Isn’t that an argument for never taking any action against any poster here? After all, we are free to ignore any troll posting here.
Pretty apt. However I’ve never been on board with those exact sort of “three strikes” calls. The original CA three strikes law was a bit of an abomination IMHO.
I’m in agreement that this looks a little bit ticky-tack to me. Not that Shodan doesn’t have issues. He is far, far too in love with “liberal tears” for his own good. He couldn’t resist tweaking folks on the opposite side of the political spectrum and I agree that lately my impression was that he seems to have gotten a little more over-the-top and less polite than he used to be while doing it. Labeling some scholar he doesn’t know a harpy because he disagrees with her academic argument is more than a little ridiculous, even if he meant it as hyperbole. But IMO it’s a pretty mild brand of ridiculous.
I don’t mind changing standards, but I think most people should have gotten a note rather than even a warning on this one. For someone with multiple warnings and a prior 1 week suspension? I suppose I’d be fine with a stronger sanction, but probably not banning.
That is unless he had been specifically told not to use that word before, which is something that is a little unclear to me from the wording of the warning. In which case so be it - it’s on his own head for violating specific instructions.
Absolutely. And when we choose not to ignore, we can argue with their positions all day long (and we do), but we should probably be a bit circumspect in denying them the right to say (any) things that offend us.
At least that’s my current thinking. I’m willing to reconsider my position with sufficiently compelling arguments.
It sure sounds like you’re saying no troll should be banned, including Shodan. I disagree as I feel that the trolls here choke the place to death like weeds in a garden.
Sorry, too late to edit previous response.
It’s not an argument not to enforce any established rules. I have no issues with current board rules.
I completely agree. But that does remind me of a newspaper headline about the first person to be sentenced in California under that law. The suspect mugged and beat the crap out of a wino and took everything that the wino had on him. The headline: “First person convicted with his third strike stole 27 cents.”
One might think that posting on this board would be instructive for our conservative brothers and sisters. Being in the minority can be extremely frustrating.
Why is that when a liberal is banned, and it’s happened countless times, there aren’t wailing/gnashing threads in ATMB about innocent victims being culled from the ‘in’ group? Oftentimes the mods are accused of circling the wagons; they aren’t the only ones.
Hard to figure out what JC meant or might be referring to.
A couple of searches show that 1) this was Shodan’s second use of the term “harpy”; the previous instance was in 2005, and 2) JC has used the term 4 times, twice in connection with this incident, once quoting someone else (who was warned for something else in the quoted post), and once in connection to harpy eagles.
I can’t find any evidence of any exchange between them on the subject.
This seems to be a circular argument, in that it relies on the notion that it takes as much to ban a liberal as to ban a conservative. This is exactly what’s in dispute.
Because there are many “liberals” on the board, and losing one doesn’t affect the discourse all that much?
I don’t know. I feel like those people complain all the time. It’s like they see discrimination in every single decision.
Should supposed rarity of political position give one more leeway when it comes to breaking the rules?
I disagree with Shodan on almost everything, but I am on record in giving him another chance- short leash, nothing political at all. Not GD or Politics.
iswydt…
No. It could, however, explain why there is not an outcry when a long-time “liberal” member is banned.
Mods often correct posters via PM (I know from experience). Mod reports are not visible to us. The mod loop is not visible to us.
With that in mind, why do you expect that you have constructed a full picture of past events by going on an armchair-quarterback expedition armed only with a keyword search? Especially, when it’s been stated and restated that this was more about a pattern of behavior than saying a certain naughty word.
Anyone else earworming The Barber of Seville?
Unbelievable that you’re comparing what someone posts to those despicable things.
Ain’t you a stinker!
Then why are you denying their lived experience? Why don’t you listen and believe?
The confederate flag one is pretty apt.