Sweet! Do I get a t-shirt or a bumper sticker?
Complaint thread ensues, SDMB views increase, more ads are seen by the few that don’t block ads, profit!
Greetings!
I am about as laid back as a seriously sedated turtle, but in this case I really must raise my voice, if for nothing else than to be counted among the teeming hundreds here who find this whole thing bizarre.
Seriously moderators, have you lost all sense of justice? Are you all sipping chilled drinks while patting each others back exchanging misty eyed “I love you” 's ?
Is there not one moderator who has the balls (or, eh, the female equivalent) to own up and take a stand. Are you afraid of not being a moderator anymore? I cannot believe that ALL of you agree with this shit.
Come on now, lets try to get this place back to where it used to be.
Please?
I’d bet on that.
I meant, before things get out of hand.
That makes sense, but it seems as though maybe TPTB would want to promote some harmony too - maybe things could be ironed out without resorting to suspensions or bans. I don’t think this should be automatic for every obnoxious poster who comes along, but makes sense for a long-time member who appears to suddenly have a burr under his saddle.
That makes sense too. I still think it’s worth doing, and in this case may have been helpful.
In particular, linking to Snarkpit content is verboten.
Well it’s a good thing that he didn’t link to it. I did it. I got warned for it too.
The Snarkpit has content?
That’d be meatflaps.
Sure it does. It may be, and frequently is, retarded as hell content, but it IS content.
Jonathan Swift, you’re not.
Point being that a board without posters is like a forest without trees. Go ahead, open one (or any business at that) and run it like a fiefdom – good luck with that.
In other news, Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
That’s your opinion which happens to coincide with that of TPTB – personally, I find the counter arguments presented to be much more convincing and logical.
Just for fun, why don’t you attempt to respond to the query I was responding to with something that bears the slightest resemble to a coherent response? Do include chapter and verse used to make this decision, please.
Take your time, I won’t be holding my breath.
Affectaciously,
~NickInUpperLeftCorner
I disagree with your reasoning. Banning Seven was capricious, and wrong. At least some good is coming of seeing all this hamhandedness though. Others who would start and moderate a message board are seeing a prime example of how not to do it. This, coming from someone who isn’t a snarker. I see this situation as just another display of symptoms in the illness that has struck this message board. It’s a shame too, this used to be a great place overall. It still has glimmers, but even those are fading. 
The rules are too much like the daily tide, with rip currents that we common folk have no knowledge of. Or, maybe more like a line drawn in the sand at the edge of the sea in about the same place daily?
I had a humorous quote from a Tuba PM in my sig. Am I to be banned?
Obviously.
No, no, no. The Soviets were much more talented than our junior Stalinists (yes, yes, not really Stalinists, only a msg board, but it’s a fun bit of colourful exaggeration that does touch on the actual truth).
It is painfully clear that this banning was because Seven irritated the head Admin and put her in a bad light. Ban. The post-facto ad hoc arguments are nothing more than poor window dressing.
Pity we can’t have show trials, that would be more fun.
In any case, whether one likes Seven or not (or am entirely indifferent like me), this is a fine example of ossification and resulting thin-skinned capriciousness.
Allow me to be one more voice telling you you’re wrong. I completely disagree with the banning of Seven. (And I also completely disagree with your assumption that everyone else who hasn’t posted doesn’t care.)
To the Mods & Admins:
I know of no written rule that Seven violated that would garner him a suspension, let alone a banning. Marley’s responses look good, until you actually read them. Quoting a PM in your sig may be bad manners to some, but it goes against no rule that I know of. It looks to me that the Mods and Admins simply got tired of Seven criticizing them and got rid of him. I find that thinking contemptible. Seven’s complaints haven’t been without merit; he’s simply been one of the most outspoken.
You may notice that I don’t post here much anymore. After the big reorganization, I have found the atmosphere of the Dope to be completely different, and not one I wish to frequent. I hold out, though, for a return of a time when I don’t feel like TPTB mentally put people into lists of “can do no wrong” and “will ban as soon as we get the chance”.
Well, the usual is happening here, sadly.
Member of the Board gets upset with staff, and makes this clear, but not being so blinded by his/her unhappiness, doesn’t do anything fundamentally stupid enough to get suspended or banned right away.
Staff doesn’t really deal with it, either because they are too busy, or because they don’t think that the member has been enough of a jerk.
Member tweaks one of the staff members in a particularly unfortunate way (albeit one that does NOT violate this Board’s rules, Wombat :mad:).
Staff over-reacts, and bans said member.
A ton of posters come forward and suggest that this is a bad idea; suspension was warranted at most, not banning (and included in this “ton” are some people who usually are supportive of administrative/moderative actions here!).
Staff responds by circling the wagons and posting increasingly silly justifications of what they have done, rather than simply stepping back and saying, “well, ok, maybe we were hasty.”
I strongly suggest that the staff get together, and get this one right. As I have indicated to Staff, this should have been a suspension. Yes, he was being a jerk. Maybe he has no intention of ever returning to being a legitimate poster here. But the whole POINT to suspensions is to let temporary jerks know that they need to reform or be made permanently persona non gratis. If they wise up, great. If they don’t, then you simply ban them and get to say to one and all, “See, we thought so, but we gave him the benefit of the doubt.”
As it is, the only message is: “We got mad and kicked him out.”
I too have never heard of this particular rule.
But what seems most odd to me is that it seems as though it means there can be no rulebreaking as pertains to the contents of messages. If I send a pm to **TubaDiva **consisting of horrifying, abusive language, under what rule would I be admonished? And, likewise, were TubaDiva to send a pm to me consisting of horrifying, abusive language, under what rule would she be admonished?
Note of course that I don’t have any intent to do so, and this isn’t a threat of any kind.
Oh, and I find it interesting that it seems to be the newer mods that are responding. The more cynical side of me wonders whether we’re seeing the inducement of loyalty. 
I would much prefer a bald statment to that effect rather than all this crawfishing.
Crawfishing?
In any case, DSYEsq has a sane voice here as well.