This thread is embarrassing. Now that I’ve posted in it I feel my avatar needs a bag on its head.
OK, fair enough. How about calling other posters “assholes” and “virulently unpleasant” in ATMB?
Regards,
Shodan
As the target of that post, I’m not angry at JohnT and if I had pardon power I would pardon away his warning. I think we’re all on good terms now, and I harbor no ill feelings towards him (then or now). Political issues such as the impeachment inquiry are sure to rile up the emotions and sometimes you slip. I didn’t report it. I was a little sad that John thinks/thought my arguments were the weak sauce of weak sauces, though.
But I don’t think that’s an insult, I did not feel insulted, and I wouldn’t have warned him for insulting me. I don’t think JohnT implied that I was trolling (which would be an insult), just that my arguments were so “weak” as to not warrant responses. I think the warnable part of that post would be the “Don’t bother”. As in, don’t bother replying to Max S. - in my opinion, a form of “threadshitting” or rather, “post-shitting”.
I actually think I made a warnable post in that thread, back when someone had asked me to stop participating if I couldn’t meet certain conditions. After admitting that I would not meet those conditions I asked them to confirm that they want me out of the thread, since I think they misunderstood my position. I wasn’t trying to get that poster in trouble. In hindsight, such a confirmation would probably get them in trouble - I was being sincere, but my post could be construed as trolling. I fully apologize to Aspenglow for [POST=21898308]my actions[/POST].
~Max
This is so willfully ignorant on multiple levels.
First, the post that names someone is infinitely more harmful than a post that doesn’t, even a child can see this.
Second, since the name hasn’t been officially released, we don’t actually know if that’s the name of the whistleblower. It could be fake shit from Breitbart, famous for its fabrications.
But it doesn’t actually matter if it’s the real name or not. The consequence of the release is that person will be exposed to terroristic threats. This is exactly why people want the name released, so that others will be tempted to stay silent.
By letting this stand, SDMB is not only participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people, it’s also lending credibility to a news outlet known for confirmed politically-motivated fabrications. And all of this from a poster with a history of working the refs and who cheerfully admits he’s only here to aggravate political opponents.
We should bookmark this thread the next time someone says this site is oh so hostile to conservatives. You let chronic offenders get away with participating in large-scale harassment of a private person without so much as a slap on the wrist, and in justifying it you are complicit.
Thanks for proving Colibri’s point! Guess there really is no issue here 
Seconded. There was no legitimate reason to bring up the WB’s name (or maybe just some unfortunate bystander’s name) in that thread. I think the mods have the judgment capable of identifying why it was done, and AFAICT it’s clear that the reason it was done would violate a myriad of board rules – trolling and being a jerk, most obviously, and possibly even putting the board in legal jeopardy.
So let me get this straight - you want the board to censure people from speculating on who the whistleblower is? Do I have that right? Because as you say, no one knows for sure as it hasn’t been officially released. So when people speculate that it is Kelly Ann Conway, that should be warnable too?
Previously, there was a thread on who wrote the anonymous NY Times (?) op-ed saying they sabotage actions in the Whitehouse. Should that also be verboten? The standard you’re asking for is ill conceived and unworkable. But please, elaborate on what you think I’m ignorant of.
I’m going to bet you’re wrong. Feel free to provide a cite and I’ll demonstrate it for you.
Seems pretty clear octopus is trying to create parallels between Hong Kong protesters setting that guy on fire, and the argument promoted by some posters on this board that violence by American protesters against “fascists” is acceptable. There are many ways to characterize that argument, but “trolling” really isn’t one of them.
Just to correct the record again, I don’t recall ever cheerfully admitting that I’m “only here to aggravate political opponents” and I don’t consider it an accurate characterization of why I’m here.
And secondly, I have no idea why Breitbart keeps getting brought up. None of the sources that I cited in this post were from Breitbart:
ETA: ninja’d by Bone
Uh, the legitimate reason is the people want to know. Is there some law that prevents private individuals from giving out the name?
AFAICT, this was the first time a poster mentioned his name in that thread, and it wasn’t in response to anyone asking who the WB was:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21971505&postcount=4362
So? I’m sure people were wondering who it was.
Here’s a thread where the very first post is a guess about who the author was writing about. Nobody was asking for that either.
If there are unnamed people in the news, most people are curious about who they actually are. That’s not new. Neither I, nor any private person, owes anonymity to the whistleblower.
In this case, there was a push from political factions to out the WB for intimidation purposes. IMO that clearly crosses a line that’s not present in other cases of unknown actors.
I’m not saying it’s forbidden to discuss unknown actors on the Dope, even in such circumstances – I’m saying that bringing up such an incendiary “outing” in a thread not specifically about that mystery, in the way that it occurred in that thread, was not done for legitimate reasons of debate or discussion, but rather to troll (i.e. to deliberately piss people off while having no value to the discussion).
Not to derail the thread, but this is as good a place for the question as any, I guess: I’ve been a non-paying poster for 5 years. What benefits do you get by being a paying Charter Member? What am I missing out on? I never gave it thought but am curious.
You’d have a stronger argument if HD was the original source of the name and posted it in a thread on a message board before anywhere else.
This only holds if a reader is pissed off by seeing the name of the whistleblower.
I got tired of the ads.
Just because you don’t like someone’s post or how it was made does not make it trolling.
I made an abortion joke and got a warning for trolling.
In answer to the OP (JohnT,) I am not sure what you are suggesting should be done. Are you suggesting a moderation approach whereby those who pay money get moderated more leniently than those who don’t pay? That would be a very weird way to do it.
What kind of thread was the joke in? I mean, if it was inappropriate in that kind of discussion, maybe the warning was deserved?
I honestly don’t know anything about that warning or joke.