# Um, Czarcasm, WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 4, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308 "2009-11-04T18:38:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PuddingCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b4bc9f/32.png) [@PuddingCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PuddingCat)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/41 "2009-11-05T16:36:12Z")
It’s just typical SDMB mod bollocks again. You may have noticed that this place is sucking rather badly nowadays. And as for board wars, isn’t that so 1990’s? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/42 "2009-11-05T17:15:44Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > You may not see the harm, but the corporate lawyers disagreed with you. When the SDMBs were first set up, The READER’s lawyers required a distinction between legal avoidance vs illegal evasion. For example, it is perfectly OK to discuss legal ways of traveling to Cuba, or reducing your taxes, or obtaining marijuana, or downloading mp3s. But, it is NOT permitted to suggest illegal ways of traveling to Cuba, or lying on your tax forms, or obtaining marijuana, etc. Had the Cuba thread been limited to suggestions within the law (getting State Dept OK), that would have been fine, and it was reasonable for **Czarcasm** (or anyone) to open such a thread. Once people started suggesting illegal ways to obtain Cuban currency, the thread was closed. > > That people cheat and break the law all the time is irrelevant. We don’t want the news coverage at their trial to say that they learned how at the Straight Dope Messages Boards and anyone can do it. I know you guys have to follow the wishes of the ownership, so if that is still the stance of whoever owns the SDMB right now, there’s obviously nothing you can do about it. I just think it’s unfortunate, because it’s the sort of nonsense that corporate lawyers come up with under the viewpoint that it’s always better to be safe than sorry, even when sorry has only a one in a billion probability of occurring. It drives me nuts – I hate how fearful the threat of liability litigation has forced anyone trying to actually do anything in the country to become. [QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven] The “neutral stance” that you suggest is EXACTLY what we’ve always done here… as long as the discussion remains about legal means. Discussion of the law, and how to work within it, is OK. Discussion of how to escape being caught or how to violate the law, is not. Similarly, discussion of whether a law should be changed, and how to change it within the system, that’s all OK. Discussion of illegal activities to oppose a law is not. Example: OK: “Should we try to change my state’s laws on same-sex marriage?” Not OK: “Throw firebombs at the local church to show how we oppose it’s position on same-sex marriage.” And this is exactly how we have been moderating over the years. [/QUOTE] Well, yeah, I think both of those cases are fairly obvious, from a moderation standpoint. I don’t think anyone would advise allowing a thread inciting the mass use of violence to stay open. But I think **Czarcasm** ’s thread was more in the middle. Closer to something like “I want to have a sit-in at the Maine state legislature to protest the recent same-sex marriage law, what can I expect?” You’re discussing something that is against the law and which, if undertaken, will likely result in arrest, but the discussion itself isn’t hurting anyone or fostering any harm. More importantly, I think it’s virtually impossible to imagine that anyone is going to get sued over the fact that the discussion happened here before the fact. Not trying to bust your chops – if your hands are tied, they’re tied. But if do you have some discretion, I personally think we’d be better off leaving such threads open. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/43 "2009-11-05T18:05:37Z")
Corporate lawyers be damned; one mention of the SDMB during, say, a high profile murder case and the page views and ad impressions would go through the roof. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/44 "2009-11-05T18:18:04Z")
Responding to various points: **Giraffe** ’s (Post #42 above): You can ignore your lawyer’s advice all you want. Whether corporate lawyers are too squeamish, that’s an interesting topic for debate IN ANOTHER THREAD. In any case, we, the moderators at the Straight Dope, are required to follow the lawyers’ directives. The moderator who fails to do so, won’t be moderating long. The rules here are the rules, and these have been in place and enforced for a lonnnnnng time. Anyone who doesn’t like it: well, there are lots of boards that aren’t moderated, please go there and be happy as a clam. Happy as two clams. Or as happy as a clam can be. Wasn’t there a big to-do just a few weeks ago because we DIDN’T squelch a discussion about things within the law, and about changing the law through legal means? I guess hobgoblins are the consistency of etc etc. Second, it was NOT **Czarcasm** ’s question that caused the thread to be closed, but the nature of some of the responses coming through. Perhaps **Czarcasm** should have said in his OP, “legal methods.” But he didn’t, and we got responses that were not acceptable. You post, “I want to have a sit-in at the Maine State legislature to protest…” and someone posts, “No, the best thing to do is blow up the legislature, here’s a website on how to make a bomb.” The post is removed, the thread is closed, and it’s not the fault of the OP. > [@Liberal](#): > > More to the point, I think, is why the SDMB staff is attempting to moderate other boards. Some boards do not even have rules against so-called “trolling”. Some, in fact, encourage it. We’re not trying to moderate other boards. We care not one rat’s ass what happens on other boards. The discussion that we closed down was on OUR boards, and we do care what is discussed here. “How to troll other boards” is NOT something we want discussed. **trmatthe** : No, sorry, we’ve had “board wars” and the threat thereof much more recently that the '90s. We don’t like them and we don’t want them. Someone goes to the Extreme Right-Wing Religious Nut-Case board and posts a joke and says that the Straight Dope Message Board told him to do so, and we get dozens of irate posters coming here. We want to be able to say: sorry, that individual was acting as an individual jerk, what she said is not official SD policy and please don’t bug us. **Shodan** , asking for evidence that we thought this “joke” was liable to be trolling: I am unable to provide such in detail, to respect the privacy of one of our posters. I know that’s unsatisfactory to you, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. I agree, the “joke” could be perfectly harmless and trivial and irrelevant. I hope you will agree: not necessarily. In the absence of clear information, the moderator decided not to take the risk. That’s his right and privilege, to curtail discussion that he thinks has a high likelihood of leading to an undesirable outcome. Is it subjective? Yes. Does that mean we’re going to overrule it? No, because most mods agree with that decision in this case. Does that mean there’s never to be any discussion of how to pose as a Brit? No, it just means not in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/45 "2009-11-05T18:42:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You remember the entire “Why Was This Thread Closed?” thread last month? You never understood what that was about, so I don’t expect there is any point in trying to enlighten you now. And even if it were an example, I asked for _examples_. You clearly implied that my numerous transgressions had exhausted you to the point of total fatigue. Put up or shut up. Please. > [@](#): > > Good luck with that. I won’t need it. I’ll cite the case in point. The only reason given for closing the thread was that it was “not cricket.” That opens a variety of questions. I was merely attempting to narrow the field. You’ll note that \*\*Dex \*\*was able to respond simply and directly without inventing some noxious aspect of my posting behavior. > [@](#): > > I never said that. I drew a distinction between jokes and trolling, which indicates I _don’t_ think they’re the same thing. That was my mistake. I mis-attributed the quote. > [@](#): > > I’ll tell you what, Contrapuntal: while I think the Halloween comparison is really silly and not connected to the thread under discussion, I came off a lot harsher than I intended to in that post and the next couple. Mea culpa. I apologize for that. Apology accepted. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/46 "2009-11-05T18:45:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because they ignored my post to the thread, talking about how he was most likely referring to the sock hop at Giraffe’s board. It would be interesting to find out if **Curtis Lemay** was indeed referring to that board. If it was, then > [@](#): > > “How to troll other boards” is NOT something we want discussed. no discussion of trolling occurred. > [@](#): > > Shodan, asking for evidence that we thought this “joke” was liable to be trolling: I am unable to provide such in detail, to respect the privacy of one of our posters. I know that’s unsatisfactory to you, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. I agree, the “joke” could be perfectly harmless and trivial and irrelevant. I hope you will agree: not necessarily. In the absence of clear information, the moderator decided not to take the risk. Certainly it’s a judgment call. It just seems to me that a thread where someone asks “my friend wants to know how to go to Cuba **via Curacao** ” is even more likely to be a request on how to break the law against travel to Cuba. If the trip was legal, why would he need to start from other than the USA? I have no idea what might be the nature of the information you got from another poster that led you to think **Curtis Lemay** “might” be trolling. Nor would I expect to be told. But if **Curtis** was indeed talking about the Hallowe’en event at the other board, then your information was wrong and he wasn’t trolling. As you said and I agree, it’s your call. I am a little more surprised at **Czarcasm** ’s judgment in starting the other thread than **Curtis** ’ in starting his. The Cuba thread seemed much less ambiguous. Especially since it almost immediately degraded into what it seemed to be from the start - advice on how to break the law. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/47 "2009-11-05T19:53:58Z")
Wait, even leaving aside the issue of trying to police more than one board at the same time… posing as something other than your nationality on \*\*this \*\*board is against the rules? Where does it say that I’m required to be a 100% accurate representation of myself? If you suddenly found out I was Australian, you’d ban me? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/48 "2009-11-05T20:13:49Z")
THis Canadian also wonders about that. I could easily have pretended to be American right from the start - I can spell “color” and “check” incorrectly when I have to. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/49 "2009-11-05T20:21:10Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Wait, even leaving aside the issue of trying to police more than one board at the same time… posing as something other than your nationality on \*\*this \*\*board is against the rules? Where does it say that I’m required to be a 100% accurate representation of myself? If you suddenly found out I was Australian, you’d ban me? That’s an interesting point. There is nothing in the rules to say that we must present ourselves exactly as we are. I can quite see that pretending to be dying, or inventing equally dramatic stories would qualify as trolling but purporting to be British when you’re in reality American? Where’s the harm in that? Who the hell cares? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/50 "2009-11-05T20:26:16Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > That’s an interesting point. There is nothing in the rules to say that we must present ourselves exactly as we are. I can quite see that pretending to be dying, or inventing equally dramatic stories would qualify as trolling but purporting to be British when you’re in reality American? Where’s the harm in that? Who the hell cares? Well you know what? I poked around and found this. > [@](#): > > We reserve the right to revoke the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB. [From here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_sdmb_rules) ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/51 "2009-11-05T20:33:43Z")
They “reserve the right to revoke,” certainly, but they also reserve the right to ban anybody at any time for any reason. Welcome to the internet. If anything, that quote \*\*reinforces \*\*the idea that it is \*\*not necessarily \*\*against the board rules to misrepresent yourself in a harmless way. (Lying about being a doctor and giving bad medical advice? Clearly a bad idea. Lying about being British? I fail to see how this could damage anyone in any way.) ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/52 "2009-11-05T20:36:29Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Well you know what? I poked around and found this. > [From here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_sdmb_rules) Damn, you’re right. I missed that bit. Just as well that I really am the suave sophisticate and scion of European royalty that I’ve always claimed to be. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/53 "2009-11-05T20:42:09Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > They “reserve the right to revoke,” certainly, but they also reserve the right to ban anybody at any time for any reason. Welcome to the internet. Well then you’ve answered your own question, haven’t you? Why ask where something is in the rules when it doesn’t matter? > [@](#): > > If anything, that quote \*\*reinforces \*\*the idea that it is \*\*not necessarily \*\*against the board rules to misrepresent yourself in a harmless way. You asked where it was in the rules and I showed you. If you choose to interpret it as somehow vouchsafing such misrepresentation, then bully for you. I will point out to you that at least one poster has been banned for exactly that. I think her/his name was **Six**. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/54 "2009-11-05T21:00:15Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Wait, even leaving aside the issue of trying to police more than one board at the same time… posing as something other than your nationality on \*\*this \*\*board is against the rules? Where does it say that I’m required to be a 100% accurate representation of myself? If you suddenly found out I was Australian, you’d ban me? G’day mate! Let’s put some shrimp on the barby after a few more posts! ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/55 "2009-11-05T21:06:06Z")
For future reference, I want it noted that I am not, repeat, not, a hot asian teen who digs fat, sweaty IT guys. Nor am I a dog. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/56 "2009-11-05T21:41:50Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > We’re not trying to moderate other boards. We care not one rat’s ass what happens on other boards. The discussion that we closed down was on OUR boards, and we do care what is discussed here. “How to troll other boards” is NOT something we want discussed. Another rule is fine. But can you cite where such a thing is/was being discussed? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/57 "2009-11-05T22:42:18Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > You asked where it was in the rules and I showed you. Uh, no, you didn’t. They said that they \*\*may \*\*ban people for misrepresenting themselves–not that they **will**. To me, that clearly states that the acceptability of such will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Contrast this with something like the hard-and-fast rule about calling someone a cunt in the Pit. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > G’day mate! Let’s put some shrimp on the barby after a few more posts! Shhhhhhhhhh, you’re gonna blow my cover! Koala dingo Foster’s. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/58 "2009-11-05T22:50:46Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Uh, no, you didn’t. They said that they \*\*may \*\*ban people for misrepresenting themselves–not that they **will**. To me, that clearly states that the acceptability of such will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Contrast this with something like the hard-and-fast rule about calling someone a cunt in the Pit. You don’t get banned for calling someone a cunt in the Pit. You get banned on a case by case basis for calling someone a cunt in the Pit. You might not even get warned. [Cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11745636&postcount=22) Look, I linked to the Registration Agreement, informally known as “the rules.” Anyone who misrepresents themselves and gets punished for it, and then questions why, will be directed there. Argue all you want that it is somehow not “against the rules.” \*\*Six \*\*was banned for it. It is _de facto_ against the rules. If you feel the need for a semantic victory because it doesn’t say “Everyone who misrepresents him or herself in any way shape or form will be instantly perm-banned” then, rock on, Dude. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/59 "2009-11-06T01:42:12Z")
We did agree to abide by the rules. The mods decide what the rules are via interpretation. We have to live with that. Ten years from now, it all might swing back the other way. Things go in cycles. And that’s really all I have to say about that. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308/60 "2009-11-06T16:08:26Z")
* * * > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > You don’t get banned for calling someone a cunt in the Pit. You get banned on a case by case basis for calling someone a cunt in the Pit. You might not even get warned. [Cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11745636&postcount=22) I never said you’d get banned–I said it was a hard-and-fast rule. Do you seriously not understand the distinction between “The following expressions \*\*should not be \*\*directed at other posters” and “We **reserve the right to revoke** the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB”? One says “you \*\*may not \*\*do this,” the other says “doing this \*\*might \*\*get you into trouble.” In summary: As long as the current rules stand, it will \*\*never \*\*be okay to call someone a cunt in the Pit (regardless of the sanctions), but it \*\*may \*\*be okay to misrepresent yourself in certain ways. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-czarcasm-wtf/516308.md?page=4)