Is that an attempt to chill speech which criticizes the moderators or administrators of the SDMB simply because members here disagree vehemently with some of their actions? Is that supposed to mean we have no right to appeal actions?
I’ve probably got it wrong, so if someone can please interpret what that means, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
BTW, I am not trying to stir anything up, but that is a direct quote from a moderator here, and it just sounds harsh and impatient and dismissive.
Link please?
If you could post a link to the quote, that might be helpful for interpreting the context.
But basically, I’d guess that you were correct in saying that we don’t have a “right” to appeal decisions. We can always email a mod/admin if we disagree with a decision - but it’s a private board and they can do what they want. In the registration agreement it says that you “are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever. By registering and using the board you acknowledge this right and agree to abide by our rules and to submit to their interpretation and enforcement by our moderators and editors.”
Also, I’ve seen mods post before that they are “not a court” or “not lawyers” - in the sense that although there are rules and guidelines, they haven’t made an attempt to formulate a rigorous set of regulations/rules that cover all eventualities. This would be way to much work and hassle, when the basic rule - “Don’t be a jerk” - covers most behavior. Of course, it’s interpreted at the discretion of mods/admin.
The House recognizes the honourable member from LINK??
Basically what it means is that the admins have the final say. Period.
If they’re going to ban somebody, they do. They don’t run it by the membership first.
If you disagree with an administrative decision, you have every right to say so, publically or in email. You won’t get banned for simply disagreeing with them.
The main thing to remember, though, is “don’t be a jerk.” You can disagree all you like, but they do have their limits. Keep in mind that there’s a small handful of mods & admins policing a board with over 30,000 members. They do it on their own time, for no pay. And they take an awful lot of crap, every day. But they keep doing it because they like these boards as much as we do. Good bunch of people, they are.
So no, they aren’t trying to stifle or chill anything, except what is already against the rules of these boards. Break THOSE rules, and you’ll hear about it.
It means nisobar is a big fucking crybaby who doesn’t like C K Dexter Haven’s explanation of why december was banned.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&postid=3917162#post3917162
That’s “Mister big fucking crybaby” to you, thank you very much. 
Thank you for the link - yes, that is precisely what I am referring to. Sounds akin to “the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy”.
In other news, if you go out in the rain without an umbrella, you may get wet.
nisobar. At least you have a good sense of humor and sense of yourself with a comeback like that. 
You definitely have a right of appeal. If you were wrongly seen as a jerk, then you can come back. It’s happened. The odds aren’t great, mainly because 99+ % of the bannees were being jerks.
Rather than trying to stifle free speech, I think the mods/admins try to stifle stupidity before it becomes an epidemic. And they’re probably losing the battle.
I think it’s supposed to point up that they don’t have to prove anything to anybody, because they are private people administering a private (meaning, non-governmental and non-legal) message board. If someone asks like an asshole, they show them the door, and – unlike in a court of law – they are not required to prove he or she was an asshole first, or explain their actions afterward.
If that also “chills” the incessant bitching and moaning and whining and kvetching about how “unfair” the latest banning is – well, that’s just a plus. Although to date it doesn’t seem to have done this.
And I have to say, this latest hysterical dust-up just points up the manner in which some people around here take every little thing right up the nose. The admins explain why they acted as they did, and not only does the furor not die down, they are basically called liars and their explanations dismissed as fabrications.
If I were a mod or admin – which I’m not – the only lesson I’d take away from this is the wisdom of retreating to “never apologize, never explain” as my modus operandi, leaving all you whiny wankers to guess why I decide to do whatever I do next.
Given the sentence immediately following Dex’s statement that the SDMB is not a court of law – “A series of tiny offenses builds up until the weight is overwhelming.” – I inferred that the administration here, unlike legal professionals, are allowed to consider a pattern of behavior in reaching a conclusion, and that no specific violation of the rules is required. The administration here, unlike a judge, is able to review and condemn a poster based on his entire posting history. Courts of law are permitted only to consider the pertinent facts in a specific offense before reaching a conclusion.
In addition, I agree with the other posters here who pointed out that there is no right to appeal to a higher authority (who would run the Appellate Court system on a message board? Ridiculous.) and that the Admins are free to ban you for any or no reason whatsoever. That they don’t wantonly ban members is indicative of good moderation.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
I have to say that C K Dexter Haven gave one of the most compelling arguments I’ve ever seen in that linked post. He really proved without a doubt that the mods weren’t even the slightest bit out of line on this one. In other words, if you’re so concerned about this as an example of nazi mods, you’re way off-base.
Um…exactly what it says?
In the days before such a hard line against public airing of disagreement with mod/admin policy (private email, limited griping in the Pit), this place used to be rife with the weekly hysterics over claims of censorship or abuse of mod power everytime someone got banned. And IMO, 99% of the time, unwarranted.
Most people who get a post yanked are going to feel unfairly treated (after all, they thought the post was OK in the first place). And almost any banned member is going to have their remaining friends online feeling that this was unfair (or, the banned members comes back in a new guise and stirs up trouble).
And it used to be on this board many public trials wherein the aggrieved party airs the situation for the rest of the posters to decide and put public pressure on the mods. And most of the time, it was a case without merit. The aggrieved often left out salient facts (like the private emails to the mods full of vulgar language). The mods would be on shaky legal ground (in real life, really) to reveal those private messages. And so, they couldn’t adequately defend themselves.
Almost no mod decision was ever overturned. Too much time and bandwidth was wasted with the post facto bitching that accomplished nothing.
And so, the policy now is to email about bannings, and vent in the Pit about everything else and move on.
Much better.
Peace.
I’m sure any of the lawyers around here can set us straight about that.
IMHO, the courts in the US DO take into account a perps prior record. Thus, the “three strikes and you’re out” rule.
I should let the lawyers handle this one, but…
Three strikes and you’re out, I believe, refers to sentencing penalties for someone convicted of a felony, after having been convicted in previous trials of two other felonies, and doesn’t come into play in the guilt-or-innocence phase of the trial.
As to previous bad acts being used as evidence against a defendant… Yes and no. Yes, if the previous bad acts are clearly related to the offense currently charged, as tending to prove a pattern of conduct. No, if introduced merely to show that the defendant is a scum-sucking slimeball. Thus, in a rape case, the prosecution may be able to introduce evidence of prior sexual assaults if the prevous assaults were markedly similar to the one at issue. But I doubt a judge would allow in evidence at such a trial that the defendant was also, say, a mugger with a long record.
You do look at priors in bail hearings, sentencing, or at trial if there is a similar pattern to the crimes. I’m not sure what this has to do with december.
I think he is exercising his right to remain silent. 
Give it up.
This made me laugh.
And nisobar? Have a Quaalude. You’ll feel better.
Y’all wouldn’t be freaking out if you still had your foreskin, ya know.
/JDT
Yeah? Well I STILL like phi!
So there.