Why has badchad not been banned yet?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@garygnu

Can’t we just pay him $500 instead?

It’s a prophecy, not a contract.

[silenus]

He’s a juvenile, self-admitted stalker who contributes absolutely zero to this board, not to mention the human race. Stomp on the little toad already.

[Schuyler]

@samclem

We have actually had all of the corners in the office rounded off recently. We can no longer be backed in. Now we just go round and around.

So I wasn’t picturing it before, but now I imagine little blurry white mice (like Anastasaeon found) scurrying around on the floor.

Wearing jackboots, of course.

[Triskadecamus]

I would prefer that it be much more likely that being a tedious yammerer be tolerated by the board, and banning be reserved for really being a jerk. Now, I admit that once I have mentally identified someone as a tedious yammerer, I am very unlikely to even notice them becoming a real jerk, since my page down key works just fine.

But, on the other hand, one man’s tedious yammerer is another man’s tireless champion of an unappreciated truth. So, what the heck, yammer on, man, yammer on! I would rather page down past your name a thousand times than miss out on an unexpected source of new points of view because the board’s moderators wanted to protect me from you jerkish tendencies.

The poor mods actually have to read your mindlessly repetitive drivel. That’s why they get the big mugs, man! I find their restraint commendable. I for one welcome our jackbooted masters!

Tris

Anyone who wants can send me fifty dollars. If you want me to send it to someone else, you have to wait two years.

[Cisco]

@storyteller0910

Why do you think that “saying what a lot of people are thinking” is in and of itself a good thing? Or do you think that what he’s saying is a good thing? Because all he’s saying boils down to “hey x-tians, your stupit, hnurh, hnurh, hnurh.”

He underlines, in red ink, the hypocrisy of Liberal Christianity. I think this is a noble end, to say nothing of his means. Because the majority of dopers seem to be liberal Christians, this is not a stance that one can openly and frequently take here without risking the type of ostracizing that badchad experiences.

-Yes I feel he’s brash, but,
-Yes, I still feel that his stance would eventually be warped by the community into “trollish behavior” no matter how nice he was. The wolves here are ok with outsiders only as long as they stay in formation.

[Ogre]

This is the second time someone has said this in this thread, and I’d like to address it directly, if I may (on the topic at hand: I don’t think badchad should be banned because he’s easy enough to ignore when he’s boring, which is most of the time, but then, I hardly ever think anyone should be banned). I just want to ask a question of Cisco and Ogre:

Why do you think that “saying what a lot of people are thinking” is in and of itself a good thing? Or do you think that what he’s saying is a good thing? Because all he’s saying boils down to “hey x-tians, your stupit, hnurh, hnurh, hnurh.” The fact that an opinion is unpopular and delivered in a strident fashion does not make that opinion profound or even useful. What has badchad done or said, in all the time he has been here, that has been worth a damn to anyone? There are plenty of people on this board who have religious beliefs that very closely align with those of badchad. Some of them can frame an argument, respond to questions asked of them… some of them are even pretty impatient with religious folks. But badchad is useless, pointless, extraneous on a board that has nonreligious people who have smart opinions that they can express clearly, cleanly, and well. I haven’t noticed, say, Diogenes the Cynic spending a lot of time hiding what he’s thinking. What important opinion, not represented by better and cleaner thinkers, does badchad offer?

And if it’s only that you want to see someone throw poop at religious people, why? I mean, why do you care?

I am myself not religious in any conventional way. I have a vague sense that there are probably things beyond my understanding - possibly even a God or other spiritual force - but that if such a thing exists, it is so far beyond my capacity for understanding as to make no difference in the way I live my life. So obviously I do not believe the things that, say, Polycarp does.

But I mean, honestly: I also believe, with utter and complete fervor, that Derek Jeter is profoundly over-rated. I think he’s a borderline Hall-of-Famer, and not even close to the best player on his own team. I am aware that there are many hundreds of thousands of people who believe that Derek Jeter is the greatest shortstop of all time. I don’t care. I don’t feel the need to harass them on message boards. I’ll discuss with them, but flinging poop gives me nothing. Now, if the Jeter fans go crazy when the Yankees win the World Series and burn down a building, or if a group of Jeter fans beat the crap out of some guy in a David Ortiz shirt - now those are people who deserve my anger, and my scorn. But the fans who cheer for Jeter and teach their kids to play baseball like he does, and to be a basically good guy and teammate? They’re OK with me.

Why is it of intrinsic value for anyone to abuse a religious person?

I’ll assume the final, italicized question is the one you want an answer to.

My reason is this: It is as valid a thing as any to say on a board dedicated to open-minded discourse. You don’t like that he hounds Christians for inconsistencies in their faiths. Tough titty. We like all kinds of opinions and viewpoints around here, not just your average “Christianity is basically good, except when it isn’t” types. There are those of us who are pretty damned sure that one religion is just exactly as obsolete, destructive, and silly as any other. We should be able to say it. As long as Christians (or those of any other faith) are allowed to witness (see the description for GD) or state their beliefs, we should be allowed to call those beliefs, and whatever issues they raise, into question.

badchad is not a troll. He is not a jerk. He may get overwrought occasionally, and if he does, I support the mods smacking him around for it. However, he is saying something that 1) needs to be said, and 2) I wholly support, and I doubt I’m the only one.

Now personally, I have nothing in particular against Polycarp or tomndebb or almost anyone else, but if they get to proselytize their “buddy Jesus” Christianity on the board, badchad or anyone else should be allowed to question them.

[Bosstone]

To stick my nose in here:

Wouldn’t you say, however, that even if you’re not intending to be respectful, you should at least keep it in appropriate threads? I’ve seen a couple of Pit threads in the last couple of days that badchad tried to hijack simply because religion was mentioned in the OP. He has a disconcerting habit, too, of asking about personal faiths when they’re not really relevant.

I will say I haven’t seen him be rude very often, at least in the sense of being vulgar, but he dogs people across threads and brings up his pet topic in inappropriate venues.

I more or less view him as an emotionless, relentless anti-Christian Terminator. I’m not sure that’s really a good thing.

[storyteller0910]

@Ogre

My reason is this: It is as valid a thing as any to say on a board dedicated to open-minded discourse.

Oh, sure, it’s perfectly valid. Why is it useful? Any opinion is valid; his is just pointless and devoid of nuance or intelligence.

You don’t like that he hounds Christians for inconsistencies in their faiths.

Absolutely wrong. I don’t care that he hounds Christians for inconsistencies in their faiths. I don’t like that his arguments are stupid and weak. I don’t like that he has nothing valuable to contribute, but folks are painting him as some sort of misunderstood genius because his valueless contributions are presented with a nasty tone.

We like all kinds of opinions and viewpoints around here, not just your average “Christianity is basically good, except when it isn’t” types. There are those of us who are pretty damned sure that one religion is just exactly as obsolete, destructive, and silly as any other. We should be able to say it.

Like you, perhaps? Or any number of people who actually have something to say. You don’t see people asking you to shut up, because you’re actually presenting thoughts and saying something worthwhile. badchad is not, and it offends me somehow that the sheer fact that he’s a dick about what he’s saying makes people think that is has depth or intelligence to it.

As long as Christians (or those of any other faith) are allowed to witness (see the description for GD) or state their beliefs, we should be allowed to call those beliefs, and whatever issues they raise, into question.

I’m fine with that. Just say something with some substance.

badchad is not a troll. He is not a jerk. He may get overwrought occasionally, and if he does, I support the mods smacking him around for it. However, he is saying something that 1) needs to be said, and 2) I wholly support, and I doubt I’m the only one.

What he’s saying is “x-tians are stupit. Hnrh hnrh hnrh.” Nothing else. That doesn’t “need to be said.” Not in any world.

Now personally, I have nothing in particular against Polycarp or tomndebb or almost anyone else, but if they get to proselytize their “buddy Jesus” Christianity on the board, badchad or anyone else should be allowed to question them.

You genuinely see no difference between proselytizing a particular worldview, with discussion of how they see the world and why, and the presentation and evaluation of evidence, and shouting “POOPIE KAKA” into every thread?

[Ogre]

@BayleDomon

To stick my nose in here:

Wouldn’t you say, however, that even if you’re not intending to be respectful, you should at least keep it in appropriate threads? I’ve seen a couple of Pit threads in the last couple of days that badchad tried to hijack simply because religion was mentioned in the OP. He has a disconcerting habit, too, of asking about personal faiths when they’re not really relevant.

I will say I haven’t seen him be rude very often, at least in the sense of being vulgar, but he dogs people across threads and brings up his pet topic in inappropriate venues.

I more or less view him as an emotionless, relentless anti-Christian Terminator. I’m not sure that’s really a good thing.

Possibly, but until the board really cracks down on hijacks, shrug…one is the same as any other to me.

[Ogre]

What he’s saying is “x-tians are stupit. Hnrh hnrh hnrh.” Nothing else. That doesn’t “need to be said.” Not in any world.

This is a gross mischaracterization, and does nothing to support your viewpoint. I have seen badchad go into vast, detailed posts giving citations and elaborate reasoning behind his statements. By now, he’s cruising on reputation and the faith that anyone who reads his posts will be passingly familiar with his arguments.

You know, much like Polycarp.

[Don_t_fight_the_hypothetical]

@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?

Because as has been pointed out “jerkishness” is so subjective. He is being judged against his own behavior. Reminds me of the parable about the slowly boiled frog. BC has so slowly and steadily raised the bar on his own jerkishness that this latest spate doesn’t seem that bad (well, to some anyway).

I don’t give a rat’s ass about badchad and don’t mind avoiding him as a personal solution but I get Goddamned tired of his rudeness, stalking and hijacking. Yes he is a jerk. I, like others here, as a matter of course don’t really advocate banning but if there is a rule on being a jerk and others get banned for it, badchad should be judged on that standard and not his own watered down version of it.

[badchad]

@silenus

He’s a juvenile, self-admitted stalker who contributes absolutely zero to this board, not to mention the human race. Stomp on the little toad already.

1. Define stalking.

2. Cite where I self admitted to stalking.

3. Cite the rules against stalking.

4. Suck my dick.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Jeez what a pile-on this has become.

[silenus]

@badchad

4. Suck my dick.

You’re such a complete dick…where would I start?

[dnooman]

The Duke boys hadn’t seen a flameout like this in quite a while. Even Uncle Jessie couldn’t remember a douchebag as ornery as this one ever passing through Hazard county.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

But isn’t trollish behaviour the very model of a jerk?

[newcrasher]

@Giraffe

Harborwolf is pretty much dead on. Although opinon is split among the mods, as of right now the consensus is that badchad’s behavior since his return from suspension has not sufficiently over the line so as to merit banning.

You guys get played like a frickin’ violin, and the only victim is civility.

[Zoe]

Giraffe: I don’t mind confusing hopeless morons.

Well, golly gee. Try to think of it as fighting ignorance.

Giraffe: Don’t look at me. The rule predates my membership here, let alone my modship.

But we have to look at you. (And giraffes aren’t good at shrugging shoulders.) The Pit is the place to ask these kinds of questions.

Giraffe: Do we ban everyone who holds controversial views which piss other people off?

Of course not. But how long do you tolerate someone who tries to piss off other people?
[/quote]

Do we ban everyone who debates in a combative fashion?

When that is all they know how to do and they contribute nothing toward fighting ignorance, then yes.

You’d have no shortage of people willing to label their opponents jerks in those types of debates. It’s not as simple as you might think.

And sometimes it’s more obvious than others. His admissions of guilt are helpful. If you haven’t read his posts in GD, they might enlighten.

BTW, who chose his username?

[storyteller0910]

@Ogre

This is a gross mischaracterization, and does nothing to support your viewpoint. I have seen badchad go into vast, detailed posts giving citations and elaborate reasoning behind his statements. By now, he’s cruising on reputation and the faith that anyone who reads his posts will be passingly familiar with his arguments.

You know, much like Polycarp.

Eh. I’m actually sort of bored tonight - wife went to bed early - so I spent a little bit of time reading through his posts, just to see if I missed nuggets of brilliance. I will not pretend to have made it through all 900 in an hour - after a while, it felt like Groundhog Day - but I read what I consider to be a representative sample. I stand by my characterization.

But if you disagree, if you think he’s contributing in a way that’s valuable to the community, read away. As I said, I wouldn’t want a banning in any case.

[Clothahump]

I suggest that everyone who has posted into this thread complaining about Badchad simply put him on ignore . That solves the problem.