Except really what I was getting at in my thread wasn’t trolls. Trolls don’t last long, are rarely any good at what they do and are just annoying and lacking substance.
My thread (maybe I wasn’t clear) was more directed at long standing (or at least, been around awhile) posters that for whatever reason decide to just go out on a haywire note, perhaps after being warned and they felt it was unfair, perhaps because they’d been ridiculed and wanted to say “fuck off” to everyone, etc.
A litle further down I said:
That’s what the Pit is for.
This is also why when we announce someone is banned in ATMB we close the thread – leaving it opens leads to pile ons/Pitworthy slams/postings of “I never liked soandso anyway, they pick their nose in public and eat babies.”
No, there wasn’t such a time. Even in the very beginning, there were always some rules, and some things were always out of bounds.
I was there, I helped set it up, I know.
I think we’ll have to disagree on what constitutes gloves off.
ETA: Peremensoe has an excellent point, which is the same as mine, but much pithier(must work on that). If there are no discussions about boundaries or behavioral standards, then what? Anything goes until the Ban Hammer comes down, then nobody talks about He Who Was Banned. What does this foster, exactly? Color me confused.
Please. There are always discussions about boundaries and behavioral standards, there are always threads about whether someone deserved a warning.
You talk about the “Ban Hammer” as though it were something out of the blue that came down randomly, and that’s just not so. Aside from the obvious (like spammers, f’rinstance), rarely is anyone banned without MANY (MANY!) warnings.
The line that we’ve drawn is that we want this to be a place that’s reasonably fair. Take the gloves off in the Pit, that’s fine, but the OTHER PERSON should be able to also take their gloves off in response. Once someone is unable to post, it’s just plain inconsiderate to talk about them when they can’t respond. A discussion dedicated solely to people who flamed out, or committed suicide by mod, yeah, can have some amusing points, but it can be like picking at scabs or pouring salt in the wounds. (We understand that FoieGrasisevil didn’t intend harm, there’s no warning or penalty or even sour look from the mods.)
Yes, I know. I’ve been here awhile as well. That’s not what I meant. You misunderstood me (and to be fair, I wasn’t crystal, precisely Dope-clear. Sorry). I don’t think bannings come out of the blue. I know they don’t. I also think that most of them are well deserved and that the Mods have endless patience with some posters, but not so much with other posters (and we can argue those completely arbitrary and capricious acts another time-like never, because the subject bores me- anyway, I digress).
By starting a thread about past flameouts and talking about them, the participants in that thread learn about behavioral extremes as well as cyber-street theater, the degree of mental illness that pervades modern society, and just general batshittery. This is hardly in the same boat as tours of the mental asylum to point and laugh at the inmates; it is not “toxic” or “soul-killing”. It’s no crime to examine the oddities of ourselves.
My point was that once the Banning has occurred (and please don’t misunderstand me- again, most bannings are overdue and a relief to the other posters), it all becomes Something Which Is Not Talked About and Never Referred to Again. Absolutely and manifestly, those people are Dead to Us. This strikes me as silly and kind of controlling. I can see where such threads could get out of hand or turn ugly fast, but people are people and they are going to talk about other people one way or another.
I don’t see the pouring salt in old wounds bit. For whom can this type of thread be so horribly painful? The Banned who may read about their past and their endings here?
But you all make the rules, not me. I’m not asking for the rule to be changed. I’m sharing my observations and opinions of that rule.
I noticed this as well: you all seem kind of intense about it all. You all keep reassuring FoieGras and the rest of us that he (she?) has not upset TPTB–no harm, no foul, no malice, no bad, no dig etc as if that is the object of serious concern. It’s all a bit paternalistic and condescending, IMO. Hell, she’s (he’s?) told “you’re not in trouble” right off the bat. :dubious: Forgive me, since I’m not here much, is ATMB now the principal’s office? 
:dubious: What’s with the benevolent overlord vibe?
As I understand it, the reasonable lines are now thus: no insults, not even in the Pit (or is it that SOME insults are allowed, but not others? I lose track-no, I don’t really want an answer), but that’s a place where “the gloves are off” (except they’re not according to Lynn and never were, and we all clearly remember when the Pit was a much rougher place, but never mind all that), and we can’t condemn others’ behavior or talk about it behind their back (so to speak).
I find myself in a very weird place. I’m not someone who insults others readily (most insults are so tedious) or who enjoys beating others up emotionally (god knows not physically), but here I am, advocating for the right to gossip, for lack of a better word. It’s not a sword I’m willing to die on, but the whole thing makes me go Scooby-Doo bwuh?
Posting is not a zero sum game.
BTW, you didn’t address the main thrust of my post which was asking how FoieGrasIsEvil’s thread “interferes with the normal traffic” of the board.
The Pit was a much rougher place, yes…but even so, there were some things that weren’t permitted. I remember closing threads that got too heated, for instance, and I’m pretty sure that was done from the start.
In fact, I dug around and found an old, old thread from 99, in which people were bitching about moderation, censorship, whatever in the Pit: OK, enough's enough - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board . So yeah, there’s been moderation in the Pit since the beginning.
And why should I care whether I make a troll happy or not? Are you afraid of them or something? I absolutely hate that attitude. The trolls win when you give a shit about what they think.
And this, like most of the rules on the Dope, is just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. We allow cruelty in the Pit up to a certain level, but stop it at this level. It’s not some huge moral issue where we take the high ground.
I’m sure that none of you don’t talk about somebody in real life when they aren’t present, so they can’t rebut what you are saying. Surely it’s not more wrong online than it is in real life.
Lynn: I never said the Pit went unmoderated. Jeebus.
Good post, eleanorigby. I suppose the confusion for me lies in the whole “hey we can’t talk about/make fun of/mention banned Poster X, because, well…he/she isn’t here to defend themself!”.
I mean this without malice and with respect, but…why does anyone care if a banned poster isn’t around to refute/deny/argue or whatever? They are BANNED. Gone, kaput, not of this board-world. Seriously…why worry about that?
I am getting this weird Voldemort “he who shall remain nameless” vibe about the whole thing. I don’t know. I guess it all seems a little confusing and…well, arbitrary.
ETA: Oh, and I’m a dude.
Right. And I’d see this as an expansion of my pithy point. Exposure and discussion of the failings of a person who has, by their own actions, worked themselves out of the tolerable spectrum of a culture’s norms, is itself a social good; it educates everybody else, particularly newcomers, about how those actions are viewed.
Sure. Banning, by its very nature, is a statement that the banned should have no rights with respect to the local ‘community.’ Pretending otherwise is not only silly, but actually at cross-purposes.
Do you honestly think trolls that got banned more than a few days ago are checking the dope every day hoping and praying that someone somewhere mentions them and then they get all excited and clap their hands and squeeee saying, “Yea! They are still talking about me. I am so awesome.”
Seriously do you think Beryl Mooncalf and techchick68 who were banned 9 years ago are still checking this board in the hopes beyond hopes that people are still talking about them?
And here I thought that all banning meant was that someone wasn’t allowed to post here anymore.
You did imply that just about anything could be said in the Pit, though. Which is untrue. Even back in the days of Camelot, there were limits, which is my point. While the Pit was rougher, people did have to abide by some rules, it wasn’t completely gloves off.
Note that this was NEVER the board’s rules or culture until Liberaltarian started incessantly pounding the “It is unseemly to gloat over the fallen” drum. Maybe he changed everyone’s minds but ours, or maybe the mods just accepted his “rule” to shut him the hell up.
Regardless, it’s a stupid rule and all it does is fuel the Snackpit. Hell the first Dope Snark site was largely created because no-one could discuss the Wally situation here.
It’s funny that the Mods/Admins can be so hyper-vigilant about “free and open discussion” when someone spews clear hate-speech and vile racial theories, and can blather on about “not stifling discussion” and let sick child-rapists spread their diseased fantasies all over the board for months (to the point where valued posters like Jodi leave) but the merest hint of discussing an old banning gets the discussion shot down.
As has been stated several times above, this is not the case.
hy·per·bo·le [hahy-pur-buh-lee]
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or *This book weighs a ton.
*[Latin hyperbol, from Greek huperbol, excess, from huperballein, to exceed : huper, beyond; see hyper- + ballein, to throw; see gwel- in Indo-European roots.]
In other words, your posts here should not be taken seriously.