Except that Satan posted the nasty insults in Great Debates.
To be honest, I’m surprised you haven’t let it go yet. I’ll think about your suggestion.
My bolding of course.
He didn’t post but he didn’t poopoo the idea of someone posting his piece from te SDMB Community on LJ.
What’s the problem with that?
If I were banned from here, from Fathom, Una Boards, among other message boards I am a member of, I would not sit back. What is so wrong?
He had a problem, he took it to the Powers of the SDMB, they rejected him, he posted on a non-sanctioned SDMB Community post, that has NOTHING to do with the SDMB other than the members that post and are members there. This should not be a concern for you just like it’s not a concern when SDMB members meet on IRC or at a “Dopefest.”
He didn’t post here, there was a link. What’s the big deal? Don’t like the link, delete it, that’s within your power.
There are links to non-official SDMB pictures of “Dopefests”, there used to be a comprehesive picture website of the members here. There’s the Teeming Millions that is separate from here. There’s Opal’s site that has some damn fun stuff on it about this place.
I don’t understand. If you me or anyone want to make reference to the SDMB, good or bad or indifferent, why should that affect anything? You can’t stifle what people do outside of this place. I frequently bitch about things over here on my paid Live Journal. Should I cease and disist? (sp)
It’s a reality, the SDMB is a large community and there will be outcroppings from that. If you want the world to be cut off from the happenings of the SDMB, you might as well close this place because of it’s impact around the 'net.
Illogical. If he or me, or anyone else posts about the SDMB elsewhere, you can’t stop it. If people link to a comment or whatever, what can you do other than delete the link, which I think many would find highly inappropriate.
“Posting by proxy” my butt. Someone linked to a pertainent bit of information that related to this thread.
Re Arnold’s post: In addition, there were 3 - 4 warning about copyright violation, which I presume Satan would know better than to do-at least after the first warning (he was already a reg by then, with more posts than me at that time). Also, one post that was so offensive and lacking in GD-argument that I deleted it entire (I will generally just redact the insults or post a warning, if the post has actual cites/facts/rational argument–deleting a post is reseved for really offensive/spamming posts with no GD sort of content whatsoever). I don’t have the post since I deleted it and emailed Brian with my decision via my work email --I thought it should be dealt with immediatedly—and I no longer work with the company I was with and didn’t keep my emails. Sorry. Mmm… the post with a lot of “idiots” in it I deleted at Satan’s request, but I think you can still find the blanked post and Satan’s request. The rest of 'em I think you can find if you look.
Re his insults, I do take context into account; he called Esprix a fag once and I knew it was just a joke and 'sprix took no offense so I did not warn. All the ones listed were in fact genuinely meant to insult, as I recall.
There were also a few emails to a mod (me) that I consider insulting; I don’t really want to post these. While I don’t really assign a great degree of privacy to unsolicited, insulting email, I’d rather not post it on the boards. However, if browbeaten sufficiently, or is I feel Satan and his friends are misrepresenting those emails, or if he says “yeah, post 'em!”, I may post 'em.
OK, I think that’s the lot–at least of what I can recall. I admit to extreme ambivilence re this sort of “exposure” of banned posters, yet it seems to be what the dopers want. Lurkers, posters, whatever, let us know your thoughts. Whether it is “now I see why Satan was banned, thanks” to “you suck to dig that stuff up!” to “well, I liked to see it but I don’t think this should be a habit”, I want to know that you think. You can email if you do not wish to post publically.
Thanks,
Gaudere
techchick68, I think you misunderstood. If a banned poster says to a registered member “please post this at the SDMB for me”, we don’t want the registered member to do that. That’s what we mean by “posting by proxy.”
“didn’t poopoo”? Stoid says “Satan has posted on his livejournal with an invitation to repost here, which I won’t take since it’s sure to bring mods down on me” (note it hasn;t brought the mods down on her, IMHO.) He invited it, that’s a far cry from just not saying “don’t repost this”. He says “I hereby give permission to do so and actually encourage it”.
If you are banned DO NOT attempt to return. Not even by saying to people you know, “hey look here, I posted X re Y, I encourage you to post this on the boards.” That’s posting by proxy. If we ban you, you may interact all you like off the boards, but why do you think you should have the right to continue to interact with the boards by just having your friends post your thoughts for you? We ban the person, not the screen name–it’s not like having another person post your words is better than you posting your own words.
I think that the “let’s not revisit old wounds” policy has worked fairly well in the time I’m a member of this board.
More than once, when this community has thought that a member has been banned unfairly a Pit threat has been started AT THE TIME OF THE BANNING and that member has been re-instated.
In general, the policy of not discussing the actions of now-banned posters also works well. The admins accept that we will post links to the “final straw” threads, but they don’t encourage threads discussing the merits of whether a poster who was banned months or years ago SHOULD have been. Those of us who were there at the time such bannings took place had ample opportunity to comment both publicly and privately, and in the time of been around here the reasons for banning are either pretty obvious or explained upon request.
Do we have an obligation to resurrect the circumstances which lead to the banning of specific posters every time a new member wants to know why someone was banned? I don’t think so. I once read every single thread Satan ever started on this version of the SDMB. The answers usually lie in the SDMB archives, or the “banned poster” Pit threads which are posted from time to time that link to the most spectacular/most controversial/most awaited bannings.
I’ve never yet had an admin refuse to answer an email in which I’ve asked a genuine question related to a poster being warned or banned. Do we seriously want every single banning or request for reinstatement to be put to a committee of some 20,000 people?
FWIW, I think that the admins who currently make the decisions around here are pretty representative of the community as a whole. Do we REALLY want to change the current system?
I just want to know if I can use this as a signature. Would I get in trouble for it? It’s not an insult, as the names have been removed. It’s just that it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read.
Please?
I already have permission from the author. 
You misunderstood my point.
If you ever banned me, I would NOT attempt to return I have better things to do anyway. If I happen to post in a place outside of the SDMB about my theoretical “banning” then I reserve the right for anyone to, at minimum, post a link as they see fit if they so choose. Not that anyone would give a shit here, except those on my LJ list and they would be knowledgable anyway.
Pretty simple. It’s not like I am (theoretical of course) coming back as someone else to post it. If a friend of mine decided to post that I had opinions on the banning or other thoughts, then by all means, they can post what I put to be “public.”
Posting by proxy is such a scary thing here, especially when it’s a link provided. I don’t understand it.
“Dude posted Here (insert underline and link) about his thoughts on his banning. Just thought you’d like to know, if you care.” Is hardly a crime and unless you start getting on the cases of those that post the link, it’s not a crime. It shouldn’t be either. Despite the fact that people are banned, in some cases, people are genuinely interested in what’s happening but may not have the means to contact the “banned.”
So that, there, is my OpinIon.
It’s too big to use as a sig, Joe. Think of the hamsters!
Wow, it’s nice to have you smiling at me for a change, instead of giving me a “we see you…don’t talk like that!” warning.
Techchick, if you are banned you may post what you like where you like–except on these boards. But if you tell your friends “please post this” or hint that it should be posted on the boards, I think you’re tryng to post by proxy. If someone gives some sort of permission or encouragement to post a post of theirs or a link to a post of theirs, they’re trying to post by proxy, IMHO. They want people to post the remarks thay not longer can. And that’s not OK.
I’ve warned you, Joe? Damn, I do slack on my warning log. See, you could have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for those meddling kids!
Thank you very much, Winkie!
( I just love saying Winkie!)
That seems a bit much. It’s one thing to expect that a member will not actually cause another’s words to appear on the Straight Dope when that other has been banned, it seems a little s t r e t c h e d out to say that any links to any words referencing anything SDMB related amount to the same thing. Sorta seems like you want that person completely silenced, and that doesn’t seem quite fair.
I wouldn’t even have addressed this at this point, except that it was I who posted the link. Satan invited anyone to repost it here, and I knew that was uncool (I’m quite the little rule-follower, I’ve come to realize.) But a link to his public words seemed fair. We link to everything else in the world.
I don’t believe that the goal or desire of the Dope is to completely silence the banned, or if it is, then a thread like this should have been locked the minute it was opened, because discussing someone and simultaneously demanding that they not be heard in any format actually is fascistic. You can’t be expected to actually host the words of the banned, but hells bells, it’s not too much to ask you to tolerate them.
Glasnost, remember?
Peace.
Er, we are hosting the words of the banned, by allowing the link to them. We could have deleted those. Perhaps we should.
The banned can have all the voice they want off the boards, posters can post what they feel about the banned, but I object to a puppetmaster sort of situation where the banned get posters here to post their stuff. If you are banned, QUIT POSTING. Yes, even if your posts are “just” getting other people to post your words. They’re still your words, not the spontaneous expression of legitimate posters. If you, Stoid, objected to Satan’s banning, that’s fine, post your reasons and all is well. But if you serve as a method for Satan to post his thoughts, it’s Satan posting, not you. And by posting that link, I think you were allowing Satan a voice he forfeited. He asked you to post that link, it was not purely your own thoughts expressed there; it was just a way to his thoughts.
Reprise: this doesn’t match my memory. Can you provide an example? (The only case I can think of that’s close, the member was given a “time out”, not a true “banning”. ) If you don’t want to post the member’s name, could you e-mail me? I’m curious.
Thanks!!
Fenris
Gaudere & Arnold,
Could you explain just what it is that you object to about a limited amount of posting by proxy? It (your objection) seems petty and vengeful to me. The ostensible purpose of banning someone is not a “punishment”, but simply a reaction to the fact that the board does not want to put up with this person’s infractions and behaviour. Allowing this type of posting by proxy in matters concerning themselves seems like a good way of letting the person have a voice in their defence, while not putting up with their abuse of the rules as a general matter.
I don’t quite understand your objection, Izzy. If we ban someone, it means we do not think they should post on the boards anymore. If we have decided that we should not put up with Poxter X’s “infractions and behaviors”, as you put it, why should we then still continue to put up with Poster X’s “infractions and behaviors” by allowing them to continue to post, by having other posters post links to said “infractions and behaviors” at the explicit direction of of said posters, or pass along their thoughts? The should not get other posters to post their posts for them, they should not create short-term socks to do the same. By the ban, we intend to prevent said poster from the aforementioned “infractions and behaviors” , we are not just intending to make it slightly more inconvienient for them to do so.
Against my better judgment, I wade in, even though I have no dog in this fight.
Two things jump out at me from reading this thread, and from reading the linked posts.
-
When a one hit wonder is banned for some violation of the rules, the reasons are pretty self-evident. E.g. posting all sorts of vitriol in GD, or trolling, or whatever. However, when someone with a history of valid contributions gets the axe, it’s more complicated. Having read those specific posts which Arnold linked to, taken individually none of them seemed to me to be so egregious as to warrant banning. However, and here’s the key, the main rule is don’t be a jerk. It’s a nebulous standard, and should remain so. I don’t want the mod’s to be strictly bound to some set of rules when governing behavior. (“well, so and so used three personal insults, and posted 4 copyrighted links. One more insult, or two more copyright violations, and he’s out of here.”)
I want some leeway to consider that the person may have been having a bad day, and that when you type stuff, all sorts of context is lost without body language, etc. That said, was the banning of Satan appropriate? Dunno. Wasn’t there. Should he be readmitted? Were it up to me, probably, but I won’t lose sleep either way. Not my decision. I do wonder about the utility of posting a list of violations on the board, particularly after the fact when that person will not be able to explain the context. -
As to the issue of posting by proxy, I agree that not allowing this to occur is a good thing, for the reasons I listed regarding the list of violations. The banned person can’t really defend him/herself, and can’t be asked to explain their position. However, in this limited case, I thought it was appropriate, seeing as how some sock puppet dragged Satan’s lj into this arena, without permission, and without giving him a chance to explain.
blanx