Hmmm. I seem to be just repeating what Arnold has already said. He must type faster than I, the bastard.
I hear he might felch goats, too.
And furthermore, this:
is also an imperfect analogy. Having a sock is an SDMB “crime”, a bannable offense. Hating a mod is not. We are all allowed to hate mods, as we’ve just established. Brian’s LJ permitted you to see into his heart and observe his feelings, which don’t qualify as SDMB crimes, and therefore the contents of his livejournal should not have been taken into account. If we’re being consistent, that is.
ON review:
Except for two things:
-
The Dopefest, which followed that entry, caused his change of heart.
-
He is sincere. He said he wants to make amends for his bad behavior, not that he has completely changed all his opinions about everyone here. The fact that he doesn’t like all the mods doesn’t have anything to do with how he behaved and how he intends to behave, and shouldn’t. He can be sincere in wanting to make nice with people he doesn’t like, I’m sure you can see that.
No Spiritus Mundi, it’s because you put a lot of thought and your formidable intellect behind your posts, and I just dash off the first thing that pops into my head.
The drive-by poster will always beat the intellectual.
Stoid, I think we’ve both stated our positions here. You are failing to persuade me. I think we’ll have to disagree.
Dammit, you guys post too damn fast!
Stoid
Have you ever had someone make a promise to you which:[ol]
[li]You were certain was made sincerely[/li][li]You were also certain would not be kept?[/ol][/li]
I’m just asking.
BTW, I don’t understand your focus on “SDMB crimes”. Brian hasn’t been banned for things written on his live journal. Things written on his live journal were one factor in not granting Brian the special consideration of having his banning reversed. I am going to use a severe analogy to try and illustrate the point. Please bear in mind that I am not equating Brian with a rapist:
[ul][li]A rapist is being considered for parole.[/li][li]Said rapist has kept a journal of violent rape fantasies and posted it on a public web site.[/li][li]It is not a crime to have such fantasies, nor is it a crime to post them on a public web site.[/li][li]The rapist does not call teh parole board’s attention to the web site, but another prisoner (who apparently dislikes the rapist) does…[/li][li]The parole board, having been made aware of these journal entries, factors that into their consideration of the rapists appeal that he has reformed and will not be a threat to society if released.[/ul][/li]
Has the parole board been unjust? If you say, “yes”, then we will simply have to disagree.
I’ve received the Winkie Smackdown [sup]tm[/sup]
See, now I’m mad at you ** Joe, ** because you got my hopes up.
Not trying to hijack here, but before I leave for the evening I wanted to acknowledge a few of the posts on previous pages of this thread.
Waverly, I don’t consider your post dissecting the history of amused on these boards wa feeding the troll. But I didn’t want a whole discussion to start on the possible identity of this probable sock puppet.
RTFirefly - thank you for expressing your favourable impression of the FAQs. Believe it or not, it does make me feel better about my job when posters express gratitude for some of the work I do.
Weirddave - I would like to say that you are a class act too, but I don’t know if that’s the right term for someone who wanted to get some kind of humongous car crushing machine for his birthday. I’ll say instead that I’ve always heard good things about you from the people that know you IRL (and on the board) and I hope to meet you at a dopefest someday. Congratulations on your marriage and I hope you and your wife are doing well.
Joe_Cool - I think your thread was started with good intentions, and I commend you for those. But the pessimist in me was whispering “this is going to get ugly.” You have the right to start a thread on this subject, though I would still prefer private communications on this and similar topics. If you had e-mailed me, instead of starting this thread, saying “I think Satan should be allowed back at the SDMB” I would have told you “doubtful, but he could try to e-mail an administrator and plead his case.” I’m sure that could not have been worse than what happened here.
To those of you who have expressed your support for the administration: thank you for your support. We make mistakes sometimes but we try to do our best.
To those of you who have expressed disappointment / disagreement with our decision - we don’t hold it against you. That’s what this forum is for.
Satan, if you’re reading this - You had a lot of good posts at the SDMB and I’m sure that IRL you’re a good guy. Communication on the internet is a tricky thing and can lead people (including myself) down paths that they do not intend to take. If ever I get the chance to meet you at a dopefest I look forward to shaking your hand and chatting with you.
Damn – he even beat me to the “we’ll just have to disagree” dismissal. How can you not hate a guy like that.
:wally
No, they have not been unjust. But the rapist is a much scarier proposition, much greater care is required. A mistake with a rapist could cause a horrible tragedy for many people. A mistake with Satan * might * cause a thread like this. The relative risk is low. And also, the rewards. The rewards for society at large in bringing the rapist into their midst is questionable. The rewards for bringing Satan back into ours would probably be great.
And thank you Drastic for answering my questions.
Yes, and with that type of analogy, you only scream “oaf.” Use something a little more understanding. That was just rude. Try another, maybe people can grasp it with more understanding. Good Word.
:rolleyes:
Allow me to second that.
Joe_Cool, my voice is of little import, but I do not see how you can judge this thread a “success”. We started out with one worthwhile, longtime poster who has been gone from the board for two years. At the end of the day that person is still gone and we have lost another worthwhile, longtime poster. I liked Mr. C and am very dissatisfied at this turn of events. It doesn’t seem like this entire exercise has caused anything but disappointment and hurt feelings.
Fucking hell.
Rude?
You mean like tellingly selecting your quoted passage to remove the caveat, "Please bear in mind that I am not equating Brian with a rapist"
Understanding is a good word. If your collecting them you might try seeking out “integrity” and “fairness”. Get the whole set. You can display them on a shelf while continuing to post drivel like the above.
Severe analogy is often a fine way to examine a point of principal. In this case, stoid has admited that she does not find the principal of using public information to judge the sincerity of someone’s contrition, she just disagrees with the application of that principal to this case. Her analysis appears to hinge on the idea that less care need be applied to judging Brian’s sincerity, since she views the damage he might cause as minimal while the benefit he might add is great.
I disagree with her analysis, but now we don’t have to waste any time discussing whether the principal involved is unjust (though Joe_Cool may still feel that way. I don’t believe he has restated his position without the mistaken adjective of “private” to describe the LJ entry.)
If I may interject something for consideration (and will probably bitterly regret doing so)…
Banning people isn’t fun. Sometimes it’s more “no brainer” than others, but it’s never done lightly. It’s always a loss, okay? We don’t forget that there are real people behind the screen names.
And “we” are not a monolithic entity. Our internal processes aren’t always fast but I can assure you they’re active. While the system is admittedly as imperfect as the people trying to make it work, considerable pain has gone into crafting safeguards against personalities and prejudices. The mods and admins are all drawn from posters, so extrapolate that one for a minute, if you will. We argue, view things differently and demand cogent reasons from each other.
It isn’t a perfect system of checks and balances but I swear to this: no one–NO one–would 1.) expect a free pass or 2.) get away for a skinny minute, riding a personal grudge when the issue is a poster participating on this board.
Veb
And I third it.
(Dang, these threads move fast. Never mind.)
Shuffling off in the dust,
Veb
As for the “privacy” of Satan’s journal entry. Yeah, I 'spose back a month ago, before he entered into the realm of a non-official dopefest, this might have been an issue. The thing is, he genuinely gave thought to this after the dopefest and wanted to be a part of the teeming millions again. I trust him and I believe him. I have kept in touch with him (not as much as I would like) over the time but I honestly and truly state that I believe his plea to the powers-that-be-over here was honest and truthful.
I bitch about things that happen over here all the time. I would gather that if the two mods who are friends on my LJ felt I was being out of line here, I would have been banned a long time ago. I don’t agree with all the decisions here, never have and never will and I will bitch about it as I deem appropriate on my personal space there. However, the “offending material” was well over a month ago. Satan went to a dopefest and mended some bridges. He rethought what he did and well, he thought he would enjoy, with apologies and all, to come back.
The Powers disagreed. I am cool with that but I am not cool with people who don’t know him, putting him in a spot where he can’t defend nor can he comment.
FINE, you don’t want to see him back here. That’s great, we each are entitled to our opinions, but must you beat it to death like you have, bringing up extreme analogies that have nothing to do with or even make any sense to the SDMB Powers and how they make decisions?
Good Word. If you don’t want people to point out the errors in your post, then don’t post it.
stoid
Well, I evaluate the risk as a bit greater than that. I recall the Satan banning fairly well, and this thread is a pale comparison. I think only the Melin banning matches it for impact on the SDMB community. The value one places on that, of course, is entirely subjective.
Quite possibly. I certainly valued Brian’s presence on the boards when I first stumbled across this little corner of the net.
Where we really disagree, I suppose, is in the application of ethical guidelines to practiccal decisions. Since I have very little of the consequentialist in me, I don’t find it compelling to consider the relative risks and benefits when deciding whether the live journal entry should be considered when guaging Brian’s sincerity/stability/state of mind. To me, it would be irresponsible for any person entrusted with ruling on Brian’s request to not consider all relevant and available evidence.
You are correct that the consequences of mistaken leniency are not dire, but neither are the consequences of mistaken harshness. Thus, I cannot see any reason for the predicted consequences to determine how one should reach a decision.
< reminds self to ummmmm, PREVIEW next time. >
Sorry, I fucked that all up.