The board rule against wishing death on people has always confused me, especially with the inconsistent way that it has been applyed by moderators in the past.
According to Gaudere a couple of days ago:
So, seems like if you want to wish death on Pat Robertson, go for it, as long as it’s not in response to something he’s personally posted here.
I always understood the rule to be “no wishing death on other posters.”
Which, since we have several posters serving in Iraq, I guess included the late Aldebaran.
But does anyone really think saying, “I would like to shoot Osama bin Laden in the head,” would get a mod warning? What about arguing that a particular criminal (say, the BTK killer) get the death penalty? Or arguing for the death penalty in general? Or for abortion? Or, hey, what about arguing that Terry Schiavo’s life support be pulled?
Meh. “Don’t wish death on anyone,” doesn’t work as a rule. “Don’t threaten to kill other posters,” makes eminent sense, though. Gotta keep some standards of decorum, even in the Pit.
My understanding is that Alde wasn’t banned for just this one offense…but for a series of flaming posts in GD culminating in this where he crossed the line yet again. I don’t think anyone but you was really surprised he was axed…though I was also sad when he went. He was an irrational flamer at times, but he could be amusing sometimes too…and he even had some occational insights when he wasn’t on one of his tape recorded US rants.
I think the death wish thing is generally a good rule…and like all rules occationally its got to be within the Mods discretion to make the call and pound a poster…or not.
-XT
Alde was not banned “just for expressing (hypothetically, rhetorically) a wish to go to Iraq so he could fight and kill American GIs”
He was banned after collecting several warnings for multiple types of actions including one for knowingly posted false quotations or information, after which he went out and did that again.
Now, it is true that he received a warning (or two) for wishing harm on U.S. troops. Whether the warning was prompted by the nature of the threats or because such threats are obviously inflammatory on this board, (which is in the nature of trolling), I do not know.
I think it is legitimate to question whether his warning for that action was valid. Let’s not muuddy that discussion, however, by making erroneous claims regarding why he was banned.
With no disrespect intended toward anyone, and using that extreme only as an example, would it then be appropriate to address the validity of that warning in this thread?
I don’t see why not. Alde had enough issues that rescinding that particlar warning would not change the staff decision on his banning.
I think the issue of whether death wishes against non-members is actionable has not been resolved. It would be a waste of time to make that warning the focus of this thread, but discussing whether there is some (board actionable) taboo against death wishes for U.S. troops in the context of wishing death on Robertson, bin Laden, or G W Bush* certainly seems to be a fair topic.
Why?
Exactly. BrainGlutton, just how big a part of your enjoyment of life is compromised by your inability to (safely) wish death on others on this board? A vanishingly small part, I’ll wager. Why worry about it? I suspect that an otherwise innofensive poster who thoughtlessly or ignorantly broke the “no death wish” rule once wouldn’t get instantly banned, so what’s the big problem?
Because random and inconsistant enforcement of rules is always a bad idea.
-Joe
Usually, killing a prominent figure elevates their status, but making them irrelevant by ignoring them (and cutoff support) would be a better idea.
Pat definitely falls into this group.
But Merijeek, almost no one is banned for a first offense. There’s a whole list of things you shouldn’t do on this message board, but only a few are insta-banworthy…spamming, being a sock puppet, or threatening litigation against the Chicago reader are the biggies.
No one gets banned for a first offense for insulting other posters, or posting copyrighted material, or wishing death on Celine Dion. Instead you’ll get WARNED…assuming the moderators even see the offending post. While the mods try to look over every post in every thread it just can’t be done, so lots of things slip by…unless someone reports the offending post. The people who get banned are the ones who won’t change their behavior despite warnings. And if you get on the moderator’s secret list of annoying assholes they’re going to scrutinize your behavior more closely than that of other posters…on the theory that annoying assholes are going to cause more trouble than your average Joe.
See Psalm 16:10.
I think it’s interesting that Robertson continues to shoot his mouth off. In the mid 1980s he said it would help if some Supreme Court judges die, so Reagan could appoint new ones more to Reagan’s (or Robertson’s) liking and overturn Roe v. Wade. Ironic, huh? :rolleyes: