# Request For Rules Clarification re: Legal Action **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 16, 2018, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741 "2018-01-16T07:12:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/21 "2018-01-16T19:13:34Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. Threatening legal action against another poster regarding something posted here is IMO a bright line. I think the point is any legal action that would involve the SMDB and its owners would be catastrophic to the website, regardless of how quickly it was dismissed. I guess I never felt the need to have it spelled out; if TPTB need to call the lawyers than we’ve already lost. This is certainly the case where there may be collateral damage, but that’s the price you pay with the current financial status of the board ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/22 "2018-01-16T19:20:39Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. In my experience the poster in question has shown little evidence of a sense of humor in the past and it does not appear to be the case now. As for the banning if you read all of his responses in the thread beyond what he ultimately was banned for he was at the very least breaking rule #1 and being a jerk. He has had multiple warnings and a suspension in the past. Even without the rule violation being questioned in this thread he was probably looking at a ban or a long suspension for his latest violations. We won’t engage in speaking bad about a poster who can’t speak for himself but I wanted to clear that part up. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/23 "2018-01-16T19:41:02Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > 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. I recall him making that threat in the past - and not being banned. He’s also made numerous tough guy threats over the years. I was surprised that he finally got banned - and while I think its been a long time coming for various rules violations, am still somewhat saddened by it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/24 "2018-01-16T20:01:41Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Why is this such a touchy subject, anyway? Back when this board started, there was a regular poster who was also one of the original moderators. In real life she was a lawyer. There was a dispute involving other moderators, and this poster was relieved of her moderator status. The poster said that some of the posts that had been made about her called into question her professional credibility as a lawyer. There was an argument involving a lot of people. The poster eventually said that she would take legal action against the people involved and the board as a whole if they were not resolved to her satisfaction. I don’t think she ever filed any actual legal action but the board took the threat seriously enough to ban her from the board. A new rule was instituted which made threats of legal action against the board or its members a banable offense. I will point out that while I was a member when all this happened, I was not a moderator so I only saw most of this indirectly. And it happened over fifteen years ago. So my summary might be wrong in some of the details. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/25 "2018-01-16T20:56:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I will point out that while I was a member when all this happened, I was not a moderator so I only saw most of this indirectly. And it happened over fifteen years ago. So my summary might be wrong in some of the details. Mostly matches my memory as well. Melin was the defrocked mod. The de-modding was as a result of her and another mod (Jillgat?) arguing over something. Ed told them both to knock it off. The other mod did, Melin didn’t. It gets dumber/weirder when you realize that the comments about her professional credibility were made on the Usenet (not the SDMB) in the alt.fan.cecil-adams group and Melin still threatened to sue if Tuba/Ed/etc didn’t somehow delete the posts on the newsgroup (which couldn’t physically be done). Melin then joined Opal’s board was a mod for a while, got de-modded for some reason (something about calling Child Services on Opal) and then claimed that her boyfriend who she was just then going to visit was murdered in a St. Valentine’s Day Massacre type shootout. So…yeah. That was her. The other early issue was an alleged lawyer named DPWhite who said something like “If you chose to be a Republican, you better get used to being abused and kicked around on this board” and another poster changed his quote to change “Republican” to “Jew” to mock his statement. DPWhite went apeshit, said it was libel, threatened to sue the board and the other poster and was also instabanned. And from that, we also got the “Quote boxes are sancrosanct” rule. (IIRC, the other poster changed the quote box to say “NOT posted by DPWhite” or something similar.) ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/26 "2018-01-16T21:38:22Z")
Can’t find anything like that in [DPWhite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php)’s history, and he certainly hasn’t been banned. Although he hasn’t posted in many years. Maybe you’re thinking of someone else? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/27 "2018-01-16T23:21:19Z")
Nope. I know that the post (or thread) with changed quote box was cornfielded, and I’m like 99% certain it was DPWhite. Remember, a bunch of people who were banned before some software switchover/upgrade aren’t listed as banned any more ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2018, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/28 "2018-01-16T23:27:00Z")
Didn’t **Smash the State** also threaten to sue over something? Quite frankly, I’m surprised Dougie lasted as long as he did. I’m guessing the mods cut him a lot of slack due to his mental issues, but the guy was bound to get the axe sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/29 "2018-01-17T00:27:12Z")
Just to clarify one point: We the moderators would not be deciding to let this particular poster back. If anyone would be, it would be Ed. Now, will or would Ed make that decision? Don’t ask me. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/30 "2018-01-17T01:45:00Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > In my experience the poster in question has shown little evidence of a sense of humor in the past and it does not appear to be the case now. > > As for the banning if you read all of his responses in the thread beyond what he ultimately was banned for he was at the very least breaking rule #1 and being a jerk. He has had multiple warnings and a suspension in the past. Even without the rule violation being questioned in this thread he was probably looking at a ban or a long suspension for his latest violations. > > We won’t engage in speaking bad about a poster who can’t speak for himself but I wanted to clear that part up. Well, OK. I’m outnumbered unanimously in my theory it might have been a half-assed attempt at humor. I have seen him attempt humor - sometimes after going all ballistic and then getting sort of conciliatory, and sometimes in moments it seemed like he was getting angry but trying not to let it show. When doing that he has taken the tone and style of speech of this legal threat; saying things like “My good sir, I’ll have you know…” and I think even “How DARE you?” literally. So that combined with how utterly ridiculous the threat of litigation was would incline me to hear him out if he was claiming it was a joke and contritely asking to be reinstated, which I don’t even know that he was. But I’m not about to do a search to find those examples. Even if the legal threat angle is a little far fetched if he’d gotten a warning for being a jerk, trolling, threadshitting… take your pick, and that warning would have likely led to a ban anyway it’s a moot point. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/31 "2018-01-17T03:26:32Z")
I’ve amended the registration agreement to clarify our policy regarding threats. This simply codifies longstanding practice and is not a new rule. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/32 "2018-01-17T03:44:19Z")
This all seems reasonable to me. The parent company doesn’t want to waste any time on a law suit, even a ridiculous one that has no merit. Even if one were to threaten to sue another member over something said here, the parent company could potentially be compelled to supply data or IP addresses which is again a silly waste of time. The Modes have enough shit to deal with without having to ascertain if something is said in jest or not. Even if they did, you’d get jerks hiding behind the “I was just joking” excuse. Fuck that. As soon as I saw that **d-m** said he was going to sue, I knew that he was done. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/33 "2018-01-17T05:07:26Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Note that threats of _illegal_ actions against another poster is also banned here … Aw, _man_. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/34 "2018-01-17T05:26:31Z")
So in a thread, say about advertising in general (acceptable business practices, for example), someone posts a comment about what they perceive are unscrupulous methods of an advertiser. They are incensed enough that “_someone ought to hold them accountable!_” or even stronger language. What if that particular advertiser is a SDMB advertiser, unbeknownst to the poster? I mean, they could be a paying member and thus never see any ads anyways. Are they going to be kicked to the curb? ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/35 "2018-01-17T06:32:04Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > So in a thread, say about advertising in general (acceptable business practices, for example), someone posts a comment about what they perceive are unscrupulous methods of an advertiser. They are incensed enough that “_someone ought to hold them accountable!_” or even stronger language. What if that particular advertiser is a SDMB advertiser, unbeknownst to the poster? I mean, they could be a paying member and thus never see any ads anyways. > > Are they going to be kicked to the curb? Funny, I asked this same question [back in post 20](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20727517&postcount=20). I swear, I don’t think \*anyone \*sees my posts most of the time. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/36 "2018-01-17T06:33:08Z")
> [@Morgyn](#): > > 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? If you are uncertain, you could PM a mod. Tell them what the subject of your post will be to make sure it will be ok, or even provide a nice long draft. Avoiding trouble is much less trouble than getting in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/37 "2018-01-17T07:24:26Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > I’ve amended the registration agreement to clarify our policy regarding threats. This simply codifies longstanding practice and is not a new rule. The amended registration agreement now says: “Threats of any kind against the SDMB, Sun-Times Media or their affiliates, including without limitation SDMB posters, staff, advertisers or other entities, regardless of where and how expressed, are not permitted…” Threats of any kind against SDMB posters regardless of where and how expressed includes things like “If you want to open a thread in GD to debate this I would be happy to demolish you in there.” or “Yay, a new thread game. I’m going to destroy the lot of ya!” It gets a little silly, but if a rule violation can lead to an instant ban with no hearing or appeal the wording of this rule is a little open ended. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/38 "2018-01-17T07:35:11Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Threats of any kind against SDMB posters regardless of where and how expressed includes things like “If you want to open a thread in GD to debate this I would be happy to demolish you in there.” or “Yay, a new thread game. I’m going to destroy the lot of ya!” > > It gets a little silly, but if a rule violation can lead to an instant ban with no hearing or appeal the wording of this rule is a little open ended. It could get silly, except the staff are not robots. Because remember, there is also this too: > [@](#): > > **Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever.** Subscribers who are banned forfeit all subscription fees they have paid. If you have been banned from the SDMB and resubscribe, you will be banned again without notice and forfeit your subscription fee. By registering and using the board you acknowledge this right and agree to abide by our rules and to submit to their interpretation and enforcement by our moderators and editors. That’s about as open ended as you can get, but so far so good! ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/39 "2018-01-17T07:49:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It could get silly, except the staff are not robots. Because remember, there is also this too: > That’s about as open ended as you can get, but so far so good! True enough. Anyone might be banned at any moment for any reason or no reason at all. But given that the boards presumably would like to survive and have contributing members that power isn’t likely to be exercised willy nilly. As you say the mods aren’t robots and in general the strength of the moderation here IMO is the mod’s ability to use context and judgement to enforce the rules. But on the question of threats and specifically legal threats the mods are essentially robots in the process. We are left with only the exact wording of the rule and the mods can’t use their own judgement in those cases. Thus my comment. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741/40 "2018-01-17T07:55:25Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > True enough. Anyone might be banned at any moment for any reason or no reason at all. But given that the boards presumably would like to survive and have contributing members that power isn’t likely to be exercised willy nilly. As you say the mods aren’t robots and in general the strength of the moderation here IMO is the mod’s ability to use context and judgement to enforce the rules. > > But on the question of threats and specifically legal threats the mods are essentially robots in the process. We are left with only the exact wording of the rule and the mods can’t use their own judgement in those cases. Thus my comment. Have you ever paid attention to **dougie\_monty** ’s posts? The guy was never one for making jokes – he didn’t have much of a sense of humor. He was extremely thin-skinned, he had a really bad temper and he was prone to making threats. He had already been suspended once. They weren’t likely to cut him any slack – he was pretty much on his last chance. It was a “straw that broke the camel’s back” kind of thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-for-rules-clarification-re-legal-action/806741.md?page=3)