But wasn’t there some poster just a little while back (ThisIsTheEnd) who got just a temporary suspension for threatening legal action against a mod? That’s what’s confusing me about this.
That actually made me think you guys were lightening up on this rule.
Yes I’m well aware of the entire situation. I conceded the point in post 30 and even said basically what you just did:
But what we’re talking about now is the amended rule going forward. It was modified to say, essentially, any threat of any kind under any circumstances is grounds for banning. Since we know from this case and others that the moderators aren’t allowed to read context and intent, etc. when enforcing that one particular rule my comment is that the wording is a little open ended.
This IsTheEnd got his suspensionfor saying Fuck You to a mod directly after a warning.
Maybe you’re thinking of someone else, and maybe that person was only suspended because his previous record was clean.
I love how the rules lawyers all pounce on a statement of a rule and immediately want to debate the ins and outs of it. I have a suggestion to them: try a post and see if you get banned. 
Moderators kick any and all legal threats immediately to Ed and what happens is entirely at his sole discretion. “Grounds for banning” means there is room for consideration of context. That’s why the rule is open-ended. But it’s not mods who consider that context, it’s Ed. Arguing this rule with the moderators is not likely to be productive, because we don’t get to decide.
Mods aren’t going to kick something like “I’ll see you in Great Debates!” up to Ed. There is nothing anyone needs to do to change their posting behavior unless their plans involve personal or legal threats.
There is no amended rule. This has always been the rule, it just was expressed rather broadly in the Registration Agreement. Some mods felt the rule should be more clearly articulated, so we discussed with Ed and he added the language to the TOS.
We don’t actually like to ban people. We make a good faith effort to consider context in all cases. dougie_monty had racked up 9 warnings, three in the last year. Nobody was happy to see him go.
Fundamentally, we don’t ban people (or give Warnings or close threads or whatever other moderating action) because they’re breaking the rules. Fundamentally, we take moderator actions because there’s a problem that needs to be solved. The rules don’t exist to give us an excuse to do so; they exist so you all will know what sorts of things we’re likely to consider problems so you don’t do them in the first place. Preventing problems is the best way to solve them.
So, if we see someone saying “I’m going to demolish you in that Mafia game”, we don’t need to take action, because there’s no problem. Heck, if we see someone in a Mafia game saying “You’re a liar”, we still don’t take action, even though that’s long been literally against the rules, because it’s still not a problem. True, we’ve never actually stated in the rules that calling someone a liar is OK in the context of a game, but that’s because we’ve never needed to: You guys are smart enough to figure that out on your own. And we also trust that you’ll be smart enough to figure out this rule on your own, too.
Even to the extent that that’s true, Ed isn’t a robot, either. And it’s not like this newly-codified rule gives him any more power, or constrains the power he has: He’s always had absolute control over this message board, should he choose to exercise it.
He sure did. Specifically, he went nuts when someone in a Pit thread jokingly accused him of embezzling funds from the Ottawa Panhandlers Union and funneling them to Paul Watson & the Sea Shepherds.
I am not a Mod (nor do I play one on TV) here, but I would guess we have two different issues here:
“Damn these SDMB ads from Colon Blow, I am going to sue their asses over them.”
vs
" I got some crap from the Colon Blow company a while ago, and I am considering a lawsuit, any advice?" (not knowing that Colon Blow just happens to be a SDMB advertiser).
I think the first would would have repercussions while the second might not.
Mods?
Yes. That’s plainly obvious despite all of the Chicken Little’s worries.
Yeah, as a member who doesn’t see ads and therefore has no idea who advertises on the Dope, I find a blanket ban on statements against them impossible to enforce or defend. I know ATMB threads exist that talk about how dubious some of the ads and advertisers are. Those companies could easily show up in posts about bad products generally. For all I know, some already have lawsuits or class action suits going on against them right now. Would advocating one as a good thing now be a banning offense? What about against one of the firms that themselves have been banned from advertising here?
I get the underlying notion of preventing any talk of lawsuits about the Dope, staff, and members. I’ve never filed a lawsuit in my life and don’t plan on ever threatening one.
Even so, banning the mere mention of a suit against an unwritten and ever-changing list of entities that members literally can have no knowledge of in advance is a terrible idea that’s bound to backfire against an innocent victim. Talk about Orwellian. Any system in which citizens can’t know they’ve broken a law until after they’ve been convicted and sentenced is inherently a loser.
Great. I’ve been waiting for almost 14 years to find out what happened to Alice Terwilliger, and now I guess it’s lost to history.
Thank you for clarifying this. My impression was that this was enforced from a coporate office and that even Ed had no flexibility to judge the context or intent of a post before taking action. The amended rule lumps all threats, legal or otherwise, into the same broad category. It states that any threat under any circumstances is prohibited and then adds a second sentence saying “this also applies to legal threats.” To me that could be interpreted to mean that any perceived threat or any post that could even be construed to be a threat might automatically fall under the purview of this corporate counsel, bypassing any and all ability to read context, intent, posting history, etc. by anyone, Ed or otherwise.
I think that there is a corporate office somewhere that Ed ultimately needs to answer to, but this board is barely on their radar at all. If they know about something here, it’ll be because Ed tells them.
And I imagine Ed wants to keep it that way.
To clarify a few things:
The management of Sun-Times Media, owner of the Straight Dope, is well aware of the SDMB - in particular its financial performance, for which I’m held to account.
The management doesn’t monitor SDMB operation closely except when things go wrong. One of my responsibilities is to make sure this happens infrequently.
The staff has a list of things I’m to be told about. Threats of legal action is one of them. I was the one who ordered the recent banning. Some things need to be nipped in the bud.
Neither the staff nor I are robots. Users need not fear they’ll be banned for trifles. That said, our tolerance for legal bluster is low. It would be wise to avoid such talk.
So, you’re telling me that my plan for sending all the mods and admins an English dessert made with fruit, a thin layer of sponge fingers soaked in sherry or another fortified wine, custard topped with whipped cream so I can get people I don’t like banned won’t work?
:mad:
No, he means we can freely put on a *performance *of Trifles, because of its obvious political relevance in the #MeToo atmosphere without worrying what MRA might say.
Strange, you’d think everyone would know what happened to a woman who was 10 feet tall.
Or was that a different Alice?
Due to the trouble with them, I thought he meant tribbles.