I know the Beerman better than Uke, but I cannot imagine either of those gentlemen making board-related decisions based on their political views.
I’m sure you didn’t intend it as in insult, Gov, but in their shoes I might very well take offense at the suggestion that they might be disinclined to pull the trigger based on ideology.
On my body, the “Wand of Power” is located right above the bollocks. 
A little judicious ass-kissing never hurts, particularly when one has a history of admin-bashing, among other things.
The proprietors of this board, or their authorized agents, have told you that our friend was disappeared for dishonesty and provocations, not ideology. Are we all so use to having the (our?) Governments, our media, our public relations types, our teachers, our parents and children and friends lie to us that we take it as a given that the Moderators and Administrators must be lying to us too?
In any event, right or wrong, a decision had to be made and it took some amount of courage and resolution to make it.
As far as our friend is concerned, just being polite does not immunize a person from being a deceitful, manipulating and provocative-for-the-sake-of-provocation weasel. All our friend had to do was play by the rules. He got caught once too often spitting on the ball, pulling guys down by the face mask, holding on the rebound, and false starting. None of you who are claiming that our friend was banned for ideological reasons can in good faith say that he was the person you would want to share a sand box with. You have got to know that sooner or later he was going to claim your dump truck as his own, claim that you broke his bulldozer, or put sand in your banana. He was a bad poster and I’m sure he would have been a bad playmate. If he can’t play by the rules, screw him.
Pardon me while I go Clorox my brain to erase that image.
Oh, and yet another voice (and glass) raised in tribute to the Mods/Admins involved. 'Tweren’t easy, I’m sure.
Just for the record, grienspace, I do not rejoice at the banning of anybody, and various posts indicate that I am far from alone in that attitude.
I posted to this thread to compliment staff generally and Gaudere in particular (to which I’d add Dex now) for their forbearance in the face of questionable behavior by the aforementioned poster, coupled with making a tough decision when they had achieved consensus that it truly needed to be done for the good of the board. Having been involved in a couple of such decisions on another board, I know how tough they are to make honestly and fairly – particularly when a poster rubs you the wrong way and you need to exercise great care to be fair to him. They were called on to judge, and they judged well, without personal rancor and with the good of all in mind.
As the rest of your post indicates that you realize. But I’d like to make clear what my own feelings on the subject are.
The mods speak as one, and act as one. Our internal debates are just that – think of Raskolnikov debating within himself. Sometimes our multiple personalities have wider differences of opinion than other times, but we are as one.
Because this was a holiday weekend in the U.S., there haven’t been a lot of mods around, and so we took it upon myself to act as trigger-puller and spokes-mod. That was, however, merely coincidental. So you may cease speculations about who did what and who stood for what and so forth.
Discussion about this is not forbidden. The prior thread was closed because it wasn’t discussion about the banning, it was juvenile name-calling and tongue-sticking-out, and neither productive nor useful nor humourous.
If, then, you believe that december’s banning had to do with his political leanings, then I fully expect you to be leaving shortly. Since you declared that you would in an earlier thread.
Otherwise you might just want to take the Mods/Admins at their word. Your repetitive accusations are growing tiresome. Put up or shut up.
Hopefully, Sam is aware that by saying this, he is basically calling CK Dexter Haven a liar. In the other “December banning” thread (the one that’s now closed), CK explained repeatedly that it was december’s repeated behavior, not the reactions of others, which mandated their decision. He addressed this pretty directly here:
What Sam ignoring is that, without the frequent repitition of behaviors that december had been repeatedly warned about, he wouldn’t have been banned. It was not the “continual attacks” which spurred his banning, but the continued (and even elevated) repititions of behaviors which december knew damn well were putting him on thin ice.
In short, Sam (and others) want to blame december’s detractors for his eventual banning. This completely ignores december’s responsibility in the matter, and that it was his actions which provided the main reasons for his banning, not the reactions of others. We have the words of an admin, and the evidence before us, to prove this. Unless Sam is actually calling CK Dex a liar, we have ample evidence to show us that december’s banning was a difficult, but careful decision, and that it was the right one.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I was not among those who wanted to see december banned. I didn’t like much of what december said, and I thought the way he said it was often underhanded and slimy at best, but I didn’t want to see him ousted, because he at least started some interesting discussions. However, I also recognize that his banning was pretty much inevitable, unless he took it upon himself to change his behavior. He didn’t do so, and in the past couple weeks he actually made it significantly worse.
To put it simply, his recent actions make it look as though he were testing his limits, and seeing how much he could get away with before being banned. He found out. He was given lots of latitude, he was warned repeatedly, and then when he didn’t stop, he was banned. Anybody who doesn’t think he was treated fairly is, frankly, blind to what has been said and to what december himself did.
Let me join with others in this: while I do not celebrate december’s banning in any way, I do believe that the Moderators took great care with how best to deal with him, treated him very fairly, and in the end, made the only decision which made sense. Despite the fact that they didn’t have to, they also communicated their reasons clearly and fairly to us all. They deserve our respect, not our accusations of bias or second-guessing. Speaking for myself, I know they have my respect.
Well you still don’t get it. The mods are only aware of the “repititions of behavior” due to the vast number of complaints brought forth by the membership in public and by e-mail. Had the membership tolerated december and not brought forth complaints. then we wouldn’t even be discussing a banning. And that is the point. I do not dispute one iota the official response by the mods. And I agree 100% with Sam Stone that december’s strong political stance is a major factor in his notoriety at the SDMB. Give him a more right wing forum, and he’d just be one of the guys. They love taunting liberals like some here like taunting fundies.
You are no doubt correct about the reason for december’s general notoriety. And about the number of public complaints about him on the Board.
But, as far as i know, the mods and adminstrators mainly respond to official complaints that are reported to them via email or the “Report this post to a moderator” button, rather than to general bitching on the forums. I’m just wondering where you got your inside information about all the email complaints that were received about december? Do you have a fly on the wall at mod meetings? Did one of the mods mention this in a post that i missed? Or are you just assuming that such emails were sent?
Are you quite certain that’s the only way they’re aware of such behavior? I’m under the impression that most of them post rather frequently on this message board, and it is conceivable that while posting they could notice such behavior.
Wrong. There have been innumerable bannings that are not discussed by the general membership, mostly because the person who was kicked off hadn’t been here long enough to be noticed. It’s absurd to assume that if no one said one word about december’s behavior, he’d still be here. That’s hogwash. We as members may have a slight impact on a decision, but our opinion is by no means the sole criterion for a banning.
Well, duh. Give an asshole a forum where assholes are tolerated, and that asshole will fit in perfectly. Give a liberal a forum where liberals reign supreme, and that liberal will blend in. Give a conservative a forum that’s inhabited only by conservatives, and that conserative will thrive. And if any of those places is your cup of tea, you’re welcome to go there as well.
There are at least one thing that you’re missing here. Sure, there are people here who like to taunt fundies. There are also people here who like to taunt athiests, some who taunt agnostics, some who taunt all religions other than their own. There are those who taunt liberals and those who taunt conservatives. There are even those who taunt those who belong to neither school of thought. The point that you keep missing is that pretty much every group is taunted by another one; it’s not limited to people beating down conservatives or fundies. Never has been, never will be; we’re far too diverse here.
I think you’re missing the causal relationship here. Had december behaved properly, folks would not have complained, and he would not have been banned. To blame those who complained is ridiculous – and further denial of the real reasons he was banned.
Actually, i want to this sentence back.
You are not correct about this, because your assertion still relies on the unproven, and probably unprovable, assumption that it was december’s politics rather than his behavior that caused his notoriety.
Also, as leander suggests, you’ve put the cart before the horse.
<< The mods are only aware of the “repititions of behavior” due to the vast number of complaints brought forth by the membership in public and by e-mail. >>
Oh, wake up. It is certainly true that the mods depend heavily upon the members to report mis-behaviours. We can’t be everywhere all at once. We do our best, but there’s too much to read.
Can I use the example of someone who pops onto the board, trying to sell toner cartridges? We delete lots of such spammers when we’re browsing the forums and find their posts. We delete other such spammers because they get reported to us (via the “Report this post to a moderator” link at the bottom of the post.) But they all get the same treatment in the end, regardless of how we found them.
So, someone whose behavior causes lots of people to “report this post” comes to our attention sooner (perhaps) than someone whose behaviour causes no one to report their post.
Please note – that’s not biased to the right or to the left, that’s biased based on whether the behaviour is annoying to people. A left-winger who pulled the same kind of stunts would presumably be reported by the conservative members here. Unless, grien, you’re arguing that conservatives are too polite and nice and well-mannered and stupid to ever report annoying behaviour on the part of a leftist?
Anyway, once a post is reported or discovered that exhibits annoying behaviour, then the mods have to decide whether it’s:
(a) a violation of the rules (in which case, an easy decision on what to do); or
(b) perfectly acceptable even if annoying (in which case, an easy decision on what to do); or
© skating on thin ice (in which case. a more difficult decision on what to do.)
That help?
On the other hand, grien, if you’re saying that the mods only notice behaviour because it’s annoying to a large number of people… well, behaviours that are NOT annoying to others are probably not mis-behaviours, are they? In short, I think you’re complaining about the world: people are banned because they engage in behaviours that are violations of the rules, and most people find such behaviours offensive.
Do you also think it’s dreadful when someone calls the cops to report an assault, and the cops arrest the mugger? I mean, if people hadn’t called the cops to complain, the mugger wouldn’t have been arrested, right? To paraphrase you: had the citizens tolerated the mugger and not brought forth complaints, then we wouldn’t even be discussing an arrest.
Pfui.
That would be here, for reference’s sake:
The motion for Sam to put up or shut up is seconded.
Someone still doesn’t get it, but it’s probably you, grienspace. The bolding in the quote is mine.
You seem to ignore the fact that the mods read threads. They don’t just read when someone complains. They’re actually capable of independent thought and notice when posters continually do things that appear to be “trollish.” They appreciate when someone points out single instances of behaviour that is frowned upon by the SD, but they are sharp enough to monitor repeat offenders. And they’re impartial enough to give those repeat offenders latitude. december got the kind of latitude that they extended to Col and Satan.
I opened perhaps 15% of all the threads december started. I posted to a fraction of his threads. And, yes, I disagreed with him politically. But, what caused me to limit my reading of his threads was his guile. It always started with the carefully constructed dishonest OP. It didn’t get any better once you got to the inside.
So, like Sam Stone, you just can’t seem to accept the Admins/mods assertions that they banned him for reasons other than his politics. They didn’t ban him because people complained. Please give them more credit than that.
In my opinion, it was both. It was the combination of his tactics, and the fact that those tactics were employed in a way that drove 80% of the users here nuts. I maintain that if he had done the same kinds of things in the service of ideas that most people agreed with, he would have been cut a lot more slack. By the same token, if Collounsbury had shown up here and behaved as offensively as he did, but in defense of ideas that the vast majority of users here disagree with, I think he wouldn’t have lasted as tenth as long as he did.
For example, from what I understand (without seeing the thread) the final ‘straw’ was that december represented a quote of Clinton’s as coming from Bush in order to ‘catch’ people disagreeing with it. Now, I don’t like this tactic very much, but the fact is it’s common. It must have been employed at least a half dozen times on this board in my memory. It’s a standard rhetorical trick, and it’s used in the pundit press all the time. Sites like Slate have used that trick to make a political point. As an offense, it’s a pretty minor one. Certainly not one worth banning a long-time poster over.
However, in December’s case someone probably howled in outrage, a mod looked at it, and it was certainly a case where December was being misleading.
BTW, is there a link to that thread so I can see exactly what happened? I haven’t been able to find it, so take my above opinion as base don third-hand information until I see it. And after re-reading this, I think I must be wrong, because if my characterization of what happened is correct, I can’t believe that that would be a bannable offense, even as a ‘last straw’. It’s just too common a technique.
Easily searched, Sammyboy. Here. It will take you less time to read it than to compose yet another post complaining about it.
Except…that is NOT the reason december got banned, so I don’t think anyone should be calling upon Sam Stone to be going ANYWHERE. [sub]Except maybe to the store for some nice licorice. I have a craving. :)[/sub]
My apologies for the lousy coding there, I couldn’t figure out the correct way to do all of that. It was complicated.:rolleyes: