Okay. Well I tried.
Okay, this is the second thread in the last five minutes I’ve run into where someone is saying something about a poster named JDT who was obsessed with foreskin. What’s the deal?
mr London_Calling, would you show our gentleman friend here the whereabouts of your critically acclaimed JDT Compendium Thread?
(sigh) Wouldn’t we all?
Foreskin-flavored 'ludes here! Get 'em while they’re flopping around! Get yer floppy ludes here!
Gotta say, this is the most annoying characteristic of my fellow Americans that I’ve discovered on the Boards - this utterly erroneous conviction that the Bill of Rights applies everywhere and to everything.
It fucking doesn’t. It only applies to governmental actions.
The SDMB cannot violate any of your rights because, here, you don’t fucking HAVE any rights.
If you find this shocking or offensive, you are obviously unemployed.
Sua
JDT is always good for a laugh.
That type of language really isn’t necessary, and I said nothing about the Bill of Rights.
Frankly, it stands to reason that the administration of SDMB seeks to increase the board’s value to its members. A more valuable Board can dispel ignorance (the ultimate mission of the SDMB) better than some board that nobody visits, or a board whose members are relative nobodies.
The issue in dispute is whether a member’s banning was arbitrary and unfair, and if so, what anyone (who wishes to do so) can do to make matters right.
As far as I’m concerned, I DO have a right to speak out if I object to what’s going on. The moderators/administrators and Cecil would agree, unquestionably, that speaking freely about your objection to actions by moderators is each member’s right, and if you happen to look at the BBQ Pit’s summary on the forums page, you’ll see that the BBQ Pit’s content is defined as the place for criticisms of the administration of the SDMB. Sometimes I do speak out, sometimes I don’t. This is a case when I feel an error was made, and I feel strongly enough that I wanted to speak out.
CK Dexter’s remark that the SDMB “is not a court of law” struck me at the time as an attempt to stifle criticism of the manner in which the board is moderated, especially as regards that member’s banning. If that were an accurate interpretation on my part, then I would say the remark was understandable, perhaps, but not acceptable.
Some people say I interpreted it the wrong way. Suffice it to say that it doesn’t appear that I am going to win this fight here. But it would be nice to know that even if the SDMB is NOT a democratically run message board and need not be, it is inspired to at least TRY to appear as though it values free speech, dissension and vigorous debates, even with regard to how the Board itself is administered. YMMV.
Have a nice day.
By saying we’re not a legal system, I meant several things at once:
(a) Our rules are stated in pretty general terms. They’re all grey and fuzzy around the edges. Laws don’t work that way – laws have to be specific and clear and all the details sorted out in massive amounts of regulations and explanations. We have neither the time nor the inclination to do that. Our rules are guidelines, not laws.
(b) As Bambi said, we do not need to follow technical rules of evidence. We can look at prior arrests, not just prior convictions. We do not need evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”, we just need “reasonable suspicion.”
© We do allow appeals, by email to moderators. If we’ve made a mistake, we usually try to correct it. We’ve given people a second chance, sometimes despite our better judgement.
(d) There is no public record of what happened (although many members seem to think there is.) We respect the privacy of individuals, and so often discussions or warnings are given in email. “Evidence” is often “disappeared”, particularly if the offensive posts involved spam, porn-links, hate-slogans, etc.
It was a portmanteau expression, with lots of meanings packed into a little phrase.
Okay - that’s that. Thanks for the explanation. Sorry if I’m being a nudge. I was born that way, I guess. 