I personally think the rule is stupid and provides absolutely no protection for the board, legally. But that’s their call.
However, suspending someone for a thread asking about a rule change? GFactor already gave him a warning for his possible actual violation. Discussion about the rules should be encouraged, not punished. Given that posters have advocated the forcible rape and mutilation of Fred Phelps and have not even been nudged, this appears to be targeted at a “difficult” poster.
I have enough trouble with the idea of “legal issues” surrounding someone advocating, say, sitting at the front of the bus while black. “Legal issues” surrounding talking about “legal issues”? Tenuous, at best.
It’s because StS started the thread. Threads of banned/suspended posters have always been locked as a matter of course since as far back as I can remember. Sometimes, when they’re pure spam or something, and there’ve been few or no replies, they are deleted completely.
ETA: It’s not because of the content; it’s because of the Opening Poster. (You can think that’s stupid too, but at least you’ll be thinking the correct thing is stupid.)
Well, yes it is stupid. Not only because it is stupid in and of itself, but because it has never been consistently enforced. Just in the case of StS alone, he started 34 threads, only 3 of which are locked (2 out of 13 if you restrict it to the last month alone). They lock the threads they don’t like and that’s that.
Well, okay, but I think it’s active threads. Not threads on page 4 of Cafe Society or anything like that. But if you’re upset over a particular thread being closed on account of a sock or suspension or something, and you’ve had a lively conversation going — you know (or should know) that you can open a new thread, as you are a member in good standing, and continue your clever, witty, profound, or whatever it was discussion, right?
ETA: I think you can even link to the closed thread as a reference, if necessary.
Right, but wrong. Threads survive locking and reopening as often and as successfully as real life conversations survive relocation. It has been seen to happen but the norm is that they don’t.
Quite simply, the identity of the OP is no reason to close a thread. If there is something wrong with a thread, then lock it (although in some cases that’s just lazy modding) but if a thread is running fine, there is no reason to lock it just because the OP has suddenly and for reasons not pertinent to the thread been declared persona non grata.
Just as the OP is not considered the owner of the thread to ask it locked or whine about the direction it took, the thread should not be married to the OP and his status on the board.
And why did he get a warning from gfactor over the supposed “call to action”, and then later, a different mod suspended him for the same thing (according to the theory that it’s all one incident)? That’s like yelling “Stop or I’ll shoot” as you’re pulling the trigger.
The timing and locking of only certain threads makes me think that it’s just an excuse to mess with an unpopular poster, and a little bit of authoritarian annoyance at someone questioning the rules, complete with a cover story about liability issues to shift the blame away to some faceless boogeyman.
You have GOT to be joking. Is there a more unpopular poster than I? Yet I don’t sense gathering clouds of moderatorial conspiracy to do away with me. Don’t you think maybe you’re being just a shade paranoid, and projecting just an iddy bit?
That’s a fair point. And just to be sure I understand you, I think you’re saying that the loss of continuity might likely NOT result in the discussion just picking up where it left off from the other thread.
I would agree with you there, but my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that in this particular instance, the poster was, if not threatening, at least entertaining the notion of taking legal action against one or more board members and possibly against the board itself. You know and I know that that’s a major big-time gigantic no-no. So it’s not just closing the thread because of the OP’s identity, but rather because the OP engaged in the jerkiest of all jerkish behavior which, regarding legal issues, is the very LAST thing that a company in bankruptcy needs.
I realize that you might believe them to be hypersensitive about this issue, but as the former owner of a business, I can testify that just about the only worse threat is “Your money or your life.” That’s because it isn’t just about whether you’re right or wrong; it’s about the COST of lawyers, with or without litigation proceeding. Being sued is a small business owner’s worst nighmare.
Well, that and OSHA.
True in general, I think. And it really is a shame that your discussion was interrupted. But you really should blame StS, and not the SDMB.
Oh gawd yes, many of them. StS was one of them, and there are others. Now, is there anyone with your seniority here who is as (John Adams)“obnoxious & disliked” as you are? Doubtful.
I am surprised they left any of StS’s threads open, in fact. I would have closed them all, myself.
The only warning I gave him was on July 27. I responded in the thread he started about the warning to point out that what he was asking about was covered by a broader rule. My post wasn’t a warning there and his conduct in that thread has nothing to do with his recent suspension. While the suspension did follow the warning (by a few weeks), it’s sort of inaccurate to describe it as “later,” in a sense that implies a relationship between the two events.
This is my point. Your understanding is X. Mine might be Y. If people are going to be suspended/banned for actions not explicated in the rules, then we should have a clear explanation of why. I already stated I think the legal issues thing is preposterous, but that’s not what I am concerned about. Transparency never hurts in government, and though the SDMB isn’t quite on the same level, a lot of the principles apply. Unwritten rules are bad for a number of reasons.
That’s why I think we should have a clear explanation in the very near future of what exactly is going on and why certain threads are closed and other aren’t.
The problem is that the thread asking about promotion of illegal activity was locked. And that thread was related to the earlier thread about burning houses. So, to many people, the suspension appeared to be related. I’ve changed my mind about why I think he was suspended, but that still leaves a question about why the ATMB thread was closed.
