Jolly good.
And when you go out of your way to objectify someone I actually give a shit about, I’ll make certain you know it, CJ.
spooje, Siege, trandallt, I’m not going to get in a fight with you. Read the thread. On this subject, duffer doesn’t know shit from shinola and I called him on it. No beef other than that.
It’s not a first, and it’s not a big deal. It happens. The mod sees a thread that needs to be stopped, so he or she locks it right away. Then if the admins decide to ban someone, and they wish to say something about it, they open it, post a message, and re-lock it. As I’m sure you know, custom here dictates that only administrators ban people. And common sense would hold that a problematic thread should be locked as soon as possible, but a banning/suspension, especially of a long-time member would take some consideration, so would take place a little later.
For what it’s worth, I do agree with TubaDiva’s action. If vanilla felt that what she wrote here was what she wanted the elder to see, then she could have pasted it into an email. I don’t know why she sent him a link.
I’m surprised that you all don’t remember the occasions in the past when some person has vented here about some personal problem, and then told the object of the vent about it, causing all of the ventee’s cronies to register and post and pollute the board with sniping and insults, even in unrelated threads. Granted, it has usually been newbie teenagers who have done this, but it has been made very clear in the past that you may NOT use the board as a way of airing your grievances to your real-life associates.
And that is exactly what vanilla did–by sending the link used the board as a tool to explain her grievance to the elder. This is not acceptable.
That said, I do hope that vanilla’s suspension is only temporary. She clearly was very upset and not thinking straight. I greatly value her contributions to the board, and would be very sorry to see her gone.
Pastorjc: If you’re reading this–I’m sorry that this was your introduction to our wonderful community. I hope you look at some of the other areas of the board. (Great Debates is where you’ll generally find religious matters, but you may enjoy some of the oddball questions found in General Questions and the advice-seeking aspect of IMHO.) While you won’t find many like minded people here, your posts to the other thread indicate that you’ll probably fit in well.
What subject, for cryin’ out loud? The subject of whether he thinks the banning was justified? I submit that he is the world’s foremost expert on whether he thinks the banning was justified. You called him on exactly squat.
And I have read the thread. Humor me. Pretend I am as illiterate and stupid as you claim duffer to be. Please show me how what he said was offensive to you, while what jayjay said was not, especially in light of the fact that he softened his position considerably after SolGrundy responded to him.
After reading the thread in question. My impression is that the moderators misunderstood the intention behind Vanilla’s actions as they follow eachother up in the thread.
In my view Vanilla was emotional and acted therefore too hastily.
Instead of sending a link to the thread to that elder, she could simply have sent a copy of her OP to explain the situation.
There was no need at all to say that this was published on the SDMB, if she wanted to get that elder or other members of her church involved, because a discussion about such matters can only be done in private.
In that I can follow the reasoning of the moderators.
But like others here I fail to see why they decided to do what they did, instead of closing the thread with a warning explaining to the member why she was in their view in violation with the SDMB rules.
It seems to be a mixture of misunderstanding of Vanilla’s intentions and of her bordering a violation of the rules even when understanding her intentions.
Side note: I also hope the pastor overlooks the overheated “welcome” he received and joins the SDMB. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss religion (and our views on it) with a Christian clergyman.
Salaam. A
Vanilla is someone I’ve known about and cared about since joining this board and I’ve been in touch with her by e-mail during the past few days. duffer, on the other hand, isn’t one of my favorite posters, but I honestly haven’t seen anything particularly out of line in this thread.
Clearly our opinions differ.
CJ
She didn’t send it to the woman who gave her rides, but to an elder at her church.
Count me as one who doesn’t think she did it deliberately, but just made a bad judgment. A month’s suspension and possible banning is a little over the top-2 weeks, maybe, should have sufficed. In Tuba’s defense, perhaps she’s overwhelmed from the holidays and this came at a bad time.
vanilla isn’t a bad person, just sometimes she doesn’t think before she acts. We’ve all been there. I know I have. (Oh, boy, have I!) I think jayjay nailed it when he said this is pretty much typical for her. She’s a sweet person, but a bit naive, that’s all. Hopefully, she’ll learn from this and we can move on.
Same could be said for me on just about any subject. Those that do say it usually do so with much less vitriol. And occasionally, I benefit from it.
Duffer’s comments in* this* thread seem pretty innocuous. That’s all I’m saying, really.
I have no desire to humor anyone. That’s the funny thing about disagreements: you can butt the fuck out when they don’t involve you.
Right now, it’s Thanksgiving and a friend is sorely absent from my community because she mistakenly asked us for advice. Dissecting her like a roast beast isn’t going to help her feelings at all.
Obviously, I don’t much know vanilla, since I haven’t been around very long, and don’t want to rush to judgment, but I’m assuming the reason for the (apparent) hastiness of the decision might have something to do with similar circumstances involving said poster before. I wasn’t here at the time, but I’ve read all over the place, both on the board and others, about her previous ongoing feud with an ex- (boyfriend, fiance, something – I’m not sure if I’m remembering all the details correctly) that was issued a reprimand (or several) over for hashing out personal affairs between members like this. However, I have no idea if the other person had already joined before all the incidents occurred (which I think was the case), but either way, perhaps this figured into part of the reasoning.
Just a thought, and of course, like usual, I could certainly be wrong. Again. 
Regardless, I hope this can be worked out and I wish vanilla well, no matter what the overall result ends up being.
I’ve been on here at least two years, and I was completely unaware that this had happened in the past, I’ve never seen where it was made very clear in the past, and I don’t see it in any of the listings of board rules. If this were a clearly established rule of the boards then it’s in a grayer area. The person with whom vanilla had a problem didn’t come onto the board; a third party who saw the message did. And if the rule is that we’re not allowed to send links to SDMB threads to people in real life, that’s not only boneheaded but very unsettling.
But I’d strongly suggest they make this explicit in the board rules before they go banning people for breaking the rule. (I can only assume that the warning in this case happened off-line). We can’t all be expected to “remember the occasions in the past” when some of us never even saw them.
Oh, there’s a reason, all right. This place is even less friendly to religion than it is to conservatism. The pastor was set up, plain and simple. From the moment he got here he was attacked, and that’s about what one would expect from the SDMB on the subject of religion.
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Non sequitor much? I would gladly butt the fuck out if you would answer this question, which I am now asking for the third time with no response from you. Why are you not taking issue with anyone in this thread except for duffer?
Where has this happened exactly? And let me say that I’m truly sorry for what has happened to your friend, and if your anger over what happened to her is causing you to lash out, well, so be it. It is not at all clear to me that being a jerk to duffer serves the purpose of helping her feelings either.
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.
Sol, I completely understand that. Especially from the point of view of how it effects other members. However, what I was aiming for (and probably undoubtedly missed) was that perhaps the mods reasoning had more to do with repeated (if applicable) past history than the current situation. Since I wasn’t here then, as stated, I don’t have any clue if that was handled mostly via email between the administrators and vanilla or if what’s been written (again IIRC) was the bulk. Nor can I speculate if the decisions regarding it were correct. Just that it might have been a factor. Also remember, that at the time being, we’re discussing a temporary hiatus and not yet a ban, fairly or no. Just sayin’.
And now that I’ve mucked up what I was attempting to say, I’ll back away from the keyboard and attempt to finally cook something for the holiday in the guise of homemade cranberry sauce. I credit another thread if I give everyone food poisoning. 
Happy Thanksgiving everyone and a quick resolution.
He did bring a certain amount of it on himself: he came to the Board to tell us that Vanilla was wrong to come to the Board to tell us what someone else did wrong. You don’t have to be Socrates to work out the logical disconnect there.
But the “jerk” label was uncalled for, I agree.
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.
While I agree that it COULD have been a mistake on vanilla’s part, it is clearly against the rules to bring personal matters into discussion by involved parties on the boards.
I also agree with Tuba’s actions. I don’t think that vanilla should get a pass because she sent an e-mail to someone who forwarded it to the pastor – that strikes me as being just a passive-aggressive way of getting the message to the pastor. You have to know that if you say to a congregation member “Hey, I’m publicly dissin’ the pastor!” they’re going to let him know. I don’t think it was necessarily planned out that way maliciously, but when people are upset they tend to do ill-thought out things. As someone pointed out somewhere on page one of this thread, she could have easily just cut and pasted her OP into an e-mail without linking to the SDMB.
Essentially, vanilla started the equivalent of a Board War, only instead of say another on-line forum, she almost dragged in a church congregation. Starting a board war can earn you a suspension or a banning. So, it’s not inappropriate really if you think of it that way.
And also, if anonymity gets compromised and someone words a post poorly, you don’t want the SDMB to be in an iffy spot with respect to libel.
I also agree with hawthorne, for the most part vanilla has been a great contributor. We all have our ups and downs, but for the most part V is a decent individual.
So hopefully she’ll be back. She will think twice and remember to count to ten before she hit the “send” button. She should get a second chance, and that does seem to be what Tuba is offering.
Come back soon V!
Reading another thread and seeing BANNED under Vanilla’s name caused my eyebrows to shoot to the middle of my forehead, a position from which they may never return.
She was out of line in baiting her elder - of course the elder is going to go to the pastor - but despite the valid concerns of bringing real life here, pastorjc seemed reasonable enough. He positively, definitely, absolutely did not deserve to be treated as he was, and I suspect that is the aspect that caused the harsh treatment of vanilla.
I sincerely hope that this harsh treatment turns out to be only a suspension. I see no malice here on her part, only (as someone else aptly described it) an attempt by vanilla to deal with the situation in her very own special slightly ditzy way. I hope to see her here again in a month.
I also support TubaDiva’s action. Like Green Bean and some of the other oldtimers, I remember past occasions when people posted links to this board onto other boards causing fighting and fussing and mess and disorder. This situation isn’t exactly like that (the link wasn’t posted to another mesage board, obviously), but the potential for a similar mess is there. I agree with most of you that Vanilla wasn’t being malicious, which is why an outright banning would have been Too Much, but she was extremely foolish and I believe that a suspension is completely in order.
I didn’t get the chance to contribute to the original thread, but if I had, I would have said that I thought Vanilla’s ire was inappropriate, BTW. And I think it’s possible that some of the responses which seemed to be motivated by some Doper’s natural antipathy for Fundamentalists fueled her anger. Agree with their religious views or not (and I most empatically do not), these people were doing Vanilla a favor – and a long-term favor at that. When people are going out of their way to help you out, you have to accept the favor on their terms or not at all. Apparently their view is that, if you miss regular church, then you also have to forego any ‘fun’ activities that week. We don’t have to agree with this viewpoint, but as the recipient of their largess, Vanilla should have either graciously complied with it, or told them that, in future, she would find another way to church. They do not owe her a ride. Sending them a link to her thread (“Look! I think you are meanies and all these strangers agree with me!”) was inappropriate. 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.
I will assume that Vanilla is reading this: Sweetie, I hope you use your month off to really think about your approach to conflict (and your, IMO) sense-of-entitlement. Go directly to the people in question and thank them nicely for their efforts on your behalf in the past and either agree to abide by their terms in the future, or to make other plans. If you feel you’ve poisoned the well at this particular church (and you may have done just that, frankly), look for another church – maybe one walking distance from your home so you won’t need to rely on other peole to get you to and from. Then, at the end of your suspension, come back here and ask TubaDiva nicely if you may be reinstated. We’ll be here waiting for you.
Ok, I lurk far more than I post but jumping in here …
Did vanilla actually say in that thread that she’d e-mailed the link ? I’m not saying she didn’t, but I can’t find it and people are implying in this thread that she’s explicitly stated it.
On the bigger point, I’ve seen countless times when the response to a MPSIMS, and sometimes a pit, thread has been “Send 'em this link so they can see/understand how you feel”. Perhaps that’s never a good idea and we should stop saying it but it does appear that the fact the pastorjc responded, and was treated poorly, have had a large impact on the severity of the punishment. If vanilla had simply stated she’d e-mailed the thread but there had been no response would she have BANNED under her name now ?
It seems vanilla got booted purely because someone chose to come and respond. At worst it appears to be a lapse of judgement on her part and hopefully she will be back in time.
SD