i was looking at the snippets as a whole. to me, the situation looks more like "a poster was warned two years ago. actions have consequences. he/she can’t post on the site for at least a month, most likely more, unless there is much pleading and convincing. Deal with it. "
i’m not concerned with the decision either way (FWIW it appears reasonable to me). just want to point out that the interest in bannings are natural, and some sort of transparency would be nice. like how **samclem’s ** post was reassuring. (not so much for the decision, as to the manner it was given. )
also, i hope i have been whooshed about the groveling, maybe it’s akin to coffeed keyboards or something.
Thank you! This is the question I’ve been waiting for someone to ask. vanilla was banned presumably because she was warned before about mixing Real Life and Board Life unnecessarily, but were it not for the unanticipated, uncontrollable actions of not one but two other parties, no one would ever have known that vanilla sent a link to anyone.
I frequently drop links into IMs when I’m reading the Dope and chatting with friends simultaneously. Should one of them send that link on to someone else and that person comes in and starts trouble and says that the proximal cause of their appearance was my link drop, am I going to get banned?
I think this is a legitimate question. This is a point of policy that needs to be clarified, because the only way to boil this down is to say that if it is learned that someone has sent a link to a non-member, that’s bannable. Because whatever happens thereafter is well outside of the SDMB-member’s control, all they have power to stop is the sending of the link to start with.
On the topic of vanilla, specifically, what she did was certainly ill-advised, if only because there were better ways for her to deal with the issue with the elder and his offensive wife.
But – and this is the crux of the matter for me – even if vanilla’s actions warranted a month’s suspension, which I do not concede in the least, it absolutely did not warrant the gratuitous and disgraceful personal insults. I don’t care about her history here, I don’t care about her previous (2+ year old) old warning. What [bTuba** said was beyond the pale, and she owes vanilla an apology for coloring what may have been a legitimate administrative action with such cheap and inexcusable personal invective.
Jesus wept? How dare you even think to go there, Tuba? How dare you?
Thanks, samclem. That is exactly what was needed to clear this up, IMO.
Not scolding someone and calling them “unchristian” and “disgraceful” on a public forum, which seems to everyone just coming into the conversation like it came completely out of nowhere. Not insulting the poster by calling her stupid and immature and demanding her sincere, genuine remorse and begging for forgiveness, which just seems like a lot of axe-grinding. And not telling everybody to basically “get over it,” and to take it offline, when we’re seeing someone losing a real-life community and an online community all over one thread, and wondering what exactly the rules are for this board.
That’s it for me, anyway. Except to say I hope vanilla comes back and hasn’t been made to feel completely unwelcome; this thread wouldn’t have even been started had that been the case.
I’d also like to chime in that I hope vanilla comes back after her month. While I agree with Tuba that this needed some kind of disciplinary action, further thought has made me think that the scolding was a bit melodramatic and assumed motivations not evident, especially knowing vanilla (well, as well as we can know her from a message board, even one like this).
I think I have to go with Qadgop on this one. That thread was ugly. I do believe vanilla certainly didn’t intend for her pastor to get online and cause that trainwreck, but the line between real life and the SDMB was not only explicitly pointed out by mods in the past but also one of common sense. She was responsible for what happened because of her judgement. A month away from the SDMB isn’t a harsh punishment.
I do think that a month suspension will give the whole situation a chance to cool down. I can’t say I often agree with vanilla but I do join those of you who hope she will be allowed to return. It was a lapse of judgement, not an act of malice.
I normally have very little problem with the acts of admins and mods, but I think it was over the top to criticize vanilla’s faith that way. I will take that just as TubaDiva’s opinion about the matter, though, and not a huge offense.
Vanilla may not have intended for the Pastor to be ambushed, but what did she think the Elder would do with that email? It’s fair to say that either the Elder would silently watch the thread while his character and that of his wife were torn to shreds and be distressed, or that he would respond - in which case he would be ambushed. Vanilla may not have predicted that Pastor Jeff would sign up and respond to her thread, but she must have known that it wouldn’t be left at that. How could anyone believe that Vanilla didn’t intend for that email to be an ambush, but of the Elder rather than the Pastor?
I think TubaDiva reacted perfectly to this. The banning was justified and the scathing post informing Vanilla of why will give her food for thought. If her membership is ever reinstated and if she chooses to come back, perhaps she’ll remember TubaDiva’s words before dragging the boards into her RL dramas and refrain.
Had she not sent the link, those two other parties would have remained blissfully unaware of the thread. It may well have been unanticipated, but it really shouldn’t have been.
DtC, how would the ‘someone else’ be able to identify the RL person if that someone else were not a) a doper themselves and/or b) very familiar with the OP?
Seconded. I’ve a divided opinion over this (I think simply closing the thread would have been best, but it’s not my call, and overall the admin and mods here do a very good job…), but I thought TubaDiva could have been just a hair more polite. I mean–publicly chewing a poster out and then suspending her so that she can’t publicly respond? :rolleyes: Lame. Lame, lame, lame.
She can give it to you when she comes back at Christmas…Hey, that’s kind of a nice try-it-again day, don’t you think?
A month is okay. No more than that.
Well, if someone happens to stumble upon this board, and reads my posts, and recognizes me (unlikely, but possible), then they could make trouble for me. The odds against that happening (someone finding me out and wanting to make things ugly for me) are extremely slim, but it’s possible. I certainly hope I would not be banned in such an instance, and that the Powers That Be would give me the benefit of the doubt.
However, I have never forwarded any thread on this board to anyone I know in Real Life. I just won’t do it. I wouldn’t do it even if I pointed to a thread in which I’d never posted, and even if I never mentioned that I participated on the board. I don’t want to even risk the blurring of those two lines (DoperWorld and Real World).
Of course, if I invited someone to the board (which I doubt I’ll ever do), in a general way, and later they completely flip out (due to nothing I did), I would certainly not expect to be banned or even censured simply because I was the one that pointed them to the board. This board is open to anyone, and someone else’s actions are not my responsibility (unless I knew that they were a notorious troll, or something, and hoped they’d stir up trouble).
Of course not – but that’s a long way from creating a Pit thread for someone and then calling their attention to it That’s pretty ugly behaviour, and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where any good could come of such a thing.
Frankly, I think that the wisest thing to do is to never, never never direct anyone you know to this board, with the possible exception of some dear, trusted family members and friends (but if you don’t want to direct even them here, that’s fine too, and probably better in the long run).
Why did you find my words “disquieting”? Was it the “real, convincing” aspect of it? Certain posters are known for saying things without thinking or to just fuck with the Staff, and certain other posters show no real effort to even try to behave under the rules. Thus if someone is going to petition to come back and post under the Rules and decorum of any board, it seems logical that they should be convincing and truthful in their application. This could not be more clear.
I can’t see how anyone can find fault with that premise. What’s the alternative? “Even though you don’t convince me you’re sorry you fucked up, and even though I don’t believe you’ll try hard not to fuck up again, hey, welcome back?” That hardly seems positive.
Okay, I understand the reasons Vanilla was banned, but I personally would like greater clarification of this “no meat-world in our cyberclub” rule.
Not that I object to it, if the admins see fit to run the boards like that, more power to 'em.
I just don’t understand the limits.
I have a livejournal which has my SN on the dope as the user name. I have a link to the boards in my profile on LJ because I’m proud of this community and would like to direct other people here. Heck, even without that link I’m a member of the SDMB community on LJ. Added to that I’ve used the name FinnAgain for some time now, and my writing style is fairly distinct: chances are anybody who knows that name can recognize my posts. Some I’ve met in real life and know me by first and last name. Should I remove the link? Unsubscribe to the SDMB community?
Now… further…
If someone from the meat-world decided to step into the Matrix, er, I mean, the Dope, would that be my fault? I’m asking this in all seriousness. Is the standard of ‘banworthy’ to be applied only when a doper instigates contact with an outside board or the real world?
If, to use a somewhat hyperbolic example, I was to pit George W. Bush, and he learned to read that week and logged on, would I be at risk of being banned?
What if I were to pit “the people who work at McDonalds” and some guest that month happened to work as a cashier?
What if I were to talk smack about an ex girlfriend and she was to find the Dope through my LJ? How about if someone I know IRL found my AIM sn and thus my LJ address and then the Dope and decided to troll me? Same for someone who posted on antoher message board I was on…
I’m not asking these things to be a dick, I’m asking because I’d like to follow the rules as well as avoiding getting banned. Any clarification would be much appreciated. In addition, if the admins/mods would like me to remove any links and/or identifying information I would be happy to. I’d just like more info.
I don’t think anyone here is saying that at all. I’m not a mod, but from my perspective, no, that’s not at all what they’re saying.
They’re saying that it is specifically bad to start a thread griping about someone, and then invite the gripee (the person you’re griping about) to participate in the thread, or to let them know that you’re written about them on the thread. It’s also bad form to take a personal, real-life dispute you’re having with another member of the board and drag it here. I really hate it when that happens.
Who knows. I am not a mod, but speaking for myself again, I don’t think that it’s the same thing as purposely inviting her to see the specific thread. However, if you had a link to SDMB on one of the pages that she visits, and she knows who you are on this board, then you are Asking For Trouble to start any sort of personal griping/personal information thread on this board. Because at any time someone you know from the Real World can visit this board, read your Personal Information threads, and make trouble for you. And the possibility of that happening is not all that slim, since you’ve linked to this board from your other personal sites.
This is just my personal take on it, as a non-mod, so take it for what it’s worth.
As in all things here, I would hope some application of common sense would apply.
Of course we are not against you sharing the SDMB with your friends and family; we’re not opposed to you opening the community to other people. Heck, shutting out other people is the LAST thing we want to do; we think we have a great thing here and we want the world to get in on it. (Within reason; we do want people that will play well with others.)
What we’re opposed to – as in the case under discussion here – is when a member or a guest puts a situation in play where someone not a member or a guest prior to this time feels duty-bound to come over here to clear their name, give the other side of the story, take up arms against/for a cause, whatever. There’s a big difference between an open invitation and a manipulation.
That is most important when that unwitting person comes over here and gets hammered by our community just for showing up. That’s really bad behavior on our part and we all look like jerks as a result.
Most of all, to repeat what we’ve said before, please do not bring your outside fights to this board. We have enough right here, we don’t need to import anything, and a round or two of “Let’s you and him fight” serves no useful purpose.
If you have a problem with someone outside this board, please keep it there. You can talk about it all you want, vent about it, ask for advice, that’s fine. (Within board rules, of course.) Just don’t bring in the object of your disaffection to continue the fight or hash things out here. We are not here to mediate outside disputes, we are not counselors or therapists, this is not the Jerry Springer Show.
As always, anyone who is on this board, whether as a member or visitor, should remember that what they put in pixels stays here and can be found and for a long time thereafter. Consider what uses others will put to the information they find here before you give them the key to the cool kids’ clubhouse. But we always have room and time for more cool kids.
Whether Vanilla should have been banned/suspended or not is beyond me - I don’t believe I have had any interaction with her and certainly know nothing about her posting history- although I do think she made a mistake in sending this thread to those that she had a problem with, even if it was not directly.
However, I do believe that on a messageboard such as this, the mods/admins do need to be held up to some standards, if not so much on their actions, which can be judged within their group, then certainly on what they post in official capacity. What TubaDiva said towards the end of her post in that thread went beyond the official and into the personal. Not only that, but it was in public for all of Vanilla’s peers to see but where she herself could not respond. To me, that behaviour shouldn’t be exhibited by regular posters, let alone the mods. I would hope that Vanilla will receive an apology for that part of TubaDiva’s post, and also that other differences between the two parties can be resolved quickly.
After all, as TubaDiva says herself
I’m sure this kind of thing is not what you would want to be remembered for.
