Quick, Giraffe, before some asshole locks this.

I give my computer screen the finger sometimes - oh oh. Well, it was nice knowing all youse guys.

Apparenlty, this guy would get fired – and banned.

Hey-was that Milton? He must have gone to the Swingline site and found out that they were out of stock of red staplers or something.

Sure, we can discuss it here. I suppose I should declare “non-Pit rules apply” in this thread, but I don’t want to make a big production out of this. Let’s just proceed with the understanding that the discussion should remain civil.

A few comments:

  1. The comment for which Sapo was warned wasn’t banter. It was made in anger. He had been upbraided by Colibri two posts earlier. He responded with a comment intended to intimidate. Was it schoolyard bluster? Of course. Virtually every threat we’ve ever warned or mod-noted anyone for was schoolyard bluster. We still don’t want it here.

  2. Colibri responded mildly to Sapo’s comment in the thread, and some banter ensued. Privately, however, he was taken aback. He sent the comment around for staff discussion; the initial reaction was: whoa. Thus the warning.

  3. I understand Sapo wasn’t threatening physical violence. But he wasn’t making a joke either. He posted a jerk-your-head-back kind of remark that was clearly meant to let Colibri know that if he crossed Sapo he’d regret it. The fact that Sapo has limited ability to make good on such talk is immaterial. This kind of thing is against the rules, even in the Pit.

  4. While Colibri is a mod, the no-threats rule applies to all comments on the SDMB. If two posters have it in for each other and one says to the other, “If you do X, I’m going to make your life miserable,” would we step in? Absolutely.

  5. None of the above should be interpreted as some new departure in board or Pit policy. I read lots of Pit threads; I rarely see anything that qualifies as a threat. That’s what made this stand out.

Final note to Sapo: Don’t get all excited, bud. It’s just a warning. It’s not like we’re going to make you wear an ankle monitor.

This is the vague stuff that paralyzes a cautious poster. Already, I have decided to post nothing more in this thread than, “I love big brother”.

I’m going to go on record here noting that I strongly disagreed (and still disagree) with this ruling. Ed and I went back and forth on email several times today over this. He listened to my arguments but in the end did not see my point of view. C’est la vie.

I’m not trying to undermine Ed here, who is clearly trying hard to be fair and do what he thinks is best for the board. But I don’t feel this action is consistent with my moderation over the past four years, and thus want to avoid the appearance of tacit approval through silence.

How dare you get all reasonable and make me respect you and shit. Up yours!

That is an implied threat.

That’s right. Don’t mess with the man.

Wait… That’s how this country got started.:slight_smile:

He can be both!

A waldwarf salad.

Please report to a punishment center.

We need a “Battleships” feature on the board where we can go and de-stress. Oh, and blow shit out of each other!

That’s called the rest of the internet.

If you ever have to make me wear one, can I have it custom made by Tiffanys?

I’m not clear what the “no threats” rule means, now. Up 'til now, I’d understood it to respond specifically to physical threats, no matter how unlikely or impossible they’d be to carry out. So, “I’ll kick your ass!” is out. But as you said, it’s clear that Sapo wasn’t threatening physical violence. He was threatening verbal violence. Or, basically, saying, “If you cross me, I’ll call you really mean names.” It seems odd to me that one can get warned for threatening to call someone really mean names, but actually calling them really mean names is still okay. The situation here seems to be that if I say, “Fish, you’re a motherfucker!” I’m okay by pit rules, but if I say, “Do that again, Fish, I’m going to call you a motherfucker!” then I can draw a warning. Please correct me if my analogy is flawed somehow, but that seems to be what happened here with Sapo, and that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Tiffany. Not Tiffanys. Just FYI.

You’re mad because you didn’t think of it. :slight_smile:

Hey, if it was good enough for Audrey Hepburn, it’s good enough for me.

:wink:
(Otherwise, :smack:)

Made by Tiffany. Made by Guin.

Made at Tiffany’s. Made at Guin’s.

Plus 1