Why when facts are presented, are the goalposts changed? Both things noted in your post are alledgedly legal.
In your hope that I’ll contradict myself I think you may not be reading for optimum clarity. Seven was complaining a lot, yes, but he stepped that up over the weekend with some other actions.
Who said it was legal by the rules?
I’ve never heard the phrase “allegedly legal” before. Would you explain what it might mean? ‘I assumed it was within the rules?’ ‘Another poster said it’s not against the rules?’
Sapo, the warning was not included in our usual thread. It happens once in a while, and I’ve corrected the mistake. Life goes on.
All of which we seem to agree were legal. Everyone (to date) on the mod team seems to have decided that may be rude as hell to use that quote, but it wasn’t against any rules.
Giraffe. I’ll dig up the link again if you’d like although I’ve reposted it a dozen or so times since Sevengate began.
It was explicitly stated in the apparently now lost pit-rules thread (but is still available in the “Discussion of pit rules thread”) where the in-print, uncontradicted rules explicitly stated that it was fine to discuss the snarkpit. The only exception was “no linking” which Seven didn’t, and no starting board-wars. Which Seven wasn’t. He tossed out a snarkpit meme, 25 or so other posters popped in and said such horrible things as “No U” and “FBP”. Certainly the “Lookit the stoopid thing the Freepers said today!” threads are more confrontational and boardwar wothy. .
.
And again, when I asked Ed about the Freeper thing (is it ok to discuss/mock the freepers and other off board sites) he e-mailed me and expressly said (paraphrase) that yes it was fine as long as you didn’t try to organize a campaign against them (I suspect he was thinking of the SDMB’s organized trolling of the Left Behind boards). So
A) Per the rules in print at the time
and
B) Per Ed Zotti
the thread was legal.
You did. To me, in the closed thread about his banning. You said mentioning the place is fine, discussing it is fine, linking to it is not.
Well, you said it was legal, then you hinted that it was not. It’s kind of hard to keep up with where we are at any given moment.
Do you mean the post where I said “if they bring it here - say, by starting a thread about it - then it’s an issue for us to deal with?” Because I believe that contradicts your interpretation.
Is that what you said? I’m trying to find the post, but am not succeeding. I told you that I felt like I was invoking Voldemort, saying “The place which must not be named,” and that’s when you told me it was fine to mention it that there was no rule against it.
Are you saying it was not? Care to elaborate?
I said it was fine to mention it, yes. Some people here (not just you) have drawn the inference that it’s fine to talk about the board as long as you don’t use its name, which would be stupid. Perhaps this was the case in the past, but it isn’t the case.
Starting a thread about it doesn’t qualify as “mentioning it,” it’s bringing off-board business over here. I don’t think that’s ever been tolerated.
I’m saying it was not, which is why we removed it.
Hey Marley, you’ve skipped over my post. Care to comment on it?
Giraffe and Ed Zotti both expressly said it was ok to discuss other sites as long as you didn’t A) link or B) organize a campaign against the other site.
Posting Snarkboard memes is hardly either category.
That was the rule at the time Seven posted and it’s backed by dozens of “Free Republic SUXXORS” (which, granted, it does) threads that are just fine and dandy per Ed specifically and have never been warned.
…by the reason above, I presume. I don’t really remember the text of the OP but it must have been vague enough that someone actually thought they were talking about snacks. I agree with the fact that it was a stupid thread that needed to be locked, but I don’t really see how it was “bringing off-board business over here” or how that would be of any harm. It was not drawing people from either side to do anything on the other.
That’s…um. Again, not trying to be obnoxious but … are you saying
[ul]
[li]It’s okay to talk about[/li][li]It’s okay to mention[/li][li]It’s okay to name[/li][li]Just don’t start a thread about it?[/li][/ul]
I never saw this comment originally either. I’m sure it was made somewhere but then again, I don’t read every comment on every forum every day just in case. That said, the comment doesn’t really make a lot of sense. A new thread that could not be understood if you were not already well aware of the snarkpit is a foul, but directly mentioning it by name in existing threads is not a foul?
Also, I think it is stretching a point beyond breaking to lump Seven in with your “they”. From the context, that suggests to me the sudden appearance of new posters from another board rather than someone who has infact been posting here for nine years.
You have been dismissive in the sense that you have not accepted as valid any of the points anyone is making. Stating contrary opinions, making countervailing assertions, etc., without giving any indication that the people with whom you are speaking are offering anything of substance is being dismissive. You are dismissing their statements, not necessarily out of hand, but dismissing them none-the-less.
It’s like you cannot accept that those who are saying that the banning was wrong, or that Seven didn’t really do anything that bad cannot possibly be right in anything they are saying.
So I’ll return to the question you have artfully skipped over, and not yet responded to:
Do you think that it was a correct decision to reduce the banning to a suspension?
Perhaps because he doesn’t think they are valid points? That’s not dismissiveness, it’s disagreement.
I would say that it seems to me concerns are not being dismissed, as such, but that concerns seems to be being assumed to be either malignantly or foolishly motivated.
I get that impression too, but I’ll say this for him - he’s really one of the very few moderators who IS at least making substantial effort to have a go at tackling the controversial questions. IMO, the admins (who have been active in other threads today) should in here be helping him out rather than leaving him to take the heat.
Yeah, that’s a fair point.
Don’t start a thread. Don’t worry about getting warned for mentioning it, and we’re not children, so there’s no reason to be worried about using the name instead of ‘that place’ or some such silliness. “It’s okay to talk about” is so vague that I’m hesitant to answer. I wouldn’t warn someone for mentioning it in a relevant conversation. I am also not about to encourage anybody to bring that bullshit over here.
I’m pretty sure it was in response to a question from Syntropy, so I thought it made sense that she’d see it. 
Sorry, but I have to say that context counts. If you’re discussing some historical event I can’t see why it would get a warning. If you pop into a thread to say ‘they’re loving this over at the snarkpit,’ I’d give a warning over that.
I was not discussing new posters. I think if you’re bringing something to the board from off-site, it doesn’t matter if you’re new or not. The staff here has always discouraged that.
I don’t think it’s all malignant or foolishly motivated; I do think some people are quick to suspect the mods are power tripping or planning something. But I do think I’ve laid out our reasoning here. But if there’s something you think I’ve dismissed out of hand, let me know how you see it.