Well, I won’t presume to speak for Ogre, but aside from outright slander/defamation, how in the hell is someones comments on their own website have jackshit to do with this board?
Geez Anthracite, of all the years I’ve read and respected your comments on this board, and lately your own board, I am somewhat befuddled by that comment.
FTR, I agreed with some of the points the Rev made in the Robertson thread. My agreement didn’t extend quite far enough to wish cancer on anyone, but it was a damned close run thing. The Rev’s arguments dovetailed rather neatly with my personal judgement, which was, “Now try scamming your way out of the real deal, scumbag.”
Just sayin’, to shoot down tidy claims of unified viewpoints and political agendas on the part of moderators. When it comes to topical issues, we can’t agree the sun rises in the east.
That said, I supported the Rev’s banning. His biting contempt of how this board operates is no big shock. (Paying attention to this, CnoteChris?) There are plenty of carpers who mainly weigh in to bitch about how awful the place is. But please note they’re still around anyway. Because while they might raise hell about how terribly the board is run, they generally approach other posters with a modicum of respect. They might really hate a viewpoint, or even extend that to hating an individual, but the general stance toward the vast array of posters still show at least enough neutrality to wait and see before lashing out wholesale.
Parse and pick as you like, it’s ludicrous to try to justify flaming in response to comments in the Pit on the basis of imputed tone and intent. No matter was too trivial or wording clear enough to avoid “proving” further offense. That’s picking fights for the sake of fighting.
Veb
You’re heavily implying losing respect (?) for me because I asked a mere question, in a non-flaming way, of another person here?
Wow. If you were going to take it on yourself to answer the question, I feel that you could have done so without the snide comment. What did I do to deserve that sort of reponse back?
It seems you gave the departed poster a hell of a lot more “respect” than you were willing to give me, for asking a simple question, with no flaming, name calling, or slurs. Why is that, exactly?
Having imbibed a considerable amount of delightful spirits and then read this entire post, I have decided to appoint myself exclusive artbiter of this entire issue.
Hereaforth, I rule thusoply:
Ruling the first: A brief recess shall be called wherein I run to the bathroom.
Ruling the second: I’m back.
Ruling the third: Ogre’s complaints have considerable merit, and I find that these events have hurt his feelings deeply. I rule therefore that the SDMB cslique return to him as remonstration a portion of their feelings in compensation.
Ruling the fourth: Tragedy strikes.
Ruling the fifth: Ok, I’m back again.
Ruling the sixth: I forgot what I was doing.
Ruling the seventh: I read it all again, and my eyes hurt and my joints hurt.
Ruling the eighth: Reverend Mykeu is hereby found innocent of whatever charge it was that people have to be guilty of to get banned.
Ruling the eigth: Thusly, the reverend is awarded whatever he maysoforth desire. In accordance with his wishes, he is hereby banned from the SDMB for all eternity, and declared its martyr for all eternity.
Ruling the ninth: Being all eternal, the reverend’s existence is necessary, and thus he is the supreme being, and thus, since whatever sort of being I say is a god must be your god, he is the god. A religion is to be founded upon the message reverend’s sacrifice. We are all dipshits before the reverend, and we all deserve cancers in all our sensitive glands. The reverend, however, in his infinite magisterium, does not wish for all of our sensitive glands to get the cancer. Dip us in shit, oh lord.
Ruling the tenth: ARE YOU MADE OF DELICIOUS CANDY??!??!?!
At last, a voice of reason!
I understand, but I personally think that it shouldn’t really matter what he says about SDMB’ers on his own website. If they have a problem with things he says, his email is (I assume) readily available.
Wait, he has a website? Where? This new evidence could upset my entire ruling! Why wasn’t a 10455 filed? Preposterous!
So, he should ignore threads devoted to him? Why on Earth would one do that? And, again, given the pile-on and the detail of his disections of responses, I can see why the bulk of his time was spent in self-defense.
Of course, he could have ignored the threads about him - but I would wager they would quickly turn into “ha ha! he won’t defend himself! aren’t we mighty!?” mutual masturbation societies, and that’s not exactly a plus either.
He was damned no matter what he did. But maybe that’s the way some people wanted it.
Thanks for the calm response, Ogre. The question back might be, then, is there past precedent of remotely flaming people on the SDMB over things that happen on the SDMB being considered jerkish behaviour, or not.
As I said in my post, the SDMB doesn’t control what people do. But they don’t have to like it, either. What if, for an extreme example, an SDMB Member here made threats against another SDMB Member, but from their AOL page? Would that be worthy of banning?
I do know that harassing e-mails sent by SDMB members to other SDMB members over or on SDMB topics are NOT taken kindly by the SDMB Staff. In fact, that sort of harassment can get someone banned. And if that is the case, is there a difference between a threatening or harassing e-mail, and a threatening or harassing web page?
What if they threatened someone with harassment if they posted on a particular subject on the SDMB? Surely, at some point these outside actions do spill over. But the question is - when? And what it the threshold?
Now, the late Reverend didn’t threaten anyone on his page, I know. And I don’t think what he did was harassment. Well - maybe not IMO. But in other’s, perhaps?
It’s an interesting topic, from a philosophical standpoint, you know. And I don’t think it’s one that can be easily answered.
I only asked the question because I thought it might be relevant. Personally, I had no contact with the person in question, and have no opinion to state one way or the other on the banning.
Apos, that was brilliant. 
This whole embarrassing debacle is now rendered worthwhile.
I think there’s a few others around here who could use a few belts as well.
No, you don’t understand. My joints REALLY hurt. I don’t have very good insurance, and I need money. Just toss it out into the street, I’ll find ti somehow
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems the reason the mods banned the Rev, has everything to do with what he posted on his own site about the SDMB.
Coldfire:
Notice that the link in question is to the Rev’s site and not a SDMB thread.
Moreover, it seems like the mods already decided they were going to ban him. The 4th post to Reverend Mykeru’s Ban Countdown Clock, contains this little gem by UncleBeer
The Rev said goodnight, but UncleBeer cleverly let him know that it was goodbye instead. Which raises the question: Why let the thread go on? To me it looks like they decided to ban him before he created that thread.
Warning
Beware of what you post outside of the SDMB about the SDMB if you wish to continue to have posting priviledges on the SDMB.
Mods, since it’s all about fighting ignorance and such, at your leisure, you can add this to the rules of the SDMB. 
Well, at that point, the discussion was already underway, yes.
But since we don’t take bannings lightly, we like to see the input of as many staff members as possible. That means e-mailing back and forth a lot, debating the pros and cons of the poster at hand. Sometimes it takes 5 minutes, sometimes it takes a couple of days.
This case was one of the latter. The decision to ban him was made less than 10 hours ago.
The way I see it, all he had to do was quit being a one-trick pony. Yeah, I think Rev. was an OTP except his trick was flaiming just for the sake of flaming. I made the mistake of stooping to his level and he cried “TROLL!” Can’t have it both ways.
You know, I wonder if Rev. might be bipolar. That would be an explanation forhis apparent mood swing, maybe even his propensity to fly off the handle.
I’m simply reiterating what has been said by others, but I feel the need to add my voice. One thing about this that truly irritates me, and its happened in the past with bannings, is the “clique”/“illuminati” apologists always chime in with the tired party line:
“We have one rule here: Don’t Be Jerk.”
Followed with the explanation that the person who was banned broke the Golden Rule, ergo, the ban was justified. However it is always completely and conveniently ignored that everyone else involved was being a complete “jerk” as well. Whereas the regulars (read: Post Count > 1000) are allowed extreme latitude with the definition of “Jerk”, newbies, newbs, n00bs (read: Post Count < 1000) have the line drawn in the sand mere milimeters from their feet. This Us vs. Them mentality is further exemplified by the treatment of people such as me who espouse this theory. We’re treated as raving conspiracy theorists, mocked with numerous :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (of which this post will likely be another recipient).
I also find it curious that this topic is further polarized by the fact that the vast majority of people in this thread defending RM are Post Count < 1000 while the majority defending (and spitting vitriole at RM’s defenders) his banning are Post Count > 1000.
Though I suppose the answer to this is that those with low post counts haven’t been around long enough to realize it was right. We’re too new to understand. The SDMB is a special place, unlike any message board on the Internet. We will learn. We will grow up someday.
How long till I become an Operating Thetan?
Ogre, Mr. A. Nemo, neither of you were quoted and flamed on his website for an innocuous comment.
It’s fucking annoying to be unable to have my say at his venue. Even more irritating that he flamed me because he misinterpreted a colloquialism, but there is no way for me to correct that, either.
Were he to remain, I can imagine a lot of other people being flamed publicly with no recourse.
However, on board rules alone, I support Coldfire’s decision. Mykeru was irascible, arrogant, unapologetic, and trolling.
For the record, my remark that seemed to really escalate the momentum of this banning - all 30 words of it - was composed of the following thoughts:
It’s the kind of literary reference that I frequently make in the pit. Ever-so-slightly a dig, due to the fact that his (“I may be wrong” phrase notwithstanding) whole tenor and thrust was that Reverend Says So - Listen And Learn.
I thought this particularly inappropriate seeing as how he was attempting to lecture our own moderators on how they should moderate whilst not even appreciating our own bloody board history that leads them down that route. Arrogance personified.
Now this is really crucial. Anybody not taking this into account is missing a vital chunk.
The context of this post was a situation in which I had tried repeatedly to be a friend to Reverend. From my first unequivocably friendly post in the “Tool” thread, as evidenced earlier by White Lightning, I had tried nothing but to help this guy. No thought was in my head but: here is someone who could be an asset to the board. Throughout at least 3 or 4 posts in that thread, I had simply got sarcasm, bile and unpleasantness in response. And pig-headedness in abundance. The guy’s absolute refusal to see any points of view other than his own was… astonishing.
After the last repsonse I got in that thread, I was more than a little fed up with him. Then I see him pontificating about board policy, arrogantly stating that no legal liability could ever fall upon the SD because people just don’t sue message boards. I know this to be wrong. Now tell me - how would you react? And in this context, just how mild was I? Using a little literary quote in a mildly humorous fashion is now considered a flame? Under the kind of provocation he’d already given me?
Over several threads - particularly the “Tool” thread but also a much earlier thread in which he tried to address perceived moderator unfairness after just 5 posts (note date: 19th Feb, way before other trainwrecks) - he had gone out of his way to set himself up as a much-travelled net warrior. Well that’s fine, but if that’s your chosen metier then you shouldn’t be surprised if people are going to call you on it.
I told him to search for “Melingate”, for Chrissakes. Anyone who knows about that knows that it can’t simply be summed up in a pithy sentence or two without being unfair to someone or other. So I gave him the chance to do his own background reading. “Melingate” only reveals about 16 threads and most of those have direct relevance. It’s not like I gave him some obscure map with an “X” unhelpfully marked on it.
Now, in the light of 1 to 5, tell me: is “Yeah, well, don’t presume you’ve seen everything on the internet, Reverend. The world is greater than is dreamed of in your philosophy.” really such a kick in the teeth as to provoke utter meltdown? Or was he spoiling for a fight before, during and after the whole ugly mess?
I ask you: would you respond to such a thing with a 300-word explosion of vitriol and vituperation? Or would you either follow the goddamned search and admit you’re wrong or - at most, if you took offence - offer similarly mild reproof for being mildly snarky?
Those seeking to justify the Reverend’s behaviour on the basis of my first remotely reproachful comment seriously need to look elsewhere. The guy was simply rage personified.
pan
If nothing else, the Rev certainly seemed bound and determined to interpret every comment in the worst possible way. Confusion over the word “forum”? Obviously it’s the SDMB’s own stupid fault for using terminology incorrectly, and not just a simple misunderstanding. kabbes unclear about where to search? Obviously kabbes is a booger-eating moron for assuming RM would understand to search the SDMB rather than the entire web. I made an explanatory remark in reference to a previous comment about the thread topic, and got a snotty remark about how he “wasn’t the OP”. If RM wasn’t being deliberately antagonistic, he was certainly being obtuse. Given the medium, it is necessary to give others the benefit of the doubt sometimes, in order to avoid misinterpretation. He never did, even where others gave it to him.
Did I want him banned? No. But I remain convinced that he wanted to be banned. He certainly seemed pretty smug about getting banned from other boards. Is it all our fault? No. We could have been more welcoming, true, but given his tendency to shit on anyone responding to him in a civil tone I’m not sure it would have helped.
I vote “troll”, although had he voiced his opinions in a more constructive tone he would likely have been an excellent addition to the boards.
Now I found this comment extremely funny…
**pezpunk
Member
Registered: May 1999**
I promised my mother I wouldn’t be in any more pile-ons … so I stayed out of the whole “ban countdown” thing.
But it did really look to me as if the late lamented Reverend was here with the express intention of picking fights and getting up people’s noses … and if that’s not troll behaviour, I don’t know what is. So he was articulate and communicative - does he deserve extra credit for being good at trolling? I wouldn’t have thought so.
If this makes me a Pit vulture, then SQUAARRK (flaps wings, tears at carcase)