what if the unicorn was tied up by a virgin so it couldn’t get away from the rest of us…
Please explain how Otto’s question constitutes " making rude remarks about the staff."
Someone upthread opined that there is something more going on here. I have come to the conclusion that I agree. Ed has either personal or professional issues at the moment. Unfortunately, he has made the unprofessional move of letting his issues impact his work. Normally I don’t think an outburst such as this should be a career limiting event, but Ed has driven away paying (subscriptions and ad viewers) customers today. He has also wounded a unique culture that may not survive.
I had recently come to the conclusion that I should post more, and become part of a community that I had sat on the edge of for so long. After today I will let me subscription lapse and contribute no longer. I will continue to read, and be logged in, for some time but I will fade back into the background.
Ed- I doubt you are reading this, but if you are: apologize and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. You were wrong, you know it. Perhaps it is time for you to take a break yourself or move on.
I’m not sympathetic at all and agree fully with Frank, alice, and the others who say it was a well-deserved banning.
Yes please do. I thought it was a legitimate question, but nobody in charge seems to believe in answering questions anymore.
This is America! Fortunes have been made and lost over the misplacement of commas in legislation. We are a nation of nit-pickers. Why do you hate America?
I’m still not sure on my position of the banning v. suspension argument. I posted that I wasn’t upset, but I’m not exactly thrilled.
As far as reasons for previous warnings and final warnings, I’d equate it to the 3 strikes rule. If you get convicted of stealing cars twice, then get convicted of robbing a bank, you’re still out even though the first 2 don’t relate to the third. (Other than theft, but I’m simplifying.)
Really? You think “being snarky to staff” and “making rude comments about the staff” are so similar that it doesn’t merit mentioning?
There was a case of an admin who broke the law by linking people to a member’s listing on a sexual predator site. The law says those sites cannot be used for the purpose of harassing an individual. She posted a direct link to his information which identified him as a sex offender. For that she only got a month’s break. Not a banning, not firing, but a month off. Luckily for her Ed wasn’t in a bad mood that day, she might have lost her head.
I agree pretty much completely with alice_in_wonderland and Contrapuntal here.
Did anyone over the age of five (but WHY dad?) really misunderstand Ed’s post? Does anyone really think otto wasn’t deliberately being snarky, and that he wasn’t just playing jailhouse lawyer to see how much he could stick it to Ed and show how much he thought Ed (and the rest of the staff) are just useless hypocrites? It seemed absolutely 100% obvious to me.
I don’t care if otto comes back or not, I read his posts here and there, but what the hell. He did something deliberately stupid immediately after being told not too, and paid the price. I’d have banned his ass too.
Plus, the rules about how not to get gored by a unicorn are clear.
Fuck it. The more I think of Otto’s comment to me the more I get pissed. Chalk me up as 100% supportive of the ban. Call it petty, but the comment/wish was totally uncalled for from someone that purported to respect differing opinions. Keep in mind, I offered my vote against the SSM ban in ND when it was on the ballot. I tried.
In this case, absolutely yes.
I think the intent of STFU about the staff and upgrades was absolutely clear. And I think justified.
Whatever. My skin is not thin.
However, knowing Otto’s history (and that’s as a poster reading what he wrote over the years - NOT a mod or some insider who was privy to private Mod convos) I read his post as TOTALLY dickish.
And you’ll note - other people asked similar questions and were careful about their wording due to Ed’s Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Super-Bad Day[sup]TM[/sup] and they have not been banned.
Seriously - if you don’t want to get banned for acting like a prick, don’t act like a prick. Particularly not when El Grande Poobah is in a pissy mood.
That’s not a rule thing. That’s a common sense thing.
I’m with those saying that this action shows Ed to be an egomaniacal, talentless child. Alas, the internet seems to breed them, and gives them plenty of opportunity to indulge their narcissistic cults-of-personality.
To be fair, it was not immediately obvious until that point that Ed was in a pissy mood. Up until then, beyond the “stop whining”, he’d been pretty reasonable.
What are you talking about? On the last page I just saw a post by you that didn’t seem to really be in support or opposition to the ban. Now you’re talking about voting against same sex marriage or something?
Sleeps with Butterflies.
That might be an example of…something… but it’s not an example of a mod being rude to a poster and so not applicable to this scenario.
Ok, I guess quite a few posters agree. I really don’t see it though. It didn’t seem to me that he broke the rule. And also I don’t see how it is particularly “snarky”. I’m actually not even sure that I find it more snarky than the first reply.
"Not that I am intending to make any rude remarks, and this is NOT, repeat NOT, intended as a complaint, repeat, NOT A COMPLAINT, but I am wondering if this applies to threads in the Pit or is it just an ATMB thing or what?
I AM NOT COMPLAINING, I SWEAR TO GOD. Just asking a question."
I mean, all the denying pretty much implicates that the poster expects injustice. Isn’t that sarcastically snarky?
You know, I have no interest, whatsoever, in remodling old houses. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
And I think I’ll go buy Ed’s book just becuse people here are acting so prickish to him.
Frankly if this were my site I’ve had shut the bitch down by now.
And if anyone wants to accuse me of sucking mod ass, they can eat the hot shit fresh as it’s coming out of my asshole.