This Kafkaesque - I am on trial and I don't know why.

Just because you’re paranoid here doesn’t mean anybody knows what you’re afraid of, you know.

You say I can’t post a question, but you don’t know why.
You say I must have gotten a note, but I didn’t get one and now you won’t tell me what was supposedly in it.
You say I can’t just sign up again to ask it, but don’t say why not.
You then say I “share characteristics” with somebody else, who also hasn’t done anything.
What is that? How exactly am I supposed to explain that?
You don’t even tell me what characteristics to look for.
One guy had these characteristics, sum total: 1)remembers highschool chemistry 2)can’t remember names 3)likes thrillers 4)doesn’t like the reform party.

I don’t do any of those things. I even sort of liked Perot.

What happened to this, which I found looking them up?

I had no bad behavior. Period.
So excuse me if I think you’ve gone nuts and I don’t care.
I’ve been quite happy reading the columns and other people’s questions and answers, and will continue to do so.
And when I want to ask a question I will just sign up again and do so.
Why should I care about your rules when you clearly don’t.
The first rule is “Don’t be a jerk.” Well you are being a jerk to me. Three times. Sorry, but that’s my limit.
I emailed you, I waited for you. You emailed back. No answer, but I should just wait. I emailed you, I waited for you. You emailed back. No answer, but I should just wait. I emailed you, I waited for you. You emailed back. No answer, but I should just wait.
I tried to look up what meager clues you gave me, and what did it get for my trouble? Zip. Nobody had bad behavior.

Not Kafka. They use Salem Rules here.
If someone calls you a witch, it’s up to you to prove you aren’t.
You don’t need to be told why you’re a witch because witches already know what they’ve done.

First off, Richman, I did send you email detailing the situation. It appears you have several screen names.

I asked you for an explanation.

You then went out and got ANOTHER screen name, when I specifically said not to do that, it’s a violation of forum rules.

Let me once again quote from our registration agreement:

What about this is unclear to you?

And Soupy, what’s your problem?

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

::raises hand::
I can answer this.
But not in this forum.
I’ll wait for someone to hijack this to the Pit, as I’m sure is going to happen.

What’s unclear to me now is the same thing that was unclear to me then.

Who are these other people and why do you say I’m them?

This is all you provided me with on the THIRD attempt to get information.

On this thread, the FOURTH attempt, you add nothing.

How am I supposed to fight outright false ideas like these?
I have no relation at all to the other posters.
None. What about this is unclear to you ?
None. What about this is unclear to you ?
None. What about this is unclear to you ?

Allow me to quote the emails:


In a message dated 10/18/00 9:48:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lanfly@gardener.com writes:
> TubaDiva - I’m having trouble posting. It won’t let me get past the preview
> screen. Anything you can do?
> Thanks
> “richman”

It appears your posting privileges have been removed. Did you receive email
from one of our other administrators?

Let’s investigate what’s going on here. Gotten into any fistfights on the
board lately?

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The Straight Dope

From: lanfly <lanfly@gardener.com>
To: TubaDiva@aol.com
Sent: October 19, 2000 5:24:44 AM GMT
Subject: re: Re: Having trouble posting
>TubaDiva-
>No, I never got email.
>I don’t know who’s an administrator, exactly, but no one >has contacted me.
>I’ve only made 5 posts total, none very exciting, none
>addressing other
>people, and the only comments I got were inconsequential.
>
>E.g., from Silent-rob: "richman, I have a couple of those >mini-cameras, and
>still use them on occasion. Very fun. There’s a place >around here that I
>have gotten the film developed at. "
>
>Not my idea of a fistfight.
>
>I searched for comments outside the threads I was on, but >only picked up
>references to “Jonathan Richman”, who must be a singer.
>
>Maybe if you know the other administrators you could ask
>them?
>Or should I just sign up again?
>
>“richman”

Hold on, let me find out what’s going on here. Don’t get a second screen
name, that’s a violation of our rules.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The Straight Dope

In a message dated 10/19/00 1:24:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lanfly@gardener.com writes:
> No, I never got email.
> I don’t know who’s an administrator, exactly, but no one has contacted me.
> I’ve only made 5 posts total, none very exciting, none addressing other
> people, and the only comments I got were inconsequential.
>
>

A further investigation into the database shows that you share some
characteristics with 3 screen names thrown off the board for bad behavior:

Largely Guesswork
Na Cl
Nepunkit

To quote from our registration agreement:

[[ Only one screen name is permitted per user. If you wish to change screen
names please notify the webmaster and we will deactivate your old screen
name. Use of multiple screen names is grounds for revocation of your right to
post under ANY screen name. ]]

I’d love to hear a reasonable explanation and I look forward to hearing from
you soon.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The Straight Dope

What is unclear to me is what you expect me to do. You have apparently made the connection out of thin air and want me to contradict that. HOW? I Searched my name and found nothing. I searched the other names and found nothing.
They are not me. I am not them.

TubaDiva-
My problem is I knew one of the sleeze team, in this case waterj2, former “banned in error” poster himself, no less, would jump on this guy.
He and his kind are of the Salem persuasion.

I just wanted to let richman know that there are some people left who believe in the principle in this country that those being punished are allowed to know why.

The problem is not that you’re arbitrary, that’s fine with me- it’s your board.
The problem is when you claim to be patient and only hard the mean people, but end up punishing the poor richmans of the board who have said and done nothing, and then allow the rabble rousers like waterj2 walk around smearing people.

You guys have been at this every time, for as long as I remember, and you should know by now it doesn’t help. This problem doesn’t involve either of you.

Let the thing cool off and TubaDiva and richman will sort it out. That’s what always happens.

No need to re-start the old wars.

Soupy-

My last post was about you. I have not, and will not now say anything to attack richman. No one has. Judging by the quoted emails, it looks as if he’s overreacting.

Actually, I’ve always been under the impression that no one is looked at until they make trouble, so I’m kind of curious how this sort of thing happened. Perhaps Tuba could provide a little more elucidation as to what sort of steps are being taken to prevent multiple user names. Oh, and notice how I can ask politely and without insulting the administration. Maybe you should give this approach a try.

Soupy said:

Oh sure, Soupy, say nice things about waterj2 and ignore the rest of us.

Dammit, I feel left out now.

It’s okay, Soupy, I don’t think you’re a witch, even if you do weigh the same as a duck. :slight_smile:

I expect you to answer my email instead of taking this to a public board. I expect you not to get duplicate screen names.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

Well, I expected that within three email attempts you would tell me what you wanted. Or at least what prompted you to stop me posting.

I expected that if email was failing, at least you would tell me something if I reregistered.

I don’t see either in the posts you’ve done here, so I’m giving up on you being logical. Be random. No skin off my nose.

It sounds a lot like he didn’t have any duplicate screen names at the time he was stopped.

These names you mentioned in the emails are not trolls, and don’t seem to be banned. They only have a handufl of posts among them.

Largely Guesswork
Na Cl
Nepunkit

Why don’t you just tell him why you think they are connected to each other or him?

You keep saying people are banned because they cause trouble and “we know best, so don’t ask”, and it just doesn’t sit well. Everyone here is fairly savvy. We sould like to know what’s what. Don’t treat us like kids.

Actually, it sits perfectly well with 99% of us, because we trust and believe the moderators here. But I am kind of curious now as to what characteristics are checked before someone is allowed to post.

And MysterEcks, :p.

Why is MysterEcks feeling so insecure?
Didn’t he already claim the prize in this thread of his?
I’m the Chief Crybaby? Why didn’t somebody tell me?

Buck up MysterEcks, the one who was really left out again was Rysdad, who can’t seem to get noticed-

Maybe we could get Satan to reprise his famous thread for a thread named “Get called a crybaby by Satan”.

You were banned because you gave a movie a bad review after Kiffa had given it a good review.

When I looked at your few posts, one rang a bell.
A thread was running when I was first posting.
The thread has now been erased, but I’m sure it went like this:

Kiffa gave a rave review to this:
"Go see Spike Lee’s The Original Kings of Comedy. You must see it with a full audience - I felt like I was there in the original audience tonight because folks were rotfltho "

You said “They had a long segment on Ebert, and it was all Black racist stereotype jokes. Sure the audience may laugh, but they laughed at Rastas and Liza too.”

When nobody else commented, Kiffa wrote a pit thread denouncing you for “killing” her thread. Claimed you’d only seen part of it, and therefore had no right to add to her thread. Some of the crybabies noted above (I forget which) said only a troll would doubt the review of a “respected” poster, and you must now see the movie, racist or not, or shut up.

After a few days, one of the mods declared that “this disruption of the board must stop at once” and banned you and all the people who signed on that day.

You probably never even knew the pit thread was there or that anyone was ever upset.

The idea that they send you emails before locking you out has been discredited over and over. They just don’t do it that way.
If Largely Guesswork, et.al. never complained, it was proof positive that they were trolls and therefore the fact that you did complain is proof positive that you are also a troll. And of course, if any of them had tried like you to get reinstated via email and gotten no further than you, then that would have been proof positive that they were trolls.

So, the theory is right. If someone calls you a troll, no matter what you do next, it is proof you are one.

IMHO

Hey, I remember that Pit thread. It was pretty pointless, but what happened to it? I don’t see how it could have led to posters getting banned, because I don’t remember anyone except kiffa caring. Anyone else (preferably someone that doesn’t have anything against the administration here) remember what happened in that thread? The conspiracy theorist in me won’t leave the rest of me alone without some more evidence.

annalamerino: Research “humor” and “sarcasm,” and maybe things will start to click. (Or not, but it’s worth a shot.)

TPaTP: Since I have a feeling you’re not kidding, I have to mention this is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen all month.

I remember that thread–which I recall richman posting to, so he did notice it. I read it, and planned to come back to post that Kiffa desperately needed a hobby–in other words, I was going to defend richman’s right to say what he damn well pleased about movies and movie reviews. (You can go find the Pit thread on Sweet Sue, if you doubt my willingness to take sides on behalf of new posters.) By the time I got back, though, the thread had disappeared…as had another one I intended to post to, and at least one other one I heard about later. I assumed it was a technical thing, and I still do.

As I recall, the thread didn’t last “a few days,” nor did it get a whole lot of attention. I don’t for a minute believe any mod cited it as a source of “board disruption,” nor do I recall or believe that anyone would say “only a troll would doubt the review of a “respected” poster” or words to that effect. In short, you are either misremembering or you are lying to get a rise out of people.

waterj2: See above. I assume I qualify, even if Soupy forgot to compliment me. (And remember, pardner–I’mthe Chief Crybaby in these here parts.* :D)

*Note to Anna–see first paragraph of this post.

Seems like annalamerino actually was using humor, although perhaps not sarcasm.

You, on the other hand, seem genuinely paranoid.
Try a long bubble bath and an early bedtime. That’s the sure cure for a crybaby. (Humor. :slight_smile: <–See, told ya)

I don’t know about a conspiricy, but a few people did gang up on the guy, which seemed uncalled for.
Then somebody researched it and the tide flowed the other way.

I know there was a mod involved at one point, because I thought it was going to be like the one panning Sangria.

I don’t remember richman responding, but then that’s not as memorable a name as some are.

I can’t see that he did anything wrong, though. Nor the others I spot checked.