mojones1988 didn’t want to get new answers. The same answers, to the same questions, over and over again, showing that people were reading the thread and expressing concern over supposed feelings & incidents, is what mojones1988 was trolling for.
What I reading here is “I banned her because I could. I didn’t have to, but I wanted to”.
It’s sort of a message-board Munchausen syndrome.
I guess I’m not as sensitive on this issue because, if I was a moderator, I would ask myself the following questions before deciding what action to take…
-
Is the poster posting the identical question / fact pattern on a wide array of message boards?
-
Does the poster appear to be genuine or is this an attempt to get attention?
-
Does the poster seem to be like s/he will be a contributing member of the board, or will their only contributions be more of the same glurge?
I’ll admit that #2 and #3 are subjective, but if their only posts are about these (most likely) fictitious accounts, what’s the harm in banning them?
How you should have read it was that if she continued her pattern she wouldn’t be back anyway which I suppose is an effective self ban. Instead I followed the usual procedures for this message board and banned her. If I wrote it too ambiguously I apologize.
Never mind.
That was my only concern. To me, your note implied “No more crossposting, ever” as opposed to what you wrote above, which (for whatever it’s worth) I’m fine with.
Sorry for the misunderstanding
Um…
I stopped reading halfway through, but saw “glurge” used twice, and am still unsure of what it means.
Can somebody post a few more sentences where I could divine it’s meaning? (Much more,fun than a definition per se.)
While I might not fully agree that it’s necessary to ban someone who is suspected to self-ban themselves in the future based on their behavior on other message boards, I’m getting a better understanding of the reasoning of the mod action, which is what I was curious about.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think you did fine & this thread is good, too.
(course, I’m a suck up :))
Glurge: Snopes gives a definition along with examples they’ve collected.
It means syrupy sweet (ETA: nauseatingly sweet) stories designed to tug on your heartstrings and maybe teach some sort of moral lesson, of the sort commonly seen on the inside pages of supermarket tabloids. “Hero cat, rescued from fire, saves family of quail chicks from quicksand bog.”
For the last four years I’ve been a Special Victim’s Unit Detective dealing with juveniles and victims of sexual assault. Which means I get to spend most of my day lecturing 12 year olds or consoling traumatized victims. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if that correlates to modding.
Naah, 12’s a bit too mature. Now, if your work experience was herding petulant toddlers, that’d be a transferable skill to modding this board 
<applause>
I don’t know, they’d have to be really petulant toddlers for that skill to transfer.
First, they came for the spammers. But I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a spammer. Then, they came for the trolls. But I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a troll. Then, they came for the drive-by posters with their unreadable walls of text. But I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a drive-by poster with unreadable walls of text.
Then the rest of us could finally get some peace and quiet around here. Good job.
I’m with you on this one. Although, I find it a little strange that we’re seemingly the only two on this board that finds her posts suspect.
It’s something about the Dallas water. It must make us more paranoid (or aware) than most.
What blew my mind was, even after her spamming was called to attention in the thread, people were still giving her advice, as if it was a real scenario.
Personally I don’t remember anything about this poster and I have not had the opportunity to make any mod decisions about them. I did not see any reports so it was either not in one of the forums I mod or from before my time. However, this is not the place to call out another poster. Take it to the Pit if you have a problem with someone.
I don’t understand this. Not at all.
There is, beyond a shadow of my doubt, a serial poster who creates sock after sock (maybe it’s a snarkpit/other kind of thing were a small group of people encourage each others’ trolling). This person(s) tend to create two or three different types of socks.
There is the relationship story sock, the rabid right wing sock, and the racist sock. All have similar patterns. Of course not every post that seems to fit is a sock (and note I’m not making any specific allegations here), but many so clearly are.
I don’t get either side. I don’t get what has made someone continue week after week to make up a Jerry Springer-worthy story in order to get unknown posters to give advice and commentary.
And germane to the quoted post here, I don’t get what makes regular posters come back time and again to offer comfort and solace to obvious socks or engage with tediously blatant right wing pretenders. For the right wing and the racist socks I can kind of understand not wanting to leave factual incorrectness unchallenged, but to continue to engage and debate as if it’s anything more than a Turing-test wanabe is beyond me.
The closest I get to the former is that some people like soap operas and like the interactive nature of things. That some people like the sci-fi/fantasy nature of Skald’s posts, so even though they know that Poster X asking what to do with her crush on her co-worker’s husband’s boss is like interacting with the daily soaps/talk shows. Or maybe it’s like wrestling, where they know it’s fake but like to feel good nonetheless. Kind of sad on both sides, but that’s as close as I come to understanding.
Anyway, may I ask once again for Rules I’d make if I were King? Among other things: