Not certain people. Certain mental disorders. Punishing somebody for something they have no control over is immoral.
But surely allowing a free rein to those with supposed mental disorders is just a big flashy sign saying “troll here please”.
Thanks, Gary. I’ll keep that in mind for future reference, but I get nervous about using it frivolously. As for finding someone online, I found out that the “View Forum Leaders” button is able to tell me which mods are logged in. IIRC, I had elected to ask my (now moot) question of Marley23, seeing as how he’s listed as a GD mod, and he was online at the time.
ETA: bucketybuck, thank you for using “free rein” correctly. Your reward is that any time in the next three calendar months, you can say something nice about the Designated Hitter rule in Major League Baseball, and I won’t mutter under my breath about your parentage.
Huh? Thats that rounders game isn’t it? I think that even if I knew what a designated hitter was, I would struggle to say something good about it.
Perhaps I could give this reward to someone who might really need it…
We don’t suspend or ban people in order to “punish” them. We do so because we feel that their posting behavior is not compatible with what we want to see on this board. It’s rather irrelevant what the source of that behavior is. Since we have no way to verify a poster’s actual mental health, we can only go by the behavior itself. We’re not going to give someone a pass just because they allege they have a particular disorder.
Patronizing much? :rolleyes:
Mental illness isn’t an excuse for being a jerk. Besides, it hasn’t been established that he HAS no control over his behavior. And if that were the case, then he shouldn’t be posting here anyways.
People who have disorders don’t need to be coddled, nor should they be allowed to get away with breaking all the rules here because they have a disorder. You can be mentally ill and still be a jackass. (Note here – I’m speaking generally here, not just about Curtis)
There goes my Tourette’s defense.
sigh
They are all jerkish behavior, and bragging about doing that stuff here is also jerkish.
Also, I see no one has commented on this gem from the latest thread:
NOTE TO THE MODS: If you decide to lock this thread (for whatever reason) please note since this isn’t illegal (either law or the board’s rules) I personally believe this poll is acceptable.
At best, that’s snarky. Could also be said to be taunting the mods and trolling.
Also shows he doesn’t consider ‘don’t be a jerk’ to be a rule.
Back atcha. That’s the whole purpose of that smiley, and snark in general.
I’m not trying to be patronizing. I just think it’s self-evident. If you think my statement about punishing someone who doesn’t know better is incorrect, give me something to prove me wrong.
All I can think about is how people who are judged to be mentally incompetent aren’t punished, but sent to psychiatric help.
Which is what I’m trying to establish (or not). And I’m starting to doubt it myself, having seen the actual warnings, when before all I’d seen was the odd threads.
And while mental illness isn’t an excuse for being a jerk, typical Aspie behavior is hard to tell the difference. You have to be able to judge intent.
I agree with all but the first part. You’d have to be more clear what “coddled” means. In general, treating someone with a mental disorder exactly the same as someone without is a bad idea. But there is a level of excess. Again, I’m trying to establish if we’re into the realm of excess, not asserting we aren’t.
Finally, mental illness is a big thing for me. I’ve seen at least two people essentially pitted for their illness. To me it’s no different from any other illness. You wouldn’t give a diebetic a sugary cake and tell them they have to eat it just like everyone else. You have to make allowances.
I’m trying to ascertain whether allowances have been made. As someone with a mental illness myself, I try to protect others if I think things are being unfair.
He clearly recognized in his OP that the thread could be problematic. He had been notified a few days earlier that he was on thin ice. He could have run the thread by a moderator to ask if it would be acceptable, but instead chose to just go ahead and post it.
Curtis is not incapable of changing his behavior. When the poll function was first implemented, he started posting many polls a day. He was told to cool it. He did it some more contrary to instructions, then received an official warning. At that point he cut his posting of new polls back, so he is capable of learning.
Then trolling and being a jerk are impossible to enforce, as both require judgments of intent.
I am looking at my profile - where is the "infractions’ tab? Or is this something only visible to a mod?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
Asperger’s is not a defense. Not for repeated behavior. Aspies do not lack control of their actions. They may misstep socially, but the aware ones work to correct that upon being informed they’ve misstepped. If they’ve been diagnosed, they know their brains aren’t wired up the same as everyone else’s, and most will work harder to overcome their handicap in social situations. Even then, they’re pretty high-functioning; it’s not like they’re wholly alien. Autistics are more alien, but even they can understand when they’re making mistakes and work to correct them. The ones who absolutely can’t have people to help them and frankly shouldn’t be left to their own devices, such as posting randomly on a website.
There is absolutely no way that Asperger’s is an excuse for ignoring multiple warnings and corrections. That comes from being a clueless idiot (or a clued shit-stirrer).
Huh? Jurors make judgments of intent every day, based on evidence presented to them. Was it murder or manslaughter? Hate crime or not? Etc. Mods can and do make similar decisions, referencing a poster’s past history and the mod’s experience.
I’m not trying to establish free rein. But even if I did, I think it’s pretty obvious the difference between a troll and someone with legitimate Aspergers, not the least because most people don’t understand it well enough to pull it off.
Gary said both you and the mods can see it but not other members. I presume it only shows if you have warnings.
Collibri said he could only judge behavior, not intent, as he said the source of the behavior was irrelevant. Jurors judge both, and thus have nothing to do with what I said
My whole argument is that, if someone has a mental disorder like Aspergers, your normal rules about intent go out the window. Just because a neurotypical person doing X would most likely have malicious intent, doesn’t mean an Aspie would.
I basically alleged that Curtis’s illness is not being given the weight it’s due. I’m not absolutely sure that is true anymore.
I don’t think he actually said that. He said that he can’t judge a poster’s mental health, ie he doesn’t know if someone has a mental issue or not. He does judge their behavior, and I think that includes judging intent.
I’m not at all convinced that Curtis is what he’s claimed to be agewise or healthwise.
You are assuming he is telling the truth about his age and aspergers. Without knowing the poster personally, the board has to treat everybody the same.