Also, jodi’s comment seems to be saying that lexicon’s post sounds like he has his head up his ass. Basically, I’d see it tottering on the safe side of the “attacking someone’s argument, not the person” line. “Suck my dick” is certainly well on the other side. Even if it’s phrased as “if I wanted you to open your mouth, I’d ask you to suck my dick” or whatever.
I hate to inturrupt [an aside to John – if a mod or an admin tell you to cut it out you should cut it out, no matter what secret behind-the-screen machinations are going on, real or imagined] but I gotta ask.
Zette, you and your tits on a bike live in NY and I’ve never met you? Wassup wit dat?
IzzyR: the oversight you’re making is that Veb didn’t ban Lexicon–she may have made a recommendation, but an administrator had to agree with her. So even if you think Veb misinterpreted the statement, that by itself wasn’t conclusive. And I think it’s well established that we are responsible for what we write–if somebody is misunderstood, it is ultimately their own damn fault.
Lexicon was trolling in that thread–he knew damn well suggesting that any woman who didn’t like him looking at their breasts should cut them off was gonna provoke angry responses, regardless of sarcasm. If he couldn’t keep himself under control when what he was looking for happened, well, tough shit. If he couldn’t keep himself from backing off after being told to cut it the hell out by a mod, then double tough shit. And when he prefaces the second time with “I don’t really care if you ban me[,]” then he’s just begging for exactly what happened, so triple tough shit.
There have been a few bannings that I would have voted against, if for some reason they’d asked me my opinion. But this one was a slam dunk.
So, if you’re retaliating to a provoking thread, you’re clear to post what you want? Is that the dilly?
No, but I don’t see it as unreasonable that the deliberately provoking be able to be responded to in slightly harsh terms. However, personal insults are not allowed.
It’s really not hard to see that there is a line between “this seems an example of recto-cranial inversion” and “suck my dick”.
Lexi just flamed out. He was the only person I’d ever called to the pit, when he first appeared as SmickD, and we got over it. But the abrasiveness that Alphagene recalls toiled and troubled and boiled and, finally, bubbled - over.
He could perhaps cobble together a defense or demonstration of remorse and/or understanding for the admins/mods that might possibly allow his reemergence on the board. He’s certainly got the brights to muster such. But I doubt he’ll make that effort.
Yes. There is a line. One is veiled, the other is not.
So, by that reasoning, veiled insults are okay in response to an antagonistic post?
This is strictly IMO but “you’ve got your head up your ass” is not a personal attack or an insult. It’s the equivalent of saying your arguement’s all fucked up. It’s an insulting way of saying it but not a personal insult, if you get my meaning.
MH, think of it this way, if you and your friends were having a discussion about some slightly heated topic and this exchange happened:
Guy Friend: Blah, blah, blah
Girl Friend: Please, you’ve got your head up your ass…
Guy Friend: Hey, if I wanted you to open your mouth, I’d have asked you to suck my dick.
Please don’t tell my you wouldn’t be shocked at what Guy Friend just said. I would. Frankly I found Lexicon’s comment as surprising and shocking a personal attack as anything I’ve read outside of the Pit. That type of attack has no place in a civil community, and I’m glad he’s gone.
That’s how I saw it. (BTW he did have a fucked up argument)
IMHO, and maybe I’m becoming a complete prude, his response would have been out of line here, too.
In the NFL, pass interference is when any player movement beyond the offensive line significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player or such player’s opportunity to catch the ball during a legal forward pass. Now there is no mathematical formula that can determine a significant hinderance. Ultimately, it’s the official’s call. You can complain that its unfair (although no one has given any indication why Veb would be motivated to play favorites), but it’s kind of ridiculous to nickel and dime the exact definition of significant hinderance. And the end of the day, it’s a judgement call.
Some penalties, like offsides or too many men on the field can be objectively determined. We here at the SDMB have similar objective rules.
We are here as mods to make these calls, discuss them with our fellow mods and make a judgement. Again, you are welcome to disagree and you are free to express your disagreement, but in cases like this one, a request for clarification down the the quantum level is pointless.
If you’d like to use a football officiating analogy, then I would have to point you to the instant replay rule, in which the referee is required to look back at the events, and sometimes make a different ruling than was originally called. Some people say it slows down the game, others say it helps things move along right, since blown calls can be rectified.
And although I appreciate your stance, I feel it’s disingenuous of you to first state that one is free to express discontent, and then make it clear that one really shouldn’t.
This post insult free, for your reading pleasure.
Cartooniverse steps up carefully. Clad in black robes with satin collar and hemline. Black boots. White kid gloves. Silver earring. Pearls. Smeared mascara. <sigh> Perfect.
He reaches over, and very gently places a medallion around the neck of our much beloved TVeblen. It is a silver heart, a flat disk in the shape of a heart. With a single red drop of blood dangling from the bottom ( for artistic content, doncha know). Engraved on the heart are the now-immortal words
.
He steps back, and shakes the extended hand of Madame TVeblen. He hands her the tools of her office- a riding crop, silver-plated alligator clips ( 
), a copy of the Gideon Bible I nicked during a trip to Atlanta last month, $ 500,000 in Monopoly money and most importantly, an ergonomic keyboard so that your hands won’t be tired from typing when it’s time to reach for the riding crop. 
Fade to black.
Cartooniverse
Man-Hec, I’m not sure what you’re driving at, or what you’re trying to accomplish.
Perhaps you’re playing devil’s advocate for the benefit of an argument.
If not, you seem to be simply butting heads with the mods. I don’t understand that. Why the discontent? It seems to me that everything has been explained, cites have been provided, and context being what it is, nobody (outside of Lexicon - and probably not even him) seems to be that upset about his banning.
Even if you are playing devil’s advocate, you’re going about it in an obtuse way. Your arguments are relying on twisting words, waiting for a clarification, then twisting the words a different way.
Nothing is definite, nothing is written in stone here. When the mods say “He’s Banned!” and evidence of the banned poster’s jerkiocity is provided - why the third degree?
What’s the program here?
(You’ll also kindly notice that this post is insult free)
Again, I’m not upset about the banning. I’ve stated that previously. It’s the way warnings are seemingly dispensed prejudiciously on occasion that I take issue with.
Of course, as long as it’s not me what’s being warned, or banned for that matter, I suppose it doesn’t matter even a little bit, except for in principle.
Fair enough.
I just re-read my previous post - I’m not sure if I came off self-important or accusing or whatever, but bear in mind I had been awake precisely 5 minutes when I wrote it.
It’s times and threads like these that remind me of Bill Cosby’s line about being the head of the household:
Cartooniverse, that was the most absurdly beautiful post I’ve ever seen in the Pit. Thanks for the laugh!
I very rarely get involved in these discussions, as they so often seem to get ugly. But since the insults aren’t free-flowing yet and there seems to be some misunderstanding, I guess I’ll weigh in with my own $.02.
Manservant Hecubus, Izzy: I’m seeing this in the same way as Fugazi, I think.
Jodi’s comment ( to me ) = “Your opinion is shit”
This is criticism of opinion, which has generally been permitted on these boards ( within reason ).
Lexicon’s comment = “You are shit”
This is criticism of person, which isn’t allowed outside of the pit.
Now in this case, IMHO, Jodi’s comment verged into that grey area of being a little too strong. If I were a moderator I would have probably given her a little slap on the wrist and admonished her not to respond to antagonism with further antagonism on that particular board. However, it being a grey area, I have no argument with the moderator in this case choosing to ignore it and respond instead to the primary instigator/offender, whose transgressions were unambiguous.
Just as an aside, although I think consistency in administrative discipline is something to strive for, I don’t ever expect it approach 100%. That’s simply not possible when dealing with real, fallible people 
.
- Tamerlane
The bottom line, for me anyway, is that I don’t want to be on the shitty end of the stick, so to speak. I’d hate to get banned for something that I thought to be demonstratedly within the limits of the specified fora, because there’s someone who doesn’t like me, or likes someone else more.
Tamerlane, you stupid fuck-nugget (I just want you to get the most Pit bang for your Pit buck - get those insult flowing again, don’t you know? ), …
I think this, and many other moderator type issues, are too nebulous to dictate a rule for.
“He was banned because he broke rule number 8763 stroke J, paragraph 2, line 98 … she was not because of codicle in rule 666 stroke xyz, book 27, page 567, line 1002 …”
I’m finding it pretty easy to see who was the jerk in that other thread and who wasn’t. I’m really not trying to suck up to the mods - Buddha knows I haven’t agreed with every moderator action ever taken - but in cases like this one, I find it easy to trust they know what they’re doing.
– I reserve the right ot recant this post if I ever get banned. –
[sub]