Certainly. 
(TBH, I was hoping there might be more to the story.)
By the way, has anyone seen Lib? He was with us at that last rest stop . . .
The answer is clear: Obviously I shouldn’t just be banned, but strapped face-down over an anthill and subjected to red-hot Matchbox cars being forcefully inserted into the available orifice. My inability to click preview and look for relevant sneakposts that appeared while I slaved over my own is a failure of the deepest character, one that speaks directly to my worthlessness as a human. My first clue that I had done something unforgivable and utterly reprehensible was when my good friend Kenneth Lay told me not to worry about it.
(Seriously, I had no idea I had done this until I came back this morning and checked the thread again. I considered apologizing, blah blah blah, but I figured that what had happened was self-evident. Extrapolate from this however you wish.)
(P.S. Kind, intelligent, and helpful? Man, I gotta work harder on my image.)
Why, I oughta ban you just for trying to turn me on. Stop that right now – I’m engaged and you’re married, ya big tease. 
I hope you realize that it clearly was self-evident, which is why it made such a great example in this thread. No need to apologize at all. Besides, you also included a U.S. suggestion, as well, which we will also take into consideration (I love Seattle!). So, thanks!
It seems that the ones protesting the loudest are the ones who use GQ the least:
Name Total Posts in GQ
Over the Past Six Months
andros 0
Shayna 0
pezpunk 3
Slacker 5
-------------------- Once per month
imthjckaz 8
Amok 8
TXLonghorn 9
Robb 14
Yojimbo 15 (thread starter)
bordelond 15
Slip Mahoney 18
The Ryan 18
Beeblebrox 20
cheezit 20
--------------------- Once per week
obfusciatrist 25
Libertarian 36
rsa 36
Squink 144
--------------------- Once per day
manhattan 186
Duck Duck Goose 447 (just out of curiosity)
Could it be that these freedom fighters have no clue as to what actually belongs in GQ ?
The thread in question has, predictably, degenerated into a liberal-bashing presidential stroking contest, What does this sort of bullshit have to do with either facts or the battle against ignorance ? Nothing. When a GQ thread begins to wander in that direction it needs to be plucked like the noxious weed it is. If a few posters get whacked in the process, so be it. They can always apologize and promise to try to behave in the future.
To be fair, Squink, please remember that posting to GQ is not the same as using GQ. For all that I don’t post there, it’s usually my first stop daily.
Yes, Squink, because god knows that number of posts in GQ is a good indication of familiarity with GQ.
Regardless, there are two issues here and only one of them has anything to do with GQ
-
What level of side conversation and/or hijacking is allowed. That is an issue open to interpretation and living with manny’s law is fine with me (though I disagree with where he drew the line).
-
Is it fair to punish someone for violating a moderator warning when it is very likely that the poster never saw the warning. That is the point I think most of the “freedom fighters” here are discussing.
However, I personally think that as long as it doesn’t get too debateful, once the answer to the original question was determined to be “uncertain,” then a reasonable side discussion is WHY the story spread so quickly and was latched onto with little evidence (even if it may be true). That discussion likely can’t happen without some political statements. I personally don’t think that crosses the line, but if manny disagrees I have no problem with the thread being moved or a request made that the discussion be restarted elsewhere.
However, if you think that thread was predictable liberal bashing, president stroking then it must strike you as ironic that the person banned was the one who said mean things about the president.
Perhaps, but this is the Pit and I need not make any effort to be fair. 
That sort of etiquette is usually expected in GQ and possibly GD. It pisses me off when people abuse those conventions. How about you ?
Damn… there’s the answer to why the SDMB is running so fucking slow- Squink’s been taxing the server with searchs.
You could see it that way, or you could see it before the warning by Manny as a Bush-bashing, self-stroking contest, with the general tenor being: “Gee, I don’t know if it’s true, but I sure can believe it. How many Bushes it take to screw up a lightbulb? It takes three. Wait a minute, I told it wrong. Here, I’m startin’ over: How come it takes three Bushes to screw up a lightbulb? 'Cause they’re so darn stupid!”
Now is that doing anything for the battle against ignorance?
Squink stop making fun of my post count.
newbie
I’m not normally one to get involved in these discussions and I recognize that the mods and admins are under enormous pressure, especially lately. However, in this case, I’m afraid I must side with the whiners.
**
If it were me, I’d apply the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard before convicting anyone of a crime. I’ve seen mods do this all the time in various fora, especially GD. "I assume you simulposted, let me re-iterate . . . "
Anyway, based on the reasoning you used to ban Kyomara, I’m afraid that you must ban obfusciatrist as well. From the dread thread in question:
Apart from its tone, this statement is essentially identical to the statement Kyomara got banned for – an opinion on Bush’s performance in office. Like Kyomara’s it violates Manhattan’s directive to “stick strictly to the facts.” What’s worse, this was posted almost six hours after Manhattan’s admonition.
Sorry obs!
<snort> As others have said, as if that matters. However, you’re still wrong. Methinks you need to refine your search capabilities – and get your memory checked. Apparently you’ve forgotten that all posts from December 7th through the end of February have disappeared forever. That’s 3 months worth of posts that fall within the most recent 6! And apparently you’ve also forgotten our home-away-from-home at bbboy, where posts could also be made to the GQ forum.
I respectfully point you in the direction of the following GQ threads in which I participated in the last 6 months, minus, of course, all the lost threads within the past 3 most recent of those months:
October 3, 2001: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90944
Friday, March 1, 2002: http://bb.bbboy.net/straightdope-viewthread?forum=3&thread=34
Monday, March 4, 2002: http://bb.bbboy.net/straightdope-viewthread?forum=3&thread=113
Thursday, March 7, 2002: http://bb.bbboy.net/straightdope-viewthread?forum=3&thread=203
Friday, March 8, 2002: http://bb.bbboy.net/straightdope-viewthread?forum=3&thread=224
And of course, if by posting a big, fat zero next to my name is meant to imply that I never use the GQ forum, go back just a bit further and you’ll find a whole page of GQ threads in which I participated. I won’t post a link to it so that it doesn’t tax the search engine here, but in my tenure at SD since December of 1999, the current search engine (again, minus the last 3 months, and also minus who-knows-how-many that were pruned during previous updates to the software) shows 99 threads I’ve participated in in GQ. Certainly not nearly as many as some, but hardly a big, fat goose egg, either.
Now, care to try again to alledge that I don’t know how GQ operates?
I didn’t think so.
No. Of course we all perceive things through our own pair of glasses, but I think most of us can agree on when a thread veers from a discussion of the facts into a partisan slamfest/lovefest. It’s damn hard to get answers to real questions when assholes, on either side, come in and obscure things with such trollish outbursts.
That type of behavior needs to be aggressively discouraged, or innocents like Barking Spider will find it impossible to get their questions answered. If you need to witness mobs of partisans descending of every conceivable issue just head on over to arstechnica, or some of the unmoderated boards. It’s not pretty.
It’s too bad Kyomara got caught up in this. What’s worse is that it was probably only his 3rd GQ post. Still, we must all apologize sometime. It’s not that hard. I’ve even seen december do it :eek:
Others (red_dragon60 ???) have returned from banishment and gone on to lead happy, successful lives here, stopping rhinos with their bare hands.
-And yes, there is an invisible smirky next to the phrase “innocents like Barking Spider”
Squink, you seem to be missing the point, which remains, what, exactly, does Kyomara have to apologize for? Inadvertantly simulposting with a moderator and not seeing that there even was a warning? That’s stupid. How can someone be sorry for doing something wrong, that they didn’t do wrong? If all manny wanted was to see in writing, “hey man, I didn’t see your post before I hit submit or I wouldn’t have,” that almost might be one thing, because it doesn’t require an apology (and I say “almost might” because even without the guy having to say so, it’s as obvious as an elephant in a fish tank). But if he actually expects the poor guy to apologize for unknowingly simulposting, then that’s a bit much.
Hi Shayna. Sorry, I missed that one post. I think I may have just backed out on what looked like an empty search results page.
So you managed to get yourself up to 5 posts since October. So what, everyone else was laboring under the same handicap. If you’ve some credible evidence that your a recent and avid reader of GQ please present it. If not, quit your whining. We’ve already got the best available numbers on usage. Besides, do you really think it’s fair to compare reading to posting ? Kyomara got in trouble for what he posted, not for what he read. The two activities are fundamentally different.
I certainly had no intention of singling you, or anyone, out as a know-nothing with respect to GQ, but it’s perfectly valid for me to point out that there’s a lot of whiny noise coming from people who haven’t posted there much recently.
For behaving like a jerk obviously. There have been many of these types of threads in GQ in the past, and lots of them end up with the mods giving some active guidance. Sometimes that helps, and the thread returns to factual discussion. Sometimes it doesn’t and the thread wanders into partisan, or religious, or philosophical B.S. I’m willing to grant that most posters know when they’re bullshitting. That makes them responsible for keeping it at a reasonable level even without dire warnings by the mods.
For what my opinion is worth …
The banning seems a little severe to me, and a little unrealistic to demand that people not utter anything political in a specific thread.
What Kyomara was doing by commenting on his/her feelings about Bush was establishing that he/she feels no lost love for the guy, yet he/she believed that whether Bush had waved at Stevie Wonder wasn’t a big deal. Kyomara was only trying to put the comment in perspective, not, I believe, make a political statement.
And for a mod to suggest that Kyomara only needs to e-mail an apology sounds a little condescending. “Come to us with your hat in hand, and we shall reconsider your posting privleges.”
Especially over a pretty minor offense.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon
Squink, quit being the arbitor of who has the right to have an opinion on the matter. You seem to be missing the point.
First, the 3 months of lost posts for everyone that you didn’t take into consideration when you did your meaningless search.
Second, the fact the posting does not equal usage. In reading the board you are using the board.
**
I’m not Shayna (and if I was wouldn’t Spiny Norman be in for shock!) but I don’t see who’s comparing reading to posting. You seem to think because one doesn’t post there as often as others, they don’t have as much right to speak up about what they see happen there.
And the reason Kyomara got in trouble for posting that, as I understand it, is that manny thought people shouldn’t have to read that sort of thing. See the connection now? So since the readers don’t seem to mind it being there…
Can you draw your own conclusion from that statement, or should I get you some crayons and tracing paper?
Ok, so it may be valid that the people making noise aren’t active posters in that forum (and let’s just pretend there was nothing lost over the past 3 months, right? :rolleyes: ) So what’s your point then? You seem to be saying that because they don’t post there, they shouldn’t have as much to say about the goings-on there. I’ve seemed to notice most people saying post count doesn’t matter. We say it all the time around here. That goes for any of the fora around here, as far as I knew.
And as for Kyomara having to apologize for behaving like a jerk? A miscommunication and possible simulpost is unfortunate, but I’d hardly put that in the realm of intentionally being a jerk and disobeying rules.
Listen up, kuck-for-brains. I have been an active member of the Straight Dope Message Boards for nearly a full year longer than you have and have managed to accumulate 1,245 more posts than you. On average, I post 47% more posts than you do on a daily basis. I think I know precisely how the Straight Dope works and I don’t have to present you with any evidence of any kind that I’m an avid reader of the GQ forum to make or even prove my point. By your reasoning, you should bow to my knowlege and experience as being far superior to yours by sheer virtue of the numbers. Get Over Yourself. Please.
And frankly, the specific concerns we have, have nothing whatsoever to do with which forum this took place in. The exact same scenario could’ve happened in any of the forums.
Allow me to explain, since you are clearly Not Getting It.
[li]Moderator decides he doesn’t like the direction a thread is heading and posts a warning that any posts continuing in that vein that appear after his will garner the poster an immediate banning.[/li]
[li]Poster simulposts with the moderator and doesn’t see the warning.[/li]
Conclusion: He should be in no more trouble for his post than any of the preceding posters who also didn’t see the warning before their replies were posted. You see, if he doesn’t see the warning, then he’s not being a jerk - he’s merely posting what he felt was an appropriate answer to the OP.
IF, and ONLY IF he saw the warning and brazenly posted what he damn well pleased in spite of it, should he be banned.
The administrators chose to believe that that’s what he did, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Guilty until proven innocent or sufficient begging, grovelling and apologzing graces their inboxes.
Those of us objecting are saying that given the timing of his post being so close to manhattan’s, we’d be more inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt instead of convicting first and asking questions later.
Is ANY of this getting through to you?
(P.S. Thank you, Crunchy. As always, you’re the voice of reason. )
My personal opinion is that Kyomara didn’t do anything extraordinarily wrong in expressing his personal opinion in a GQ thread. It does happen fairly frequently (I’m a GQ reader, not a GQ poster, because I guess I’m not as smart as Squink and the rest of you guys). My personal opinion is also that y’all need to simmer down.
So manhattan was a little hasty in something he said. Like that’s never happened before. And TubaDiva stuck by him, as well she should. What’s the big deal? I guarantee you that all it took to get Kyomara reinstated was an email to TubaDiva saying ‘hey, I didn’t see manhattan’s post before I posted. My bad.’ TubaDiva said as much in her post when she arrived in the thread. Cut them some slack.
Is this really that big of a deal? It’s a pretty clear cut issue. Is anyone seriously afraid that this is gonna affect their experience on the board? Just keep in mind not to directly violate an instruction by a moderator, and if you do so accidentally, apologize! Is it that hard? Is Kyomara’s integrity really going to be besmirched by dropping an email saying ‘Whoops! Didn’t see that! Sorry! May I post again? Thanks!’
Incidentally, I don’t think that there’s any question at all that obfusciatrist needs to be banned. It’s nothing personal, but he intentionally went and did exactly what he knew got Kyomara banned. Like a little child wiggling his toes in the hallway when he’s been told to stay in his room.
Personally, I’d much rather see moderators follow the rules that they make, however ill-conceived they may be. Anyone want to speculate how much clique-accusation there would have been had Kyomara not been banned? Or if one poster got banned and another didn’t because manhattan’s command was determined to be unreasonable?
Shayna my dear… will you allow me to hop on your train?