413 posts so far in the december banning thread (including at least 4 from me) and I don’t think anyone has yet acknowledged their gratitude to you for grasping the nettle. Would have been a whole lot less hassle hiding from making that controversial decision. But you didn’t, did ya.
Fwiw, I always felt december caused unusual difficulties from a Mod/Admin perspective; damned if you ban him, damned if you don’t. Sometimes it’s just easier to stay with the status quo rather than face the consequences of using your own judgement. Sometimes it must be tempting to just ban the sod in order to lighten the workload.
But you didn’t do either of those. You exercised your own judgement (albeit possibly in conjunction with others) in your own time and used well-grounded reasoning.
I hope you’re still happy with the decision because, in the end, all you’ve got is ‘job’ satisfaction from exercising your own judgement judiciously. And a lot of agitated, non-appreciative posters charging around the forums like so many clucking hens.
I don’t expect you to respond to this because it’ll just invite more flying feathers but I just wanted to say, as I hope some others might do, kudos to the lady. Whether one agrees with it or not, the decision took bollocks.
Well, if we’ve successfully identified the provenance of the bollocks used, let me agree with the OP. Judicious moderation is indeed a tough job, and it’s been my experience, from the day Ed handed her her Mod. Hat and her Wand of Power (don’t ask :eek: ), she has done an enviable job in the unappreciated tasks that go with being a Mod. and Admin. on this turbulent board. My only regret is that she does not post her insightful and witty posts anywhere near as much as she did back in the days when she was a lowly member with the rest of us.
Judging whether December’s style was trolling or not was no doubt a difficult decision, and I rather fancy that there was a thread extending five or six pages in the Secret Mod. Forum discussing the issue. And the warning last March (unknown to the rest of us until Dex mentioned it in the December Banning thread indicates that the staff were not going to make a hasty judgment.
And I’d like to commend staff on making clear what the reasoning behind this particular banning was. That people espouse unpopular points of view is not bannable – but that they go beyond the limits of the rules in attempting to argue their case, is. I value the added perspective that people like Shodan, Scylla, and Sam Stone bring to what would otherwise be “Oh, let’s all wring our hands at how terrible the Shrub is!” threads. (What is it with conservative posters and usernames beginning with “S,” anyway? I rather expect Ann Coulter to sign up with the username Ssssmeagol any day now! ;)) But the point behind why I value what they have to say is that they argue fairly and by the rules of the game – the rules of the board and the customs of the individual fora in which they post. This makes grasping their point and formulating a disagreement – or, occasionally, an agreement – fairly straightforward. They do not indulge in dubious quotes from unspecified sources, usually blogs, with facts of questionable veracity – they post opinions and provide cites for the evidence they adduce in support of them.
And for that I think they deserve praise. Far too often people feel alienated by being in the minority – gentlemen, let me say that I expect to usually disagree with what you have to say, but will defend your right to say it, and welcome it as a check on the accuracy of my own preconceptions as well.
Let me join those thanking you for playing a large part in making this place great. Banning Col and december was not going to be popular with their respective fan clubs, but it was the right thing to do.
Let me join those thanking you for playing a large part in making this place great. Banning Col and december was not going to be popular with their respective fan clubs, but it was the right thing to do.
:: Jodi mops her brow with her little lace hankie ::
LC, I saw this in the Pit and thought you were going to set fire to GAUDERE for some reason, and the agonizing thought threw me right into a swivet. I’m so glad that’s not what this is.
Though I could use a hand getting out of this swivet.
I’m recollecting the fundraiser, known as The Nut Fry, for a Catholic church in western Iowa. The nuns ran it. The featured delicacy was mountain oysters. There was just that indefinable, suave something about high-minded females demurely serving testicles fresh outta hot oil.
I’m glad to see an open thread concerning December’s banning. I thought about opening a new thread but since the others have been locked I was kinda worried about doing so.
He always seemed to be an instigator and I never really had a problem with that. When I noticed he was banned (just now) I wondered why. So, I searched his recent posts and didn’t find anything really out of character for him.
What I finally came up with (before I read the threads all of you have been a part of explaining his banning)…anyway, I came up with his last thread. The one about Arnold Swarzeneggar and his interview with OUI Magazine.
December actually linked the interview to a cite that has very explicit pornographic photos available. Now, apparently I am wrong regarding the actual reason he was banned.
“Available” is rather vague. The SDMB frowns on direct links to pornography, but I know of no rule that says that one cannot link to a site that has a further link to a separate site (or page) where one might find porn.
Beyond that, I doubt that december would ever link directly to porn for the purpose of flouting the rules and, since he is already gone and a reason has been provided by the administration for his departure, I see no point to go looking for extra reasons to “justify” his banning–especially reasons that are pretty weak, in and of themselves.
