Yes, it’s usually something said when you’re certain of what you’re saying but want to at least appear civil instead of calling me a dumbass. 
Look, I think this has been handled badly on both sides. The mods have been making some bad calls, but the escalation, hysteria, and martyrdom from the posters really haven’t been making things better. SoulFrost’s banning was justified in itself, but things shouldn’t have gotten to that point.
That the 12 year poster can’t behave better than a pedophile?
It appears my past suggestions of courtesy bannings has now been implemented. Bummer. But on the upside it does warm my heart that the comedic technique of Keystone Cops is alive and well.
Man, you guys have screwed the pooch on this one.
:rolleyes:
Cute, but no. The pedo was spam-posting his trolling or deviant crap in all sorts of threads all over the place–far, FAR worse behavior than two mean posts that hurt the mods feelings. But the pedo got the benefit of the doubt, despite advocating baby-rape in totally unrelated threads.
Just in case this question was genuinely lost amidst the chatter, I’ll ask it again.
Feel free to add it to my thread too, not that it will necessarily help any…
FWIW, I agree. That would be on my list of ‘shit we don’t tolerate’ if I were making the list.
Hell, I don’t know. Maybe a suspension would have been for the better. Warnings would have been useless, though. He’d decided to make himself an enemy of the state, as it were, which is different from a poster going over the boundaries without meaning to.
Christ, what a stupid reason to start acting up, though.
A few years ago we had a long time member, who was under considerable real life stress at the time, ask to be banned. The Staff gave him a one week suspension instead. That was the right decision. I think that better choice would have been to give SoulFrost a week to a month suspension in this case too. Especially given his decade plus of good citizenship.
Marley, I don’t think that anyone is asking that the Staff hash out their issues in public. That would be ridiculous and counter-productive. What I, and I think others, find strange is that once a decision is made, Staffers who disagree aren’t supposed to say so. Of course they should enforce the new rule or interpretation or whatever but why can’t they say that they voted in the minority?
What would be the point of that beyond divisiveness?
If I were on the losing side of an argument, it might make me feel better if Mod told me, “sorry, it was a tough call and I agreed with you but the majority didn’t see it our way.”
I’m not saying that it should be required that we know how the voting went but for a staffer to not be allowed to state their disagreement as a matter of policy seems off to me.
Bricker, no, the decision in this case was not unanimous. Dex definitely misspoke in implying that it was.
We don’t state publicly who disagrees with what decisions because it is divisive and counterproductive. It’s like your parents – when Dad says “sorry, Champ, Mom won this one” it serves to undercut both parties’ authority and encourages you to play one off against the other. No useful purpose is served.
Maybe you should stop treating us like children.
ETA: Yeah, some of us act that way sometimes, but still.
Stink Fish Pot asked about one moderator criticizing another. The answer to this question is pretty much the same, although I think we could ease off on that practice somewhat without causing any big problems.
Oh, now this is outrageous and inflammatory rhetoric that has no place on the SDMB.
ALL good ol’ Caesario wanted to do was JUST perform cunnilingus/analingus on infants and toddlers, NOT actually rape them. It’s not like he was some kind of sicko or something…
(certainly not a sicko who was coddled and treated like Visiting Royalty by the Powers That Be)
*Consenting *infants.
Thanks for providing that, twix.
I disagree. SoulFrost chose to make a martyr of himself for the cause. He way overreacted to the situation. Would I support morphing his banning into a 1 month suspension and see if he behaves when/if he returns? Certainly. Do I demand it? No. SoulFrost is a big boy and he knew the rules and knew what he was doing. He chose to throw a tantrum, and they gave him some leeway that he chose to waste.
And they have already stated that he can petition to return if he really feels like it. Of course, I bet you don’t believe they would actually give that serious consideration, but I do.
The same reason they phrase it “we convinced so-and-so to change her mind” rather than “we told so-and-so she was wrong and to fix it”. The first indicates that the mod was open to reason when given the proper perspective, the second strips authority. And you know what? If a bad decision is a bad decision, there should be a way to make that persuasive case that doesn’t involve pounding on their head. Even if that persuasion ultimately boils down to outvoting.
I knew that. So given that it was already off the table, why was it necessary for ** Czarcasm ** to start imposing rules and handing out warnings in a poll that had become purely a survey of attitudes?
The moderation didn’t have anything to do with the likelihood of avatars being enabled. Czarcasm was trying to keep the thread on topic. Let’s say the OP and some of the people who responded had very different opinions on what the topic was.