http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2697558#post2697558
The above post was from 12-10-2002
(I’m offering this post just as a poster, not as a moderator. Anything that helps to cut down on ignorance helps the board. I’m also NOT saying that this is the reason. I would never presume to speak for any administrator or other mod on this board.–samclem
Ok that’s your take on it. I happen to disagree. The pit is ‘the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB’ threads on bannings cut right to the heart of the administration of the SDMB.
Maybe they find the discussion valuable perhaps? Maybe they realize it’s a good way for the board to vent after a long time poster is clipped? Maybe they think that if people read banned threads they will get a better idea of the acceptable behaviors here?
Eh I could live with that but I’d much rather see an open discussion.
And this is the behavior you’re seeing in this thread? Otherwise your complaints come a little early…and I’d be on your side that the discussion has been ended and opening a new thread is just whining.
Thank you samclem that is just the useful type of info these threads bring up. I withdraw my complaints she had after all been previously warned.
Now that’s a different matter. If this is connected to Tuba’s issue as in if she knew about Lynn’s previous warning and was just following up then fair play but it would have cut down on a lot of shite if she had of mentioned that in the post.
Anyway cheers for that samclem
Ditto. I withdraw my (admittedly feeble) objection.
No. I was just pointing out previous behavior related to this type of thread. I’m sure this thread will eventually get locked from shear volume if nothing else.
Perhaps a better way to approach it would be, “I think (Poster) being banned was uncalled for” and start out with the cite and go from there.
Obviously, that should be “sheer”.
Vanilla, you know I think the world of you, and I support your right to hold your views, even the ones with which I may disagree, but you really did mess up in this one.
If you want to rant all day long about something that bothers you, I will gladly be one the teeming dozens will listen to you. But, to open up the pitting to the rl person (not a Doper) wasn’t just against the rules, but also in poor taste.
Please take this council in the spirit in which it is given. I like you. I care what happens to you. I care about your feelings. The Apostle Paul had something to say about this, in a round about way. (You know where the Scriptures are, I don’t want to witness in the Pit if I don’t have to.) He said that we are indeed supposed to “bear the burdens” of our brothers and sisters. The heavy, weighty, unnecessary outside things which can weigh us down, bith mentally and spiritually. But, he reminds us that we are to “carry our own load,” the responsibilty we have taken on ourselves to live a good Christian life. I will gladly shoulder some of your burdens, but I cannot carry your load. Neither can the Dope.
Please think about these things when you are able to do so calmly. And then come back to us. It’s often quite entertaining to read your sometimes pithy, sometimes silly one liners. And besides, you owe me two dollars.
I want my two dollars!
I agree. How do you propose to fix this?
Heh no need to worry I’d never ever call anyone out for a mere typo when my posts are so littered with them.
I’m unfortunately very limited as to what I can say on this message Board. I repeat my assertion that perspective is needed, both with respect to “punishment” and past history. On the first point, taking a break off from a single, solitary internet message board is no big deal. It doesn’t even exclude one from the “community”, as there are numerous other satellite boards, LJ, chat, and other avenues for Dopers to freely interact and stay in touch. And samclem posted what I wanted to earlier but didn’t w.r.t. the second portion.
I think the Mods should get together and come up with a new Pit rule. Perhaps some sort of Doper’s Court or petition when it seems that the banning is marginal. This seems unlikely, but it may alleviate all the negativity that these discussions can bring.
However, after samclem’s reference, this would not likely help Vanilla’s case.
How about we agree to just give the benefit of the doubt to the Admins unless a clear, compelling case is presented to the contrary?
I mean, it’s just a message board. Noone’s rights are getting trampled.
Sure, post your dissent if you like, I am always in favor of Questioning Authority (unless I’m the authority, of course. 
)
But to expect the Mods and Admins to do extra work to justify their decisions and set up a review board of some sort seems a bit much, to me.
What a cluster fuck. Hopefully vanilla and Tuba will be in contact and reach an agreement, away from the conjecture and strangely vehement opining from the peanut gallery.
Indeed. Not likely to happen, IMO, but still a nice idea.
However, after samclem’s reference, this would not likely help Vanilla’s case.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. But references such as that are the reason these threads are beneficial. The mods don’t give us detailed explanations every time they ban somebody…and they shouldn’t have to. Threads like this one allow us to pool our collective knowledge, do a bit of detective work, and eventually come to whatever conclusions we personally believe to be reasonable. If that deliberation takes the form of a few people calling shenanigans, followed by a logical/factual refutation of the sort provided by samclem, then that’s what happens. Not the best format, but it accomplishes the intended purpose. If we can’t discuss it, then we’ll never know, and “never knowing” doesn’t sit well with anybody…that just goes double for Dopers, and double again when the topic is something as important as the reason for removing somebody from our community.
Other valuable bits of knowledge include “How to Code” and “How to Preview”, both of which I do in fact know, but tend to forget when I’m trying to make a point, thus ensuring that I look sufficiently stupid.
:smack:
Well, it was just a thought.
It just seems that some posters take bannings more personally than others.
I’ve been lurking on this message board for years, and long ago I formed the opinion that vanilla is a loon.
Mayhap none of you remember the Snark/vanilla debacle? Hmmm? The whole mess was dragged all over the board until they were both warned to cease and desist. After that, the way it looked to me was that he was trying to avoid her, trying to avoid rising to her baiting. He finally lost it and responded and got banned. At the time I thought she deserved banning more than he did. At the very least, if HE got banned, they should have BOTH got banned.
Note my comment above about baiting. She baited him, just like she has baited people since then and like she baited her elder. Sure, it was the pastor who got lured into it, but she appeared to be behaving perfectly normal (for her) by attempting to lure in the elder.
I agree completely with the decision, hope it is permanent and am puzzled why it didn’t happen years ago. I know my opinion doesn’t matter, but from some of your posts about vanilla, I am amazed-have all of you missed all the drama, sturm and drang that she has created here for years? The flip-flopping? The intentional stirring of the pot?
JMHO, and I do mean humble. I don’t know the lady, and am just going on what I have read on the dope.
Well reading this puts TubaDiva’s remarks in an entirely different light. What at first seemed a bit harsh now seems perfectly reasonable. samclem, can you expound upon the restriction that TubaDiva refers to in her last post? If not, I understand.
[sorta relavent aside]
Hey, ffinn knew by name what I was talking about. That was it! I was beginning to think I’d completely gone off the deep end because no one else seem to know what the hell I was alluding to.
Thank you for delurking to prove my temporary sanity.
I don’t think many people have expressed opposition to Tuba banning Vanilla. That’s her job to decide such things. If you read carefully — actually, if you pretty much just skim — you’ll see that what many of us are saying is that Tuba’s eviscerative diatribe was way, disproportionately over the top. It was the shock and awe of bitchslaps for a very sweet person who, in all likelihood, simply misjudged the situation. What Vanilla did rated a quiet suspension from a caring admin who respects members in good standing.
You do understand, I hope. It’s not what Tuba did, but how she did it. Now, I fully expect the argument to arise along the lines of “Why should we walk on glass around Vanilla?”, but that’s not what anyone is saying. Again, Tuba did pretty much the same thing she thrashed Vanilla for doing, but using her bully pulpit and special thread closing powers to make sure it harmed Vanilla and publicly embarassed her as much as possible. It wasn’t something I expected from a lady as classy as Tuba.
Does this now mean that if any poster rants about an RL person, and someone else forwards the thread to that person, that the poster is going to get banned?
If vanilla had sent the thread to the pastor herself I would understand a suspension but I think this is over the top. This is the first time I’ve ever publicly disagreed with a banning or with any mod action at all but I think vanilla has a long time reputation as being one of the most consistently nice and courteous posters here. really think she deserves better than she got.