In the announcement about dougie_monty’s banning, ecg said (my emphasis):
and I just wanted some clarity - if I’m discussing my bad neighbour, and I say “I should sic a lawyer on his ass”, is that a “threat of legal action” under this rule? Or does it, as I suspect, only cover all threats against both the Dope*** and other posters***? That seems like the intention of the rule, but as phrased, it’s ambiguous.
Thanks for posting this as I was about to ask myself. I had heard that threatening to sue the SDMB or its owners was a HUGE no-no, but never legal threats against another poster. Why is this such a touchy subject, anyway?
I suspect it’s because they don’t want to get in the middle - after all, how could a poster be identified without help from the Board?
Hell, it’s hard to think of how someone could be identified with the help of the Board, but that won’t keep lawyers from trying, I’m sure.
Note that threats of illegal actions against another poster is also banned here …
No, that’s not a threat of legal action under the rule. It’s a perfectly fine IMHO thread topic.
Don’t threaten legal action against other SDMB users, the SDMB, its owners, or any company or person related to the SDMB or its owners like the advertisers here. For example, threatening to sue one of our advertisers can get you banned.
This is something that we moderators have absolutely no discretion with. We are given no legal training whatsoever and are not authorized to represent the company in any way. Any threat of legal action gets the user immediately banned or suspended, and everything gets forwarded and kicked upstairs. No exceptions.
If Coca-Cola starts running banner ads, and unrelatedly, someone posts about opening a can of Coke to find an insect - what happens if someone says “you should sue them!” Maybe clarify your statement to “threatening to sue one of our advertisers as it relates to their ad content can get you banned”?
Alright, I’ll admit the highlighted portion is the one I didn’t think of, and God knows how much of an irritant the ads can be. Thanks for highlighting that. (It’s a damn shame The Dope has to stand by the random and often terrible advertisers brought to us by the advertising brokers it’s contracted with, but there you go.)
Plenty of dopers have given away information that could help to trace them. They might give their real namer as their username, or as their email in their user profile, state their date of birth, give their location, tell us what job they do, and so on.
IANAL but this ‘threat’ was so laughably baseless I would think he had to have been joking. I know the poster in this case has a history of blowing a gasket over small perceived slights and going all Internet Tough Guy at the slightest provocation, but really? A lawsuit claiming that someone on the internet doubted his story about an unnamed cousin auditioning for a TV show half a century ago is not going to make it to the discovery phase. And using phrases like “how DARE you?” etc., I’m pretty sure in this case he was trying to be humorous and not a litigious Internet Tough Guy - although I guess it’s possible.
I understand the corporate mentality that leads to a black and white, no exceptions rules like this but even in the most corporate of corporate environments saying something ridiculous like you’re going to consult your lawyer about that guy who keeps taking the last cup of coffee from the breakroom without making a new pot isn’t going to get you in trouble.
If the poster is petitioning to be reinstated after having learned his lesson I hope TPTB have the flexibility to consider it.
I doubt they do, and if they did, I wouldn’t be in favor of reinstatement. He crossed a bright line, even if he may have stumbled blindly across it.
The rule about not threatening the board itself is a pretty bright line but the same rule applying to other posters, ad providers, etc. is actually news to me and I consider myself to be generally up to speed on the rules here.
What defines a threat is always subject to interpretation. Does it need to be a credible, practical threat? The mods here are obviously not trained to make such calls but if, after having been reviewed by the suits upstairs the threat is dismissed as utterly baseless, and at the same time TPTB here think it might have actually just been meant as a joke to begin with, then I’d hope the mods could apply their own judgement at that point if keeping an otherwise contributing and longstanding member is of any value to them.
By the time TPTB and their legal eagles make a realistic threat assessment, it’s too late for the mods to do anything. The threatening poster is BANNED.
It seems analogous to getting ejected from an airplane for joking about a bomb. Even if the feds believe you that you were “ha ha only kidding”, the plane is long gone. You won’t be getting back on it.
Yeah, except it isn’t like that. In this case it would just be a matter of clicking a button. Many posters have been reinstated after a temporary ban for various reasons, including every single one of us once when an Admin accidentally banned us all.
I’m not really fighting for reinstatement here though. It just occurs to me the threat was so utterly absurd, and very possibly IMO an attempt at humor.
I’m not certain if he was joking or not. But just to be clear, what are the rules on jokes like that. If someone says, as a joke, “see you in court” with no real intent to sue, would he be warned? banned? no moderator action taken?
Based on what I learned today that could lead to an instant ban with no chance for appeal.
I’ve just read the linked post, and the posts were absurd but I actually think he was being serious.
I don’t think he would ever have done it of course, but he wasn’t joking around and he did seriously threaten to go to his attorney regarding something a random poster said on a message board.
Such a silly way to go.
Having seen his reaction to perceived slights several times, I have no doubt he was serious.
You say that as if the technical difficulty or ease mattered one bit.
IMHO (by my observations), It’s a hyper-aggressive defensive policy that makes no allowances and takes no chances. Shoot first, ask questions later.
TPTB don’t care for the SDMB. They want it to be revenue-positive but under no circumstances do they seem invested in it enough to take any fiscal or legal risks to their business enterprise, so no one who matters has any incentive to reverse the ban on the subjective basis of “ok, he was just foolin’”.
In case you hadn’t noticed, lawyers on the job aren’t noted for their sense of humor overriding their native caution with respect to their clients.
Seems like all this rule can accomplish is this: If anyone thinks they have a case to sue any of the above, go right ahead, but just don’t dare mention it in a post here.
What happens if a poster posts, in another forum, a threat to sue any of the above? Is a poster going to get instabanned if he posts a thread to sue SDMB over at GB, for example?
Hmmm. As a member, I don’t see the ads and have no idea who’s advertising. So if I threatened a lawsuit against an advertiser I can’t see, am I still subject to banning?