# Why has badchad not been banned yet? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 14, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930 "2007-03-14T19:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/81 "2007-03-15T03:48:08Z")
[QUOTE=Clothahump] I suggest that everyone who has posted into this thread complaining about Badchad simply put him on ignore . That solves the problem. [/QUOTE] Bingo, baby. Actually, that brings me to a technical question. What does the Ignore function look like? I don’t have anyone on Ignore, so I have no idea. Is there a placeholder for the ignored person’s post, or is the presence of the poster excised completely? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/82 "2007-03-15T03:58:04Z")
Everyone calling badchad a troll (and there are dozens of you) is either: A) Accusing an innocent person of trollery or B) Feeding a troll Neither is acceptable behavior. Which are you doing? ---
**Author:** ![shamrock227](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@shamrock227](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shamrock227)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/83 "2007-03-15T03:58:27Z")
I just did it just to see what would happen (oh, the sacrifices I make for my fellow Dopers 😉 ). There is a placeholder that says > [@](#): > > This message is hidden because badchad is on your ignore list. I am now going to remove it, because for some reason, I find that way more annoying than just skimming or skipping someone’s post. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/84 "2007-03-15T03:59:23Z")
[QUOTE=storyteller0910] I don’t care that he hounds Christians for inconsistencies in their faiths. I don’t like that his arguments are stupid and weak. [/QUOTE] Ask **Polycarp** if he thinks my arguments are stupid and weak. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/85 "2007-03-15T04:19:50Z")
Hello everyone, I have something to say, my name is Pedro and I don’t have a problem with **badchad**. _waves to the group_ [QUOTE=twickster] I know I’m going to regret asking this, but: If the #1 rule of the SDMB is “don’t be a jerk,” and no one seems to be able to find any evidence of his behaving in any other way than jerkishly, why hasn’t he been banned? **braces for pileon** [/QUOTE] Wow, way to stick your neck out there! I admire your courage. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/86 "2007-03-15T04:29:35Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] Everyone calling badchad a troll (and there are dozens of you) is either: A) Accusing an innocent person of trollery or B) Feeding a troll Neither is acceptable behavior. Which are you doing? [/QUOTE] So if he’s been a jerk, and he’s reported for being a jerk and the mods do nothing _we’re_ at fault for calling for moderation that we paid for? Bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/87 "2007-03-15T04:31:56Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical] Bullshit. So if he’s been a jerk, and he’s reported and the mods do nothing _we’re_ at fault for calling for moderation that we paid for? [/QUOTE] No, it means that the mods as a whole don’t think moderation is called for. Suck it up. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/88 "2007-03-15T04:33:28Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical] Bullshit. So if he’s been a jerk, and he’s reported and the mods do nothing _we’re_ at fault for calling for moderation that we paid for? [/QUOTE] You have moderators in your pocket? That explains a lot, I never did figure why anyone would take this job. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/89 "2007-03-15T04:36:06Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical] So if he’s been a jerk, and he’s reported and the mods do nothing _we’re_ at fault for calling for moderation that we paid for? [/QUOTE] Why yes. In fact, you are. Board policy is that if you think someone is breaking the rules, you report the post and leave the decision in the staff’s hands from that point on. You do not create hatefests directed at the alleged offender that total dozens of pages of vitriol. “The moderation you paid for” does not equal “the decisions you want the moderators to make.” It’s a membership fee, not a bribe. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/90 "2007-03-15T04:43:50Z")
Personally I don’t see how a member can post on only one topic, a contentious and heated one at that, which lends itself almost every time to hijacking, usually for the only purpose of attacking others. And, although I’ll refrain from calling it ‘stalking,’ I also can’t fathom how going after someone (in this case it’d be **Poly** and **tom** ) for basically superfluous reasons, doesn’t constitute “being a jerk.” Dear Og, I can’t imagine what else it _would_ take to cross that line. Disclaimer: This solely MY opinion, under what I believe the definitions call for. I have nothing against **bc** for being an atheist, even a vehement one at that, but because he obviously (to me) is the epitome of why we have our governing rule to begin with. Sadly, I think he knows he can continue to venture even more forth and have the “We have to be (overly) impartial!” system on his side. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/91 "2007-03-15T04:47:15Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] No, it means that the mods as a whole don’t think moderation is called for. Suck it up. [/QUOTE] Um, the mods \*are \* moderating. See **Giraffe** ’s post above: they’ve discussed it and come to a decision. That’s called moderating. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/92 "2007-03-15T04:50:53Z")
[QUOTE=faithfool] Personally I don’t see how a member can post on only one topic, a contentious and heated one at that, which lends itself almost every time to hijacking, usually for the only purpose of attacking others. And, although I’ll refrain from calling it ‘stalking,’ I also can’t fathom how going after someone (in this case it’d be **Poly** and **tom** ) for basically superfluous reasons, doesn’t constitute “being a jerk.” Dear Og, I can’t imagine what else it _would_ take to cross that line. Disclaimer: This solely MY opinion, under what I believe the definitions call for. I have nothing against **bc** for being an atheist, even a vehement one at that, but because he obviously (to me) is the epitome of why we have our governing rule to begin with. Sadly, I think he knows he can continue to venture even more forth and have the “We have to be (overly) impartial!” system on his side. [/QUOTE] Which brings us to a discussion of the Rule. “Don’t be a jerk” is just the kind of rule that one might put in place because _everyone_ knows when someone is a jerk. Except, of course, that it is a completely arbitrary and subjective designation. You think **badchad** is a jerk. I don’t. Where does that leave us? With a dumb and ambiguous “rule” that can’t be evaluated in any objective, meaningful manner. Also, what in the name of hell is “an (overly) impartial system?” You’re seriously complaining that the board moderation is attempting to be impartial in this case? “He needed bannin’” is not really a valid prosecutorial tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/93 "2007-03-15T04:53:22Z")
[QUOTE=lissener] Um, the mods \*are \* moderating. See **Giraffe** ’s post above: they’ve discussed it and come to a decision. That’s called moderating. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: If it makes you feel better, I’ll say this instead: “No, it means that the mods as a whole don’t think banning is called for. Suck it up.” ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/94 "2007-03-15T04:55:49Z")
[QUOTE=Pedro] You have moderators in your pocket? That explains a lot, I never did figure why anyone would take this job. [/QUOTE] I’m more than happy to suck it up. No, I do not have the mods in my pocket. No, I am not at fault for speaking my wishes. > [@](#): > > _“The moderation you paid for” does not equal “the decisions you want the moderators to make.” It’s a membership fee, not a bribe._" My membership gives me the right to my opinion. I was responding to **Cisco** who suggested any recourse to **badchad** was equal to or worse than his behavior. It is not. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/95 "2007-03-15T05:01:27Z")
Just thought I’d add my 2 cents’ worth. After paying my $15 or so for membership, I’d not want to be continually harassed by some immature kid. So if that were to happen, I’d simply activate the Ignore feature I noticed so as not to be bothered by his childishness any more. Continuing to engage such people only gives them the attention they crave. I have better things to do. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/96 "2007-03-15T05:11:49Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] Which brings us to a discussion of the Rule. “Don’t be a jerk” is just the kind of rule that one might put in place because _everyone_ knows when someone is a jerk. Except, of course, that it is a completely arbitrary and subjective designation. You think **badchad** is a jerk. I don’t. Where does that leave us? With a dumb and ambiguous “rule” that can’t be evaluated in any objective, meaningful manner. [/QUOTE] I’m not arguing that the rule isn’t nebulous. However, say in real life (and one could definitely argue that this isn’t, but regardless, there are real people out there behind the screens), that sort of behavior would either get someone arrested or fired or both. How that can _not_ be jerkish is a mystery to me. > [@](#): > > Also, what in the name of hell is “an (overly) impartial system?” You’re seriously complaining that the board moderation is attempting to be impartial in this case? “He needed bannin’” is not really a valid prosecutorial tactic. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well (which isn’t unusual), but what I was going for is how you have one ‘system,’ in which there’s favoritism. In the other, you have the extreme opposite… this person is so (awful/idiotic/whatever) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, that we have to allow them to continue in their usual manner lest we be accused of not being fair. Does that make any better sense? Further more, I’m not complaining about the moderation of the board at all. It must be incredibly difficult, especially in situations like this, and all I’d like is to grasp where they’re coming from, certainly in light of what I’ve stated. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/97 "2007-03-15T05:20:21Z")
> [@](#): > > that sort of behavior would either get someone arrested or fired or both. How that can not be jerkish is a mystery to me. This is an old argument, and one which fails simply because this is not the real world. People who come to the Dope should not expect to be given a philosophical pass. All is fair game. > [@](#): > > In the other, you have the extreme opposite… this person is so (awful/idiotic/whatever) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, that we have to allow them to continue in their usual manner lest we be accused of not being fair. Does that make any better sense? I see what you’re thinking here, but the premise is flawed. There is no universal agreement on whether his behavior is awful/idiotic/whatever. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/98 "2007-03-15T05:27:30Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] I see what you’re thinking here, but the premise is flawed. There is no universal agreement on whether his behavior is awful/idiotic/whatever. [/QUOTE] Also I would like add that those who are describing my behavior as all that stuff, come from a group from whom a disproportionate number who are “self admittedly” (as that term is being used most frequently at this time) irrational. PS. Thanks for the kind words **Ogre**. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/59ef9b/32.png) [@Don\_t\_fight\_the\_hypothetical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/99 "2007-03-15T05:34:44Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] This is an old argument, and one which fails simply because this is not the real world. People who come to the Dope should not expect to be given a philosophical pass. All is fair game. [/quote] I totally agree. Honestly, I am amazed that on a board that promises to fight ignorance that religion could be debated at all. But it is not the topic, but the jerkish nature of that debate that is being argued, IMHO. > [@](#): > > I see what you’re thinking here, but the premise is flawed. There is no universal agreement on whether his behavior is awful/idiotic/whatever. Not suggesting that there is. It is the last 5 years or so of mod moderating that I base my expectation on. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2007, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930/100 "2007-03-15T05:43:36Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > I’m not arguing that the rule isn’t nebulous. However, say in real life (and one could definitely argue that this isn’t, but regardless, there are real people out there behind the screens), that sort of behavior would either get someone arrested or fired or both. How that can not be jerkish is a mystery to me. Hey, I just brainstormed! Maybe we should ban all the posters who have admitted to getting arrested or fired. Also, the people who WOULD be fired if we sent their boss a link. Obviously, in real life, they are jerks. Who wants them around here?! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-badchad-not-been-banned-yet/395930.md?page=6)