I never knew the latter one, but Collounsbury honestly did repeatedly violate the rules of Great Debates. He could never quite get control of his temper. Seven, on the other hand, took his temper to the Pit. But while in ATMB, all he did was pose questions to the mods. Have you seen the three linked posts? Not one of them, in my opinion, is a violation of the jerk rule as it has been applied for the past ten years.
Haven’t read the thread, have you?
This is not an MPSIMS thread, or an IMHO thread, nor is it any of the other forums. This thread is in ATMB and has direct relevance to the way the board is operated.
You are stating that if someone does not like an ATMB thread on board operation, that one should not post in it. Get real.
I don’t have a problem with you posting, Frank. But you’re not really answering the OP’s question. I know you thought you did, but the OP wants answers from people currently in power. They are the ones who decide what a jerk is.
“Don’t be a jerk” was fine when it was loosely enough enforced that it really took extreme and obvious violations of it to get yourself banned under the rule. Lately, we’re all kind of stepping on eggshells because we don’t KNOW what it means anymore.
The administration of the board has basically set up a minefield that the members walk across daily. No one apparently knows where the mines are, not even the mods and admins. We only find out when someone steps on one.
You can’t have an uncodified rule like “Don’t be a jerk” when the style of administration is apparently “the mods/admins are crabby today”.
And you responding to me really pushes that discussion further, right?
Oh my aching head. If there are no more substantial answers forthcoming then what IS the point of ANOTHER thread?
Answer: there is none.
The horse is dead. Long live the horse (I guess).
And Jayjay, if saying that more threads on the same dead horse topic is dumb is “kowtowing”, I’m guilty.
Pot meet kettle.
Y’know, just the other day, I got noted - not even a warning - by a moderator. Somehow - I’m not sure how - I know that I stepped on a mine, and that if I keep moving in the same direction, I’ll step on more.
I’m happy for you that you’re so sure of your step, then.
The difference being that I support Fenris’ aim in this thread and wish to see his question answered. You on the other hand are only interested in bellyaching about there being another thread on a topic which supposedly doesn’t interest you that much. Perhaps you and Frank can go hang out in MPSIMS for a while and read some threads that do interest you.
I haven’t been participating much in the Seven ordeal, but if you’ll let me post as a poster or observer for a moment . . .
Considering the SnarkPit is a board running for the singular purpose* of anonymously mocking members of the SDMB, can you see why it is not a welcome subject on the SDMB? Or, at least, can you concede that others may think so? While it’s not quite as nasty as it used to be back when it was on LiveJournal, it’s still not a pretty sight.
Let me presume that you answer yes to the above.
Some details before the next question. You probably know this all already, but here it is for the benefit of the readership. The Snarkpit used to be rather taboo on here. The informal rule that we wouldn’t draw attention / give them attention, got relaxed over time. For a long period, it was The Board That Must Not Be Named or somesuch. However, even then it was considered bad form to mention it without a suitable context. Linking to it was a direct no-no. Marley stated it explicitly in this thread:
So, while it’s not a codified rule that we expect everyone to have learned by heart, we do kind of expect a member of nine years, with over four thousand posts, to have gotten the gist. In that light, making a thread in IMHO transparently sounding the roll call for the resident snarkpit posters to post in-jokes - well, it’s kind of a dick move. Making two threads after the snarkpit thread was quietly disappeared to disingeuously draw attention to it - well, that took it to “jerk-” or troll-levels as far as my understanding of the situation was.
Now, that’s on top of calling Liberal a “sociopathic douche cunt” (and subsequently making it glaringly obvious that he knew the rules for both language and personal attacks). Making a direct personal attack on poster Opal as well as directly contravening the rules in the Regards, Shodan debacle here.
He got warned for all three of the above. That’s three Warnings in about five months. On top of that, his posting history since his post-“I think I’m done here” return back in November has been characterized by disingenuous complaining and gameplaying as well as his feud with Liberal.
Now, is this enough material to ban someone? Some of us thought so and so the decision was made after a sufficient amount of mods and admins had taken a look at it. After some time and discussion, the decision was reversed and downgraded to a suspension.
I wasn’t really surprised to see him banned, to be honest. I don’t think a lot of posters would have much leash left after three warnings.
*This is, to the extent of my knowledge, true. I read it perhaps once every few months for a laugh or two.
I don’t know how others will feel about it but I think that is the most reasoned response I’ve seen yet in this whole debacle and I appreciate your taking the time to post it. I still feel the banning was too much and am glad it was overturned but that makes the reasoning behind the decision much more clear and I think that was Fenris’ goal in starting this thread.
Ditto.
Excellent post, Gukumatz. I sure wish that you would have posted that earlier. It probably would have saved a lot of angst. Where the hell have you been hiding? I don’t even recognize your user name. For the good of the board, please be more visible in the future when things like this happen.
Sure–I agree it’s not particularly welcome, but it was within the rules at the time he posted–it’s not gaming the rules to follow the rules.
Again, my disagreement was that the rules in existence at the time that Seven posted it expressly stated that it was ok to do so. A hypothetical cop may not like it when people drive at exactly 55 in a 55 mph zone, but it’s not breaking the rules to do so.
I never saw the second thread but I understand it was a “Why was my thread disappeared” post. I would have posted the same thing if I posted a thread that was expressly permitted by the rules at the time. Remember, Marley’s “You can talk about it but don’t start thread about it” rule didn’t exist until about 5 hours ago. Until then, the rule was “Talk about it, but don’t link to it and don’t organize raids/attacks”. Seven did neither.
Is Marley’s new rule better? I don’t think so, but it’s clear and can be followed. If it’s the new rule, I’ll accept it, think “Mistake, but no skin off my nose” and go on with my life. The Giraffe/Zotti set of rules was clear and in part defused the nastiness of the Livejournal snarkpit–by being allowed to post about it here, it took a lot of the mystery away from the snarkpit. But either way, Seven didn’t break any rules. He was well within the Giraffe/Zotti rules-not even up against the edge.
The Liberal one, you’re right. It struck me that Seven was knowingly breaking the rules on that one.
The Opalcat one wasn’t considered at the time of his banning/suspension. It wasn’t rediscovered until today, IIRC. So it’s a moot point for my specific question of “Why was he banned/suspended?” That wasn’t part of the reasoning at the time.
The Shodan one…eh…to me, it struck me as a joke, but I understand impressions can differ on that that.
So two warnings, one 100% righteous and one mostly righteous.
Actually, if you’ll check our histories, I’m the one feuding with Liberal…in as much as two or three negative interactions is feuding.
I don’t think Seven’s complaining is disingenuous–he’s been too invested in the the small number of threads he’s participated in.
Remember the “One Trick Pony” phrase? Being in two or three threads and fighting tooth and nail about your on-topic pet issue didn’t make you a one-trick pony. It was posting everywhere and/or opening multiple threads that did it. I submit that “recreational complaining” is the exact same thing. Unless you want to stifle debate on the boards, you (mods in general, not you) can’t call multiple on-topic posts in a small number of threads “recreational complaining”. Starting multiple threads or hijacking multiple threads to complain, absolutely.
And the point that I’d appreciate you addressing–it really makes a difference to me–is that Seven’s complaints (and Lib Feud) were limited to a small number of threads–say, 10 in total between Lib and board issues. If Seven had been posting like Der Trihs or Reeder–in many forums and/or across multiple threads with drive-by one-liners, I’d be behind you 100% That would certainly be recreational complaining and jerkish behavior. But to be in a long-ass debate that goes on for 14 pages and defending/debating your position? That’s (to me) clearly a different animal all together.
I disgree firmly with this one. Newbie posters, yeah. But WeirdDave racked up like 7, Reeder got like 9, December 7 or 8, Collunsbury got a bunch…a ban after one legit warning (the Liberal/cunt one) and one (IMO) incorrect warning (the snarkpit one) doesn’t lend itself to a banning or even a suspension after 4000 posts and nine years.
And the other unanswered question is still “What did he do that triggered the banning”? He posted the Snarkpit threads on 7/25-ish. Marley posted the ban notice on 7/28, citing (at the time): recreational complaining, the Liberal one, the Shodan one, the Snarkpit thing and the Sig thing.
Since then, we’ve been told that the sig thing was bad form but not against any actual rules. I’ve cited and re-cited the written rules at the time of the banning regarding the snarkpit thread. That leaves the Shodan and the Liberal things as the reasons given and I strongly protest the idea that “recreational complaining” is “A heated debate on a small number of issues in a small number of threads”.
And as an aside, thanks for the response. We may disagree, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
It was.
And again, I appreciate the response Gukumatz! I still disagree with you on some points and would like to discuss them further, but at least I have a clearer feel for what the rationale was. Thanks!
There is NO difference. All you’ve done in this thread is snark at me.
Welcome to the bellyaching club.
Pot meet kettle.
Bolding mine
I am gobsmacked at the fact that you guys disappeared a thread because you didn’t like the OP. And I don’t care if the response is our board, our rules. Lock the thread and throw in a warning. But don’t just delete the thread! If posters think you’ll just delete threads because someone got offended by it, they won’t bother posting it and this will become your board and yours alone.
Okay, I know that I said that I probably wouldn’t post in these anymore, but it seems progress has been made and I wanted to add a suggestion.
When the mod/admin disappeared the snarkpit threads, I think it would have been a good idea to PM the OP of the threads saying, “I deleted your thread(s), please do not post them again”. That would have eliminated Seven’s confusion and headed off his posts asking why the posts were gone.
I would agree with this. It seems like there was a failure to communicate here and Seven’s the one who is paying the price when it wasn’t wholly his fault.
Excellent post, you’re right but I prefer he stay on the qt. That reply was like a ray of fucking sunshine.