He certainly hit the Submit Reply button 40,000 times, but the word “contributed” suggests that those 40,000 button presses added constructively to the board’s content.
Take the post that got him banned. There was an honest and open discussion of a divisive topic underway, and he plops in a massive turd right in the middle. Nothing but misogyny, anti-liberal, anti-teacher, thoughtcrime bullshit. That post made the board a worse place to be.
If he stuck with talking about his kids, wife, judo and other non-political stuff, he probably doesn’t rack up a single warning. But he insisted on posting garbage along with the good stuff, and that’s why you get banned.
I’d agree that it wasn’t the flame out that I’d expected would come but his resume was long. I didn’t care for his posting style nor his opinions so this is not a hill anyone should die on.
Leaving aside the misogyny debate, you could say the rest of the stuff about many other posts or posters. You might even think that about me. Not having a scholarly level of debate (for the purposes of argument, I’m not saying that about Shodan) has never been a requirement on this board.
Personally, I don’t think that thousands of posts calling Trump and his supporters Nazis, or wanting to kill brown people, or calling him Tramp or calling Republicans—posters in that thread—people who just want the poor to die, done ad nauseum, support any kind of “honest and open discussion.”
But there it continues and we ban Shodan for “harpy”? He could have prefaced that comment with “idiot,” “eggheaded” or “ivory-tower” professor and no problem at all. But he uses a very common insult, that only happens to be directed at a certain subset of women, not a poster here, and that is the final straw for a banning?
Or when posters say that people from red states, particularly West Virginia, live in trailers and fuck their cousins, it goes unmodded, even after being reported, that’s also fine.
I’ve got no problem with this mod action. The subject of the thread has contributed to the board at times, but overall his presence has been a negative one, IMO.
There’s nothing incidental about the insult being directed at women. It didn’t just “happen to be” directed at women. The purpose of the insult is to attack women, only women, and only women who speak their opinions, and that’s exactly why Shodan chose it.
Sorry, but that banning is a bunch of bullshit. It’s possible to insult individual people without it being a wide sweeping insult against an entire class.
I’ve seen “cunt” used numerous times in the Pit. Is it the choice of forum that allowed “misogynistic” words?
Ridiculous modding in my opinion. Just closer and closer to no entertainment value in reading this board. Not much longer until every thread will be “Trump is Satan!” and everyone agreeing and then patting each other on the back with how much they agree with each other.
He was not banned for insulting a person on the board. He was banned for insulting members of the board, approximately half of them. The gender of the professor was completely irrelevant to what she was saying, and to what members in good faith were debating. By using an inherently gendered insult, Shodan was asserting that her gender was relevant, and made her in some way unqualified to hold opinions or make decisions. That’s what we weren’t putting up with.
And yes, I get that the SDMB, like most venues online, can be something of an echo chamber, and that’s not something we want. But we ban people from both ends of the political spectrum when they get too obnoxious. If obnoxious conservatives getting banned is causing a problem, then the solution is non-obnoxious conservatives. We welcome non-obnoxious participants of any political stripe.
He was not banned for insulting a person on the board. He was banned for insulting members of the board, approximately half of them. The gender of the professor was completely irrelevant to what she was saying, and to what members in good faith were debating. By using an inherently gendered insult, Shodan was asserting that her gender was relevant, and made her in some way unqualified to hold opinions or make decisions. That’s what we weren’t putting up with.
And yes, I get that the SDMB, like most venues online, can be something of an echo chamber, and that’s not something we want. But we ban people from both ends of the political spectrum when they get too obnoxious. If obnoxious conservatives getting banned is causing a problem, then the solution is non-obnoxious conservatives. We welcome non-obnoxious participants of any political stripe.
When was Shodan previously told not to use the word harpy? I did a quick search and prior to that post he used the word twice…both times in 2005. I easily could have missed something and I am happy to be proven wrong.
On the other hand, people are assuming that the four warnings/notes prior to the one week suspension were his first. Did he have other warnings over the years on top of those?
IANA Mod but I’m sure you’re already aware that all sorts of language is permitted in the Pit that is not allowed elsewhere.
Again with the insinuation that the only reason conservative posters could possibly be banned is because they hold differing political views. Never mind that the poster in question had a long, long history of repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting what other posters had said, of threadshitting, and of flouting the rules even after warnings and a suspension. Even setting aside the odiousness of some of his personal views, he debated in bad faith far more often than not.
No, it must be that he hadn’t fallen in lockstep with the hivemind. Because heaven forfend that posters be held accountable for their actual actions.
According to what I read in the other thread on this, he was banned after seventeen warnings and four suspensions, apparently. He was given a far, far longer leash than Shodan. Which kinda proves my point.