# Requested change in policy under the new Tuba-Managed Dope **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 31, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734 "2019-01-31T16:49:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**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 31, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/1 "2019-01-31T16:49:37Z")
You guys, IMO, are waaaaaaay to quick at closing ATMB threads. The Huey banning is clearly something people want to talk about and there’s no outlet at the moment because you _keep closing the threads_. Not counting this one (because it’s about board policy, not Huey) there were like four threads opened and closed and I’ll bet by the end of the day, there’ll be at least one new Huey thread. Mods–the whole freakin’ purpose of a messageboard is to get posters talking. If there’s a legal topic that posters want to discuss…_let them_. The idiotic “It is unseemly to speak ill of those poor banned people” crap that Liberal and Dex used to push and just made a rule by osmosis is dumb and outdated. Or, at LEAST let them post their feelings/discussions in the Pit if ATMB needs to remain unsullied by actual conversation. Right now, if one wants to talk about the Huey banning, there’s no place for it. Can this dumb rule be revisited? ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/2 "2019-01-31T17:09:35Z")
I don’t know that we need a policy change. Ask nicely and give a reasonable justification for it and, while I might not always agree to, I’ll definitely at least consider re-opening any thread. Since you feel that there are issues still to be resolved, I have re-opened the Huey thread for you. ETA: I have re-opened the Elmore thread as well. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/3 "2019-01-31T17:24:49Z")
Thanks **engineer\_comp\_geek** , these kinds of discussions can be raw and full of sharp elbows at times, but they’re better than the peace of the jailhouse. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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 31, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/4 "2019-01-31T18:50:56Z")
Thanks, e\_c\_g! Personally, I don’t have much to say regarding the Huey and Elmore bannings, but there’s clearly conversation to be had and a message board lives or dies on that. I also would like to suggest that a discussion about the not-quite-a-rule about “It is unseemly to speak ill of the banned” policy is there to be had–that’s really what I want to talk about. If Huey or Elmore’s or whoever’s behavior is so very egregious that he’s one of the what…5 non-troll, non-sock, non-spammers that’s banned in a year (I don’t bother keeping track, but it’s a pretty low number) why _can’t_ we talk about them in the BBQ pit? Because they can’t respond? That was their choice by being a troll bad enough to get banned? Liberal’s idea that it’s “unseemly” because reasons? Who cares? The troll is gone. If they actually clear their cookies and want to read what is said about them when they’re gone, that’s their choice again. And it’s not like they HAVE to read the SDMB after they’re banned. Like I said, this is a policy that kind of just accrued. At one point (probably 8 years back) that it was a board custom and a strongly worded preference or some such. I tried to pin him down on whether it was an actual rule (it’s not in the Pit rules, btw) and in a manner very unlike Dex, he kept tapdancing away from an actual “Yes, it’s a rule”, “No, it’s not a rule, but I personally hate it when people do it.” answer. It was always “It’s the Board’s preference” or “We would rather you not.” So: A) Is the concept of forbidding discussion of banned people’s banning in ATMB or Pitting them actually a rule? An official rule, not a “preference” or something. B) If it _is_ a rule, can we discard it? It was a dumb concept to begin with. C) Also, if it is a rule, can it please be added to the Pit and ATMB’s actual rules? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/5 "2019-02-01T02:39:47Z")
Huh, I thought the point of discouraging talk about the banned was so they couldn’t revel in how well they’d kicked the hornet’s nest, such gloating celebration being likely to increase the chance of them returning under a sock to try again. Of course a lot of them do that anyway, it seems, so what’s the big deal? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/6 "2019-02-01T04:05:43Z")
I agree with **Fenris**. On a message board that’s barely surviving, it seems, discouraging talk seems like the best way to finally kill it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/7 "2019-02-02T02:50:02Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > So: > > A) Is the concept of forbidding discussion of banned people’s banning in ATMB or Pitting them actually a rule? An official rule, not a “preference” or something. > > B) If it _is_ a rule, can we discard it? It was a dumb concept to begin with. > > C) Also, if it is a rule, can it please be added to the Pit and ATMB’s actual rules? As regards the first question, after talking it over in the mod loop, we’ve decided to discontinue the policy of closing on-going Pit threads of members when they get banned, and will allow posters to start new Pittings of banned members if they want to. ATMB is a little trickier. If someone has a question or a concern about a banning, you can start an ATMB thread about it. If you just want to start a “I’m glad you banned , that guy was a jerk!” thread, that’s almost certainly going to get shut down, just because that’s not what ATMB is about. Plus, you can do that in the Pit now. The general policy of closing ATMB threads announcing bans is going to continue, since most bans are pretty non-controversial, and we’d prefer not to have a bunch of posters showing up in the thread just to say, “Good!” or what have you. We will sometimes leave a thread open if there’s some unusual circumstance related to the banning, but that’s not going to be standard practice, and it’s generally going to be the mod’s judgement call if any particular banning qualifies as an “unusual circumstance.” (I pretty much always do this when I’m writing a banning announcement, because if someone got banned for something in the Pit, that’s pretty unusual right there.) We’ll also continue to reserve the right to close ATMB threads if they’re getting too antagonistic, or if they’re just going around and around in circles. Sometimes an ATMB thread goes on and on because there’s difficult issues we’re trying to hammer out, but sometimes you get two or three pages of a mod saying, “We did this because X,” and a poster saying, “I don’t accept that answer, give me a better one.” As **ecg** said upthread, if you think we were too quick to shut an ATMB thread down, you can always contact a mod and petition for it to be reopened. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/8 "2019-02-02T02:55:27Z")
I can’t see any reason to object to this, so I’ll say: good job, mods. Thanks for the suggestion, **Fenris**. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/9 "2019-02-02T04:31:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Huh, I thought the point of discouraging talk about the banned was so they couldn’t revel in how well they’d kicked the hornet’s nest, such gloating celebration… I’d agree that gloating would be counter-productive. But a place to understand/protest/deal with a banning might be cheap therapy. And a place to vent would also be good so that it doesn’t keep popping up in unrelated threads. ---
**Author:** ![steatopygia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steatopygia/32/3132_2.png) [@steatopygia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steatopygia)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/10 "2019-02-02T07:24:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I can’t see any reason to object to this, so I’ll say: good job, mods. Thanks for the suggestion, **Fenris**. Seconded from the cheap seats. ---
**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:** [February 2, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/11 "2019-02-02T14:37:35Z")
Thanks to the mods for making this much-needed change. Now, it is _officially_ seemly to “gloat over the fallen” (at least, in the Pit) 🙂 My next suggestion is that I become THE RIGHT HAND OF TUBA and all my COMMANDS must be OBEYED! If nominated I will run, if elected, I will institute a reign of terror the likes of which hasn’t been seen since France in the 1790s. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/12 "2019-02-02T16:22:08Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Thanks to the mods for making this much-needed change. Now, it is _officially_ seemly to “gloat over the fallen” (at least, in the Pit) 🙂 > > My next suggestion is that I become THE RIGHT HAND OF TUBA and all my COMMANDS must be OBEYED! If nominated I will run, if elected, I will institute a reign of terror the likes of which hasn’t been seen since France in the 1790s. This from the man incapable of creating a working hyperlink.🆒 ---
**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:** [February 2, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/13 "2019-02-02T17:11:52Z")
> [@Emiliana](#): > > This from the man incapable of creating a working hyperlink.🆒 [I can so. I just normally do what I want, because I am arbitrary and capricious and leave the mess for my minions to clean up.](http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?p=1501061) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/14 "2019-02-02T20:00:37Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > I also would like to suggest that a discussion about the not-quite-a-rule about “It is unseemly to speak ill of the banned” policy is there to be had–that’s really what I want to talk about. If Huey or Elmore’s or whoever’s behavior is so very egregious that he’s one of the what…5 non-troll, non-sock, non-spammers that’s banned in a year (I don’t bother keeping track, but it’s a pretty low number) why _can’t_ we talk about them in the BBQ pit? > > Because they can’t respond? That was their choice by being a troll bad enough to get banned? > > Liberal’s idea that it’s “unseemly” because reasons? Who cares? The troll is gone. If they actually clear their cookies and want to read what is said about them when they’re gone, that’s their choice again. And it’s not like they HAVE to read the SDMB after they’re banned. > > Like I said, this is a policy that kind of just accrued. At one point (probably 8 years back) that it was a board custom and a strongly worded preference or some such. I tried to pin him down on whether it was an actual rule (it’s not in the Pit rules, btw) and in a manner very unlike Dex, he kept tapdancing away from an actual “Yes, it’s a rule”, “No, it’s not a rule, but I personally hate it when people do it.” answer. It was always “It’s the Board’s preference” or “We would rather you not.” > > So: > > A) Is the concept of forbidding discussion of banned people’s banning in ATMB or Pitting them actually a rule? An official rule, not a “preference” or something. > > B) If it _is_ a rule, can we discard it? It was a dumb concept to begin with. > > C) Also, if it is a rule, can it please be added to the Pit and ATMB’s actual rules? Actually that was a excellent policy. For three reasons: 1. What is the point of attacking someone who isnt around anymore? “ **Bobtheposter** is a troll!”. Yeah, he was a troll, he was banned. So you only now you have figured it out and want to join the pile on? Or you want to continue the pile on? Why? It’s pointless. 2. The bannee can no longer defend himself. Sure, he was banned for being a troll, but now people can call him a commie, a pedophile, or whatever, and he cant respond. 3. A real troll will just rejoice in how much hate he generated, leaving the thread open is just feeding him. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/15 "2019-02-02T20:03:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > As regards the first question, after talking it over in the mod loop, we’ve decided to discontinue the policy of closing on-going Pit threads of members when they get banned, and will allow posters to start new Pittings of banned members if they want to. > … I disagree. See my response to the post above. And what is the point about continue to hammer someone who is gone anyway? So mean spirited poster, like \*\*Fenris \*\*appears to be here, can continue to be mean? Why encourage that? ---
**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:** [February 2, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/16 "2019-02-02T21:19:49Z")
I consider it regressing to the mean. We allow off board people to be pitted. Once someone is banned, they are off board people. If anything, disallowing the discussion in the Pit of banned people gives them extra protection. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2019, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/17 "2019-02-03T01:38:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I consider it regressing to the mean. We allow off board people to be pitted. Once someone is banned, they are off board people. If anything, disallowing the discussion in the Pit of banned people gives them extra protection. I noticed you responded to somebody else, but not to me. I can only assume that means that there is unanimity in the mod loop and I will be getting my God Emperor of the SDMB password forthwith. Perhaps you’re debating on who gets the honor delivering it to me. As part of my arbitrary and capricious nature this is wise but slightly risky. I may decide that the delay was too long and punish the person who delivers it to me. on the other hand, if it’s not too long for a delivery of the password, I may shower them with Jules and rose petals and a harem of girls or boys depending on what they want. I am nothing if not beneficent. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2019, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/18 "2019-02-03T02:21:20Z")
Also, I just started to try to start a big ol’ board war (which, so far hasn’t been noticed much but it’s a coming, just you wait!) and no one said anything. This is proof that I am already in total control of the dope I have all power over all mods and admins. ---
**Author:** ![steatopygia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steatopygia/32/3132_2.png) [@steatopygia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steatopygia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/19 "2019-02-03T02:24:32Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Also, I just started to try to start a big ol’ board war (which, so far hasn’t been noticed much but it’s a coming, just you wait!) and no one said anything. This is proof that I am already in total control of the dope I have all power over all mods and admins. How bout IT? Got any sway over the software dept.? Cause that not being able to highlight things is a pain in the ass. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734/20 "2019-02-03T02:27:55Z")
> [@steatopygia](#): > > How bout IT? Got any sway over the software dept.? I promise, that once I am God Emperor of the SDMB I will drunkenly mash keys in the admin module randomly at least once a week. I may not be able to fix problems, but by God I will make things more weird and random! This is my promise to you, my loyal soon to be subjects/minions. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requested-change-in-policy-under-the-new-tuba-managed-dope/828734.md?page=2)