[Quote=Starving Artist]
Still, it would be easy enough for you or anyone else to test. Just squat down about as far relative to your height as Sandusky would have to for his, and try pumping away at a paper towel tube held in front of you. I’m not asking that you report back to me, because a) you likely wouldn’t; and b) the sickos in this thread would accuse me of getting off on it, which of course is utter bullshit substantiated by my eight year, 12,000 post history on this board which has been totally free of skeevy attempts with the board’s female posters. So, go ahead, give it a try. Bet you can’t do it for more than a few seconds before you collapse or your muscles give out.
[/Quote]
I normally am fairly casual about persons that others may consider unpleasant or troublemaking posters, but I simply cannot understand how this kind of thing is not running afoul of the “no trolling” and “don’t be a jerk” rules.
I also wish other posters would find it in themselves to give this crap the cold shulder it deserves, but I guess people just can’t help themselves.
I dunno. I would have agreed with Vinyl Turnip until the last few pages of the thread, in which SA seems to be delighting in posting multiple explicit child-rape scenarios (like the cardboard tube thing) and admitting that people in the thread will likely accuse him of getting off on it. I mean, I’m not saying whether he is or is not getting off on it, but his entire purpose in that thread now seems to be, “Post child-rape scenarios to get people all worked up and outraged.” It seems pretty trollish to me.
Really? How about this one, where the poster in question drags his peculiar theories about ‘liberals’ into a thread where the political content was basically zero, unit the poster himself brought it up:
[Quote=Starving Artist]
Actually, that was a misquote. Correctly stated it should be:
To tell the truth is self-defeating if you’re a liberal.
Given the frequency which other, almost invariably liberal, posters lie about what I’ve said around here, I’m thinking that rather than explaining yet again what I’ve already said, I may just make that quote my de riguer response…sort of like the quarry thing, only more pertinent.
ETA: Only trouble is, I’d have to use it practically non-stop. Maybe I could write a macro!
[/Quote]
Anyway, if everyone else finds him to be fine, harmless entertainment, or (shudder) the sort of beacon of truth he cleaims to be, and the board adminstration agrees with that view, I’ll have no choice but to let the matter drop, and that will be fine with me.
However, we’re discussing a poster who posts (at least these days) almost exclusively in the Pit, and for whom nearly every thread every thread he posts to eventually ends in a massive trainwreck. Asking for a mod opinion on how this behavior fits with the stated rules doesn’t seem out of line.
A lot of very good posters have been hit with the ban-stick for various reasons. SA has never bought anything to the SD table other than the entertainment value of his views and his comedic attempts at reasoning.
In the light of these threads that shit is no longer funny. I find it impossible to believe he can be putting these arguments forward with a straight face and suspect he has been trolling us for years.
I have not participated in either thread but I glanced at them. I saw nothing deserving of sanction or against the rules. Very mild by Pit rules. If they start sanctioning people just for having opinions that I don’t like or make me uncomfortable I will move on. The current rules work just fine when implimented correctly.
Some people only bring cat pics or fluff to the board. You can argue they bring nothing to the board. Should they be banned? Banning is there for those who break board rules. The ignore feature is there so you don’t have to read anything from those you don’t like. I personally don’t use ignore because my eyeballs do a good enough job of going past those that I don’t care for.
BTW is it still a rule that you can only accuse someone of being a troll in the Pit?
Great. As long as that rule applies to every moronic douchebag who decides to toss a lame-ass political cheap shot for the lulz into CS, I’d be in support of it.
Various and sometimes spurious, in my humble opinion. SA is one of a handful of posters I personally think the board would be better off without, but I also feel banning should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances.
Allowing him room to express his views, noxious as they may be, is ultimately a useful thing. Anyone reading now knows exactly what they’re dealing with, and can respond (or abstain) accordingly.
Which lines? I have no doubt your lines have been crossed. I would have to go back and see if my lines were crossed. But have the boards lines been crossed? If not then use ignore and move on.
When political pot shots in CS are reported, they usually get mod notes or warnings, as appropriate. When they are not reported, it is quite possible that the mods are unaware of them.
I had never even heard of Starving Artist prior to that pit threat and don’t think I’ve ever interacted with him on this board. I know that a lot of you have been active prolific posters for years and know everyone’s reputation and posting history…but I would guess that the majority of SDMB visitors do not.
When I first encountered SA in that pit thread, I noticed that he had “Charter Member” under his name. Rightly or wrongly, I tend to give extra credence to the posts of charter members because I presume they’ve been around for a long time and have been vetted (same with those with the title "Straight Dope Science Advisory Board). In retrospect, that was a mistake in this case but at first glance he had what appeared to be a respectable title that suggested he’d been around for a while, so it wasn’t immediately obvious that he was a troll.
Perhaps the title of Charter Member or SDSAB should not garner any respect or credibility, but for infrequent visitors to the board I think that may be a common misconception.
