# The Wildest Bill precedent, and what it means for the "don't be a jerk" rule
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [May 3, 2002, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023 "2002-05-03T07:32:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/61 "2002-05-06T13:56:22Z")
Call me misinformed, call me paranoid, call me what you will, this place is so trivial and unimportant it don’t matter… But I sure got the impression that any criticism on why someone was banned was now considered a no-no around here.
How, exactly, we’re supposed to take conversations held in e-mail and repost them on the board isn’t exactly clear to me, since I thought that was against the rules too, but hey, if that’s what you want, then fine by me.
---
### Author:  [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/62 "2002-05-06T13:57:59Z")
First off, thanks **John C**.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \*
> \*\*Because, of course, every decision the administration has made up to this point regarding the banning a poster has been sound, just, and without error?
>
> Mmm Hmmm.\*\*
No, because the majority of the bannings are certainly seen (or _would_ certainly be seen, as many of them aren’t even noticed normally) as just by most posters. However, should you still disagree with a banning decision, you can always let us know per e-mail. The reasons for keeping these discussions off the boards are mentioned by John Corrado.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I wouldn’t worry too much about people continuing to bring this up, Coldfire. So long as you keep tightening up the rules on what can and can’t be talked about around here, including any discussion on why someone was banned, those that try to talk about it will soon be outta here anyways. If not, just create some new rules to get rid of them too. Problem solved. You’re back to being infallible by banning any and all of those that say you’re not. \*\*
I’ve re-read this paragraph five times now. And I still don’t know where it came from. No “new rules” were introduced, **CNote** , so I guess I’ll sum up my response by simply saying, _“Huh?”_.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Ahhh, the old condescending stand-by, ‘Get a life- There’s more out there than the internet and this messageboard.’
>
> Coming from a guy who’s so prolific a poster that he knows the rules and regulations around here well enough that he became a moderator himself, not to mention being a regular 'ol member of this place since the summer of ’99, and it’s hard to buy your ‘There’s more out there than this place! Get a life!’.\*\*
“Huh?” number two. I was implying _“don’t worry about these bannings, it’s probably OK, enjoy the boards already instead of worrying about every tiny detail about how it’s run”_. Somehow, you managed to interpret it as a personal insult. It wasn’t one.
> [@](#):
>
> **Seriously, if this really was the non-issue that you’re trying to make it, and it hardly was worth the time to talk about it, then why all the talk of it lately and the threats, nay, demands, to shut up about it?**
Because, for the reasons John Corrado stated, keeping these discussions off the boards means our lives are just a tiny bit easier. If that makes any difference to you.
> [@](#):
>
> **There’s just a bit of irony in all that.**
None whatsoever.
> [@](#):
>
> **Trying to defend an idiotic rule by using faulty logic and condescension really isn’t your style, Coldfire.**
I fully agree with you here. I hope we’ve succesfully demonstrated how it isn’t an “idiotic rule”, and how the logic behind it isn’t faulty. As for being condescending, I don’t know whether you’re in a position to judge, going by _this_ post.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*State the stupid rule and get on with it. \*\*
Hokay.
\*\*PLEASE E-MAIL A MODERATOR OR ADMINISTRATOR IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY A CERTAIN POSTER WAS BANNED. \*\*
Dixit.
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/63 "2002-05-06T14:28:13Z")
So, wait… _why_ was Wildest Bill banned?
(oh shit)
[exit stage left]
---
### Author:  [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/64 "2002-05-06T15:02:58Z")
\>\> Of course, you could just assume that we had a damn good reason for banning a poster, and get on with your life.
What would make you assume we all have a life around here?
---
### Author:  [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/65 "2002-05-06T15:27:26Z")
This is why I’m confused, **Coldfire**. In **John Corrado’s** post, he states that criticisms of bannings are if fact allowed, as **hawthorne** speculated, but asking _why_ a person was banned is not.
OK. I can kind of understand that. You should first ask a moderator why someone was banned and then, if you feel strongly about it, you can open up a thread on it. It still seems a bit silly to me that it’s kept quiet like that (And let’s be honest here, it’s kept in e-mail to keep things quiet. How e-mailing any number of people who are questioning why someone was banned is less troublesome to you guys than a simple thread or reply to a thread asking about the matter is beyond me, especially when it’s a well known poster. But hey, whatever). Furthermore, how well it’s going to go over starting a thread that was- up until that point- entirely kept in e-mail I can’t quite understand either- I thought that was frowned on too.
But again, hey, if that’s the rule, fine.
But right after that you say that in fact we’re _not_ allowed to talk about why so-and-so was banned, that it too should be kept in e-mail.
It’s not paranoia, it’s the conflicting messages that gets me this way.
---
### Author:  [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/66 "2002-05-06T15:40:06Z")
Not a bad point. Let’s rephrase it a little, then.
[ul][li]If you want to know why a **poster** was banned, you e-mail a staff member to find out. Let’s say the answer is _“We banned GenericPoster because he posted links to pictures of nekkid wimmins”_.[_]The **acceptable** pit thread you could post as a result of that would be titled: Why I think posters shouldn’t be banned when they merely post links to nekkid wimmins.[_]The **unacceptable** pit thread that you might post would be titled: _“You fucking bastards, bring back my buddy GenericPoster!! RAAAAHHHH!!!”_[/ul]Now, the reason for this is, as said, threads (especially Pit threads) about bannings tend to atract trolls and socks. This means more work for us, and we’d rather spend our time reading the lastest love story in MPSIMS than stomping out flaming trolls (well, maybe not a love story, maybe an IMHO poll on nail polish or something). [/li]Threads that don’t debate a banning, but the underlying policy, tend to be more civil and constructive, which in the end is best for all.
Therefore, we don’t mind debating the _policies_ of the board, but we certainly discourage debating a particular _banning_.
Hope that helps.
---
### Author:  [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/67 "2002-05-06T15:47:31Z")
It does.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/68 "2002-05-06T16:03:07Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by minty green \*
> \*\*My recollection is that DITWD bit the dust for repeatedly comparing a poster to a Nazi (Joseph Goebels?). I can’t recall anybody who was banned for lying about another poster, since, ya know, it’s pretty easy to look up what somebody said and verify that, for instance, The Ryan is overreacting to a slight that is far more perceived than real. \*\*
This is my recollection as well.
The ironic thing with regard to the OP is that DitWD dug himself a hole by _accusing another poster of making up lies about him_ (and making that accusation in a highly obnoxious way).
**The Ryan** appears to have the story backwards.
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/69 "2002-05-06T16:12:53Z")
Ah, The Big Lie. I remember it well.
---
### Author:  [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/70 "2002-05-06T18:03:29Z")
Since **CNote** forgot, I’ll say it. Thank you for clearing things up, **Coldfire**.
---
### Author:  [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/71 "2002-05-06T18:58:05Z")
Come again, **andros**?
Just what do you think that “It does” from me up there reference? If it isn’t obvious to you, it’s in direct response to his “Hope that helps”. “It does”.
There was no slight on my part implied, or intended. I can’t possibly see how it could be read otherwise.
---
### Author:  [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/72 "2002-05-06T19:02:48Z")
Oh, the irony …
---
### Author:  [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/73 "2002-05-06T19:05:29Z")
OK, I’ll bite **Sauron**. Where’s the irony in my post?
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/74 "2002-05-06T19:06:39Z")
[QUOTE]
_Originally posted by Coldfire \*
[ul][li]If you want to know why a **poster** was banned, you e-mail a staff member to find out. Let’s say the answer is “We banned GenericPoster because he posted links to pictures of nekkid wimmins”.[_]The **acceptable** pit thread you could post as a result of that would be titled: _Why I think posters shouldn’t be banned when they merely post links to nekkid wimmins_.The **unacceptable** pit thread that you might post would be titled: _“You fucking bastards, bring back my buddy GenericPoster!! RAAAAHHHH!!!”_[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
You missed one Coldie, and I think it could use a little clarification. Is it acceptable to comment on whether a _particular_ poster was banned? As in, “GenericPoster should not have been banned because the links he posted barely even showed any butt crack!” Many bannings are going to be fact-specific, so it seems less than productive to discuss or complain about a generic rule in when it’s a specific application that merits specific attention.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/75 "2002-05-06T19:08:22Z")
In what language does _it does_ mean “thank you”?
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/76 "2002-05-06T19:20:56Z")
Of course, my question should have been whether is is appropriate to comment on whether a particular poster should have been banned. Oops.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/77 "2002-05-06T19:20:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by minty green_
> You missed one Coldie, and I think it could use a little clarification. Is it acceptable to comment on whether a particular poster was banned? As in, “GenericPoster should not have been banned because the links he posted barely even showed any butt crack!” Many bannings are going to be fact-specific, so it seems less than productive to discuss or complain about a generic rule in when it’s a specific application that merits specific attention.
If Coldfire doesn’t mind me answering-
We don’t have a problem with that as a specific example being brought up _so long as_ the facts have already been checked with a Moderator.
That is- “GenericPoster should not have been banned because the links he posted barely even showed any butt crack!” is fine as an OP so long as you’ve gotten confirmation that GenericPoster was banned over posting those specific barely-any-butt-crack-showing links. On the other hand, if you’re just _assuming_ that GenericPoster was banned over those links, we will close the thread with the explanation “That is not the reason GP was banned”; you’d be starting from a faulty premise, and debating from that would be pointless.
---
### Author:  [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/78 "2002-05-06T19:32:01Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \*
> \*\*OK, I’ll bite **Sauron**. Where’s the irony in my post? \*\*
My apologies, **CnoteChris**. My comment wasn’t directed at you, but rather at the post by **andros**. He castigated me a couple of weeks ago for going off the handle regarding the lack of a thank-you in a different thread. He was right then. To see him now essentially do the same thing he was berating me about is ironic to me.
---
### Author:  [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/79 "2002-05-06T19:54:16Z")
Obviously I missed the big ‘Thank You’ fiasco that recently besieged this board. Mea Culpa **Sauron**.
**Jeff Olsen** , et al…
If **Coldfire** misinterpreted my comments as being jerkish or somehow lacking in enthusiasm, then he can… e-mail me for clarification.
\
I know what I said, and I know how I said it. I was appreciative of the clarification both then and now. Anything short of that wasn’t my intention.
If you, **Jeff Olsen** , et al, have a problem with how I worded it or phrased it, then that’s your problem. I assume he’s smart enough to figure out what I meant.
---
### Author:  [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023/80 "2002-05-06T20:01:52Z")
You’re comparing apples and rotary engines, **Sauron** , and if you’re too dense to see that, then you can go ahead and enjoy your little self-righteous masturbation by yourself.
**Cnote** , I’m sorry to sound snippy. _It seems to me_ that you came in like gangbusters, liberally dosing your post with sarcasm and some venom, equating “get on with your life” with “get a life” (which I think was unwarranted), and generally sounding upset. **Corrado** responded in kind, admittedly, but **Coldfire** was patient and polite, and provided ytou with a comprehensive and satisfactory answer.
I think that deserves thanks. Again, my apologies for being jerkish instead of saying that outright.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-wildest-bill-precedent-and-what-it-means-for-the-dont-be-a-jerk-rule/107023.md?page=5)