of the Op, but SlyFrog immediately admitted he had glossed over that part of the OP and apologized.
I do think suggesting one use a shotgun is worthy of a warning because in most jurisdictions you can get in a heap of criminal trouble for blowing a shotgun off like that. And I think suggesting something that is criminal isn’t appropriate for GQ.
Samclem warned the Slyfrog not to mention shooting animals GQ. Not to not tell a homicidal lunatic making lethal threats to fuck off. He/She did it because he doesn’t like shooting animals.
I can shoot free roaming cats, collar or not, all day long outside of the city limits where I live. It’s not illegal at all. The universal illegality argument is bullshit. Samclem admitted that he warned Slyfrog because of dislike of shooting cats.
It’s black and white. Bias was used to make his decision.
I agree the warning to Slyfrog was unwarranted. I saw nothing to imply that he was glorying in the thought of shooting a pest, merely suggesting it as a solution. A solution that in many places is both legal and ethical. He did miss part of the OP, and immediately apologized when it was brought to his attention.
Slyfrog cannot be held responsible for the extreme overreaction of another poster and should not have been warned.
It’s behavior that’s illegal in many jurisdictions in the US, no doubt including the one housing the SDMB. It might be legal where you are, but the boards have always taken a very wary stance on discussing illegal behaviors.
If you have a problem with his style of moderation, you’ve basically got two choices. Given that your idea here is not getting a lot of positive feedback, you’re not gonna change samclem’s decision, so either shut up or leave. I personally hope for the latter, as the only posts I’ve seen from you are deliberately inflammatory ones on the subject of animal rights. No one really cares what your opinion is but posting just to piss people off is something I’m not fond of. I wish every idiot with an axe to grind would go grind it someplace else.
1)You’re first point is bullshit.
2)Some folks are definitely agreeing my point.
I don’t care that you don’t like me. I am Anti-War in Iraq. I am pro-Gay marriage. I am against the Patriot Act and the Minute Man Project. I think that Bush is a moron. I am used to being disliked even on boards not filled with leftwingnuts.
Sure I hate animal rights. I believe that the notion is thoroughly stupid and that the people that support them by legislatively taking away traditional and cultural rights from humans are evil. I have a fucking bias. Difference is, I’m not a Goddamn moderator letting my bias affect my decisions.
And I make plenty of posts that don’t concern animal rights.
