Oh, I don’t hold that against him.
If I had a big penis, I would probably beat people about the ears with it as well.
Dammit, we’re arguing. Stop that.
There’s a joke just dying to be made here, but as a public service, I will restrain myself.
This is a good point … the best one brought up in this thread. If “Don’t be a jerk” is the only really firm, set-in-stone rule, then it’s farily disingenuous to ban someone based on violation of an ad hoc rule, such as the one Manhattan devised in the Bush/Stevie Wonder thread.
Without banning anyone, that thread could have been controlled by simply yanking out the “rule”-breaking posts.
BTW, Kyomara’s other contributions to this forum should have been considered before a banning took place. Elsewhere on the forum, he is a stand-up, helpful poster. Why the summary banning?
<---- One step ahead of ya!
pezpunk what’s it like there?
Uh oh, me too!
A lot like here actually.
Yeah, but that’s not what I said. I said that anyone who made a political remark would be banned.
So he is. What would you have us do after a promise as direct as that?
We are, of course, open to the possibility that it took seven minutes to compose the post in question, or that the hamsters took seven minutes to put it through. If that’s the case, he can be reinstated every bit as quickly as he was banned. But he’s going to have to do the legwork and send an email.
We created the Pit and GD and all the other forums for a reason. GQ customers expect and deserve not to have to wade through everyone’s argumentitive political stuff when they ask or answer or read answers to factual questions.
Why? I certainly don’t see how every person should be banned if what Kyomara did was being a jerk, because it’s manifestly untrue that everyone has done what Kyomara did. I know I’ve never posting my irrelevant political opinions in a GQ thread, because having to wade through useless “Clinton/Bush sucks/rules” posts whenever someone asks a factual question about the current president is one of my pet peeves. And I’m glad to see the moderators cracking down on it.
Sure, I’ve seen some amazing hijacks in GQ where the thread has wandered off on a tangent and I’ve learned a lot of new things. But I think that’s mostly been the case where the thread was hijacked with discussion of other factual questions and the answers to them. Usually all political griping brings is more political griping. And everyone who posted in that GQ thread with political opinions or ancedotes that were irrelevant to whether Bush did wave at Stevie Wonder should have known better, including, in my view, a moderator (Ukulele Ike). Having said that, if Kyomara didn’t see manhattan’s warning prior to posting, and apologizes for his post, then I think it would be unfair to keep him banned, since the only difference between him and those before him would be an accident of timing (and on preview I see manhattan has agreed with this). But I am all in favor of tighter moderation in GQ against non-factual hijacks, including the banning of people who do so after a warning.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it ironic that Amok’s post was submitted 26 minutes after Manhattan’s, but he would not have seen the prior post if he hadn’t previewed his reply and looked for new posts.
Could you clarify why you found it ironic, rsa? I don’t think the set of circumstances you noted fit the definition of irony, but I’d be interested to read why you felt differently.
Now, what might be ironic is that after just complaining about hijacks I’m now furthering one, in that this doesn’t seem to be particularly relevant to the OP. But in my defense, my impression is that the standards in the Pit and GQ are somewhat different.
Ironic is probably the wrong word. But I wasn’t referring to the content of your post, just that Kyomara was assumed to have ignored a mod’s warning that came 7 minutes before his post. I was pointing out that with the slowness of the board and the fact that people do not always preview, it would be very easy for Kyomara to have missed seeing Manhattan’s warning. It just seems like the new motto here is guilty until proven innocent.
I’m not rsa, but I’ll give it a try…
Your reply was posted a full 26 minutes after manhattan’s, wherein you also stated that you wouldn’t have even seen his post had you not previewed yours.
Therefore, it seems to prove that a mere 7 minutes between posting times is well within reason to apply the benefit of the doubt without jerking ones knees so damn hard. Hell, even the 20 minute distance between the banned poster and Tuba Diva’s post is an extremely short time to expect someone to apologize for something they very well may not have seen.
As for manny’s reply here, what I would have you do (since you asked), is try to be objective and reasonable and think a little before acting so harshly and rashly. Common damn sense should tell someone with your length of participation here that cross posting, even with a bit of a delay between posts, happens all the damn time here. ALL the time.
In fact, it happened to me just last night. My fiancé posted a thread in IMHO inquiring about honeymoon destinations. I later replied that it appears we will be unable to leave the country. 21 minutes later a post appears by Cervaise, highly recommending Fiji. So tell me, should I have assumed that the generally kind, intelligent and helpful Cervaise was being a jerk by ignoring my post, or would I be better advised to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’d missed my post as he was composing his?
What would I have you do now? Unban him immediately without requiring an apology or an explanation, as what happened in that thread is obvious even to – well – Stevie Wonder.
I really appreciate your consideration in avoiding stepping on my penis - Spiny Norman
[symbol][sub][sup]©[/sup][/sub][/symbol] Jeg elsker dig, Thomas [symbol][sub][sup]©[/sup][/sub][/symbol]
I don’t mean to imply that this is a common occurence. Usually in these cases there is some history involved that causes a mod to ban someone. This does not seem to be the case here (unless Manhattan just failed to mention it).
For those who felt we should wait for moderator response; it seems that manny has confirmed that the speculation in this thread was correct.
Do we have your official permssion to jump all over him now?
Amen Shayna. Best damn post I’ve read here all day. (Except maybe the fart one)
The mods should admit they jumped the gun and unban him.
I’m beginning to think Tuba was right. It’s just a bunch of brats in a car. A very slow and crowded car. And nobody cares if one kid gets lost.
I’ll certainly agree that it’s quite possible that Kyomara missed manhattan’s post, and maybe he didn’t notice the warning when his browser refreshed the page after posting. But it’s also possible that wasn’t the case. Banning him brings the matter to a head and requires that he explain himself, whereas letting it go might allow someone who delibrately broke a rule to go on. From what manhattan wrote it seems like a simple “hey, didn’t see your warning when I posted, sorry, won’t do that again” would get him unbanned, so I don’t see that as a great hardship. If the moderators were saying that Kyomara was banned for life no matter what his excuse it would be different, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.
Well, I agree that 7 minutes is enough to give someone the benefit of the doubt. What shape that benefit should take is debatable. I don’t think your explanation clarifies why my post might be “ironic”, but since rsa said it was probably the wrong word, the discussion is, I suppose, moot.
I believe that borderlands was disputing the wisdom of the original threat.
Are you using the royal plural?
Yes, after making that threat, you were faced with a choice of making an arbitrary banning or looking like you were backing. Which is a reason why you shouldn’t have made the threat it the first case.
Don’t you think that banning and unbanning people is disruptive, and that the same effect could have been achieved by warining him?
I find the “expect” part to be definitely untrue, and the “deserve” to be debatable. If you’re trying to clean up GQ, letting most infractions go without a warning and arbitrarily banning others does not seem like the way to go.
BTW, if anyone’s keeping score, it took about five hours for a moderator to respond to this thread.