# Vanilla?!? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 25, 2004, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611 "2004-11-25T07:35:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/81 "2004-11-25T14:07:17Z")
> [@Ilsa\_Lund](#): > > Actually, it’s a good thing. We can really raise the tone of this board, if only we can get rid of rabble-rousers and trolls like **vanilla**. Seconded. One less viciously intolerant moron spewing their literalist big-man-in-the-sky whose going to wup on your ass crap everywhere. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/82 "2004-11-25T14:09:31Z")
The banning is harsh IMO. that said, why did Vanilla send the link of her rant to anyone involved? Thats an argument waiting to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/83 "2004-11-25T14:13:15Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > Some of you act like a one-month suspension, or even a banning from an internet message Board, is like TubaDiva took out a hit on her. Some perspective is dearly needed. > > IMO TubaDiva was 100% in the right. The suspension was well-deserved, and a permanent banning could be justified. In addition, I’m confident that if vanilla shows real, convincing remorse and demonstrates real, convincing effort to straighten up that the Staff will allow her back. Well a hit was taken out on her in message board terms. As for real convincing remorse what about? It’s not like this was an established pattern of behavior for she needs to atone for. It was a lapse in judgment. A mod coming in and saying “never ever do this again” was all that was required. No need for her to beg and plead with the mods for forgiveness. The main outrage many seem to be feeling here is she made a mistake and a harsh punishment was meted out. If she had been a poster with tons of warnings on her no doubt this thread would be very very different (I certainly would be on the other side) but when a poster that seems to be warning free is smacked down for a lapse of judgment it’s upsetting as if in real life a pot smoker with a clean record got 50 years to life depending on how the judgment goes. Sure they broke the law sure they should be punished but the punishment should fit the crime. Clearly a week suspension or a warning was all that was needed here. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/84 "2004-11-25T14:23:24Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > The banning is harsh IMO. > > that said, why did Vanilla send the link of her rant to anyone involved? Thats an argument waiting to happen. I think at heart, **vanilla** is a little insecure-she always strikes me as someone who needs the approval of others. Perhaps this was her way of trying to tell her pastor, “Look, people agree with me!” I’ve noticed that for as much as she grumbles about “people watering down the Gospel to be popular”, she certainly seems like someone who desparately wants to be popular herself. It’s almost as if she’s projecting. It definitely wasn’t malicious-I don’t think she thought of it that way. That’s what I disagree with about the suspension. I don’t believe she intended to ambush her pastor, she simply wanted to show she had people on her side. A suspension was warranted, but not the accusation of her deliberately trying to start a fight. **vanilla** , I’m sure you’re reading this, so take your time off from the boards to meditate, pray, and reflect on this. **pastorjc** , please don’t judge the entire board on this thread. You have to understand, you came in, a total stranger, and were perceived as attacking one of our own. So naturally, some folks got pissed. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/85 "2004-11-25T14:26:22Z")
For possibly the first time in my life, I agree entirely with **Aldebaran**. **vanilla** was wrong, but permanent banning is way over the top. Way over. I look forward to welcoming **vanilla** back at Christmas. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/86 "2004-11-25T14:28:12Z")
Oh, I do have a question though. If this _were_ a case of past issues combining with the present (or in other situations), should the mods add that to their public explanation of ‘why’? I don’t know if that’d cut down on Pit threads devoted to the matter, but it might go a ways to quell at least some unfounded speculation. Perhaps. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/87 "2004-11-25T14:30:24Z")
Reading through some of these posts makes me almost happy that I’m spending Thanksgiving with (among others) my brother-in-law. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/88 "2004-11-25T14:31:12Z")
This kills me. It really does. Nearly every single time a long-time poster is banned, a thread like this opens up with the majority of posters trashing the Mod(s) who did the banning. I was always under the impression that questions about a banned member should be emailed to said Mod(s) and not to become the subject of a long, drawn out thread in which the majority of posts are of the “me too” variety. Vanilla fucked up and is paying the price. I am more appalled by the reaction of posters in that thread who trashed the pastor. Get over it, folks. Your bitching and moaning will do nothing to get Vanilla un-banned. If she gets a permanent banning and it still upsets you, you know where the door is. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/89 "2004-11-25T14:43:20Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > This kills me. It really does. Nearly every single time a long-time poster is banned, a thread like this opens up with the majority of posters trashing the Mod(s) who did the banning. I was always under the impression that questions about a banned member should be emailed to said Mod(s) and not to become the subject of a long, drawn out thread in which the majority of posts are of the “me too” variety. > > Vanilla fucked up and is paying the price. I am more appalled by the reaction of posters in that thread who trashed the pastor. > > Get over it, folks. Your bitching and moaning will do nothing to get Vanilla un-banned. If she gets a permanent banning and it still upsets you, you know where the door is. What kills me is every time a poster is banned and someone opens a thread someone comes in and makes a dumbass statement like that. 1. It’s natural to ask ‘why?’ after a poster was banned. 2. it’s hardly the mods that always get trashed. Wasn’t someone named ‘blackacre’ or something thoroughly torn apart just awhile ago? 3. If mods really had a problem with discussion of bannings they’d lock more threads earlier. 4. Mods aren’t perfect it’s possible they can read these threads and rethink what went on. 5. Even if they don’t this is a board designed around discussion and debate the posters are going to hash it out anyway so deal with it. 6. Take your own advice if banned threads bother you there’s the door out of this thread whether you like it or not after banned threads are part of the culture around here. It’s good to be on a board where everything (even mod actions) are up for discussion. 7. Banned threads occasionally lead to clarification of the rules. Not often I admit but I remember the suspensions around ‘no joke threads in the pit’ lead directly to an addition to the rules and more evenhanded application of that rule (that’s the only other time I questioned the mods decisions) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/90 "2004-11-25T14:49:41Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > Some of you act like a one-month suspension, or even a banning from an internet message Board, is like TubaDiva took out a hit on her. Some perspective is dearly needed. > . I don’t think we’re comparing \*\* Tuba Diva \*\* with a criminal, nor are stating that being banned from a message board is the worst thig ever. We are arguing within the frame of this message board, its rules, its “customs”, its history. We’re comparing what happened to \*\* Vanilla \*\* to what happened to other posters in the past. Her behavior to the behavior of other posters. \*\* Tuba Diva \*\* 's ruling to other ruling made in the past. We’re discussing whether the disruption (or lack thereof) caused by \*\* Vanilla \*\* deserved a ban. This banning isn’t an awful injustice she will never recover from. But what she did isn’t a capital crime, either. Let’s talk about apples without comparing them to oranges. When there’s a debate about a student excluded from some school because he was wearing some t-shirt, it’s not like he had been sentenced to death, either. We all realize that. But the argument still can become heated. So, within the frame and limitations of this small, virtual, unimportant community, I express my disagreement with the admin’s decision, in the same way I would if someone was, say, excluded from my archery club , despite it not being the end of the world. If it’s pointless to argue about the admin decision because being banned isn’t a big deal, then it’s also pointless to take great pain to create rules, to explain them, to follow them, to write stickies, etc… It’s only a message board. Just let the admins ban whoever they feel like for any reason whatsoever and without explanation. But in this case, it won’t be anymore the kind of board we’re accustomed to. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/91 "2004-11-25T14:52:56Z")
Very well said, **clairobscur**. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/92 "2004-11-25T14:58:12Z")
> [@Darkhold](#): > > What kills me is every time a poster is banned and someone opens a thread someone comes in and makes a dumbass statement like that. How mature of you. > [@](#): > > 1. It’s natural to ask ‘why?’ after a poster was banned. True enough. Usually the reason is given in the “why” thread or the original thread. > [@](#): > > 1. it’s hardly the mods that always get trashed. Wasn’t someone named ‘blackacre’ or something thoroughly torn apart just awhile ago? I don’t think Blackacre was a long time poster. When Handy was banned after repeated warnings, both public and private, some posters still got upset. > [@](#): > > 1. If mods really had a problem with discussion of bannings they’d lock more threads earlier. I think they should. It pointless to debate it. Perhaps some sort of sticky would be better, but they don’t owe an explanation to anyone except the banned poster. > [@](#): > > 1. Mods aren’t perfect it’s possible they can read these threads and rethink what went on. True. They aren’t. That’s what email is for, though. > [@](#): > > 1. Even if they don’t this is a board designed around discussion and debate the posters are going to hash it out anyway so deal with it. Beating a dead horse rarely gets him up and running again. > [@](#): > > 1. Take your own advice if banned threads bother you there’s the door out of this thread whether you like it or not after banned threads are part of the culture around here. It’s good to be on a board where everything (even mod actions) are up for discussion. I could do that, but I so rarely even get involved in such discussions. > [@](#): > > 1. Banned threads occasionally lead to clarification of the rules. Not often I admit but I remember the suspensions around ‘no joke threads in the pit’ lead directly to an addition to the rules and more evenhanded application of that rule (that’s the only other time I questioned the mods decisions) If the Mods did not appear to be following their own rules, perhaps a thread should be started about that instead. Or there’s always email. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/93 "2004-11-25T15:00:58Z")
> [@Jess](#): > > . Even worse if, as it appears, she skipped the people she was actually having the conflict with and sent the link to an elder up the church chain of command. > . Not really. The elder and the person who lectured her are husband and wife. ( And apparently, according to what she wrote, in her church, it’s up to the husband to settle issues. :rolleyes: ) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/94 "2004-11-25T15:02:15Z")
I will no longer mention to anyone in the meat world that I paticipate on this wonderful message board. I do not want to take responsibility for the actions of anyone who I may have invited here. I hope you come back **vanilla** ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/95 "2004-11-25T15:09:34Z")
> [@LaurAnge](#): > > The mods have frowned up and taken some sort of action in every argument I have ever seen which involved real-life friends/relatives/collegues in a thread. > . You might have a point here. However, the comments and attacks \*\* Tuba Diva \*\* made about the supposed evil intents of \*\* Vanilla \*\* were IMO uncalled for, and propably account for a large part for the reaction to her post announcing the ban. I know we all (or at least most of us) make mean comments about other posters, but somehow, I tend to hold admins to higher standarts when speak…let’s say “ex cathedra”. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/96 "2004-11-25T15:19:00Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > How mature of you. I admit not very mature but I was responding in kind to this part of your post > [@](#): > > Get over it, folks. Your bitching and moaning will do nothing to get Vanilla un-banned. If she gets a permanent banning and it still upsets you, you know where the door is. You want a level of discourse you shouldn’t tell people to give over it and say they’re just bitching and moaning when in many cases it’s just a discussion. And the ‘if you don’t like it go elsewhere’ is tiresome in the extreme. We obviously like 99% of the board or we wouldn’t have paid money to be here. It doesn’t mean we can’t have concerns about the other 1%. If people were screaming “the sky is falling, the mods are out of control, we’re all going to be banned” type posts you’d have a point. But most posts here are “The mods were a little harsh there were better remedies here” so you’re just in here to slap people in the knuckles with your ruler which is childish in my opinion which is why I referred to your post as ‘dumbass’. > [@](#): > > True enough. Usually the reason is given in the “why” thread or the original thread. and some people aren’t going to search the user’s history over the last few days and read through every thread to find out why. Sure often it’s the most recent few posts but sometimes it’s really obscure. > [@](#): > > I don’t think Blackacre was a long time poster. When Handy was banned after repeated warnings, both public and private, some posters still got upset. Well I do agree that nearly every poster is going to have his few fans but correct me if I’m wrong but the handy thread was 50 “thank god he’s gone” to 1 “aww something different could have been done” ratio. > [@](#): > > I think they should. It pointless to debate it. Perhaps some sort of sticky would be better, but they don’t owe an explanation to anyone except the banned poster. and what’s the point of debating the election in 15 different threads? What’s the point of debating if the android in Alien knew about the alien before hand or not? What’s the point of clicking on any of these threads? Because some people enjoy it. I wouldn’t mind an open sticky that was closed after a couple of pages of discussion but I wholly disagree on that they don’t owe anyone an explanation. Sure when this was a free board such an argument could be made (though I’d still disagree) but we paid for our subscriptions we should be able to see the rules enacted and explanations of why it works that way. Sometimes I’m surprised when a rule is enforced a different way then I envisioned but often I understand after I read a thread like this one what went on. > [@](#): > > True. They aren’t. That’s what email is for, though. Though I doubt the mods would admit it but I’d rather assume that they prefer one thread over 90 emails. > [@](#): > > Beating a dead horse rarely gets him up and running again. Indeed that’s why if this thread goes on for 10+ pages or someone resurrects it in 29 days I’ll be all for locking it. But it’s not a dead horse it’s something that just happened and it seems like the rule was applied a little more harshly then in the past. The discussion about the rule and the punishment is a very live horse at the moment. > [@](#): > > I could do that, but I so rarely even get involved in such discussions. > > If the Mods did not appear to be following their own rules, perhaps a thread should be started about that instead. Or there’s always email. In a way that’s what this thread is. If you don’t think so then it’s up to you to start the ‘correct’ topic or steer this thread in the correct direction not to bitch at everyone that’s currently in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/97 "2004-11-25T15:21:45Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > ( And apparently, according to what she wrote, in her church, it’s up to the husband to settle issues. :rolleyes: ) something that no one would be able to predict would raise hackles here of course. she’ll either learn from this or not. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/98 "2004-11-25T15:26:03Z")
> [@Darkhold](#): > > and some people aren’t going to search the user’s history over the last few days and read through every thread to find out why. Usually someone will ask for a cite and within a few posts, someone will post a link to the original thread or a Mod will post a reason (although this is hardly the case). If someone is going to post a comment about a banning, they should take a few minutes to find out exactly why. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/99 "2004-11-25T15:51:45Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Usually someone will ask for a cite and within a few posts, someone will post a link to the original thread or a Mod will post a reason (although this is hardly the case). And then what? The thread should be instantly closed? Otherwise the banning is going to lead to a discussion. > [@](#): > > If someone is going to post a comment about a banning, they should take a few minutes to find out exactly why. Most of the posts are from people that read the thread in question. The OP that asks ‘why?’ is often someone that really wants to talk about it. After all most of the posts in any forum can be answered in a google search or two but they come here to debate things. So then someone that posts “Why was such and such banned” is saying “I’d like to know what post was the straw the broke the camel’s back then I’d like to see a discussion about it” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611/100 "2004-11-25T15:57:43Z")
> [@Darkhold](#): > > And then what? The thread should be instantly closed? Otherwise the banning is going to lead to a discussion. Pretty much, yes. > [@](#): > > Most of the posts are from people that read the thread in question. The OP that asks ‘why?’ is often someone that really wants to talk about it. After all most of the posts in any forum can be answered in a google search or two but they come here to debate things. So then someone that posts “Why was such and such banned” is saying “I’d like to know what post was the straw the broke the camel’s back then I’d like to see a discussion about it” Again, if the Mods want to discourage discussion on banned members (they haven’t and it makes me wonder), they could post to the thread, “This is why I banned (poster). That is all.” and lock the thread. They have done this in the past only to have another poster start a new thread because they aren’t happy with the answer. This is just ridiculous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vanilla/276611.md?page=6)