I was told by twickster after she locked the thread that we don’t permit posters to “take inventory” of posters that have been banned.
Now, obviously the thread was meant to be fun and I had no idea that we weren’t allowed to “take inventory” of banned posters. Well…why not? We “take inventory” of deceased posters in MPSIMS, don’t we?
Now, I am not angry or anything, its just a messageboard but I was surprised the thread was closed and that I had somehow run afoul of a rule that I was unaware of.
Lastly, I didn’t think I was trying to get other posters to “take inventory” (although I can see twickster’s interpretation that way), rather, to recall some board moments involving posters that spectacularly asploded their memberships.
Again, it was supposed to be fun, funny and maybe a little nostalgic. I haven’t been around a long time and I read other long timers posting about other posters that have been banned that they wish were still around.
Did I violate an explicit board rule by starting that thread, or is it a decorum thing?
I may have expressed myself badly – we generally do not allow discussion of people who have been banned, since they are not able to defend themselves in that discussion. Although you posed the question as being about flame-outs, probably the most common result of a true flame-out is that the person gets banned. It seemed to me most likely the conversation would end up being about the person, in the form of “taking their inventory” (i.e., listing the types of behavior they indulged in that led to their banning), and thus in conflict with our “don’t discuss the banned” guideline.
Note that you’re not in trouble for having started the thread, and you didn’t get so much as a finger wag, let alone a wrist slap, for having done so – I just didn’t want the conversation to go off track.
Thanks, twickster. Again, I am not upset at all. Bafflement was more my reaction.
I suppose it just seems strange to me that “we’re not supposed to talk about banned members” because I have seen many instances where that in fact does happen. I guess I just don’t understand the harm in talking about someone (or many someone’s) that have been banned. I feel that it’s kinda repressive, though truth be told, it’s not like I or anyone else gets on the Dope and constantly thinks about banned members.
I suppose I just don’t like limitations on speech like that, but…I am aware this is not a democracy.
We don’t try to prevent all incidences of such discussion – it’s not the case that any mention of a banned person’s name is going to bring about immediate mod (over)reaction – but in general we prefer that people not. Any thread devoted solely to the subject will probably get closed sooner rather than later.
I agree with the policy. That thread was like a group of people who rubber neck, while driving by, the car stopped on the side of the road with a cop car behind it. It just interferes with the normal traffic and does no one any good.
Besides, anyone here for any time already know the punch lines.
Not necessarily. I’ve been here a long time and I never saw the Beryl Mooncalf one before. And I wanted to thank FoisGrasIsEvil for starting the thread because I laughed and laughed last night while reading it; totally made my day. So maybe we could do these if the event is long enough ago? Or maybe we could just, as the OP asked, talk about flame-outs without necessarily dwelling on the banned-ness of the flamer? Either way: Loved that Beryl Mooncalf!
And just how does it interfere with “normal traffic”? This is essentially a trivia message board. I guess we need to be on to the important stuff like how much farts weigh or what fried semen tastes like.
I know we’ve done this before but as long as we’re doing it again… who gives a rats patootie if banned members get attention as long as we get pleasure from taking about them?
My point exactly. Why are we suppressing enjoyment? Obama won, yo! Celebrate!
And again…I fail to see how this is running afoul of the rules and wonder about the impartial judgement to close the thread I started. And also again, I understand if I am to be crushed under a mod boot heel. But why break a butterfly upon a wheel?
Yup. I’ve only been a member since Jan 2010, but I think I lurked for about a year or so before that, and had read my way through a lot of the classic old threads. And I still hadn’t heard of some of the ones linked in FoieGras’s thread.
I’m sure we’ve had similar threads to compile “legendary threads of the SDMD” before, as I think that’s where I first heard about FreakFreely’s freak-out.
That’s really an unkind and even a cruel attitude – to point at people who are going through some distress on some level and make fun of them, laugh at them, hold them up to ridicule. Say crap about them when they can’t do anything to defend themselves, kick them when they’re down.
Even if they deserve it – and we have had people who did heinous stuff here, no doubt about it – even if they deserve it that attitude fosters a culture of snark that is toxic and soul-killing, even.
We’ve never wanted to build stocks on the public green so the populace could pelt them with garbage, that’s not right.
It’s not all sparkly unicorns and fluffy kittens here – nor should it be – and there are consequences for actions here as most everywhere else in every other semi-civilized society. People do get called on their stuff, and that’s appropriate. But it should not be a Theater of Cruelty here neither. If you want to get that going on there’s certainly other venues for you to indulge your desire for … schadenfreude of whatever. But not here.
Wow. I wasn’t thinking of is as a “Theater Of Cruelty” at all. If someone was going through something extremely painful or had obvious mental illness or something, that wasn’t what I was shooting for in that thread at all and I would hope that (had the thread remained open) that nobody would have held up someone like that as an example.
It was supposed to be more lighthearted than that, and entertaining. Some people are just so frothy (SmashTheState comes to mind) that they are worthy of contempt and ridicule and not much in the way of pity.
Anyway, it’s a moot point as the thread is closed, explanations given, etc.
After giving it a moment’s thought I can see how you derived your interpretation, Tuba, but that was not my intention. I guess I just don’t see being banned from a messageboard as a life-altering event.
No harm, no foul, we get that from you, we understand no bad was intended, none of what I said was a dig at you or anyone else who participated in any of these threads and should not be taken as such.
However, these are situations that have happened before. Also we don’t want to encourage trollism and there is nothing more trolly than going on a message board and blowing up/getting banned in some spectacular way. We try to discourage that kind of behavior.
Apropos of nothing but a theater of cruelty is emphatically not about pointing and laughing at someone in distress.
And cinnamon imp hit on it; the trick is to ask about legendary threads or watershed moments. I also feel compelled to point out that the linked thread for a user who’d created multiple accounts had marley finding and linking more threads where the user’s accounts were involved for nothing more than the amusement of the board. Just more evidence that everything was more fun in the past.
I find this amusing. Two points: There was a time when the Pit was truly a Pit-gloves off. As harsh as it was, it was more genuine and honest than whatever goes on in there now. Snark if overdone or the main focus can indeed be toxic (witness the Snarkpit), but some snark adds spice. As much as the Righteous Ones will howl about this, everyone likes to gossip. Gossip is one way groups decide on expected and acceptable behavior. Discussing the vagaries of human behavior as seen through a message board is not a Theater of Cruelty.
Board rules are board rules and I’m not here to either try to change them or protest against them, but I couldn’t let this go. I think FoieGras’ thread had no malice aforethought and my main point is that such things CAN be talked about without being “soul-killing”.
