Happy April Fools Day, Everyone [Moved to Thunderdome]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

*I'm* not entitled to redefine what happened?

---

Right. You do not get to decide that an event that, as far as can be seen, most people enjoyed, was some sort of tragedy for the community because there are a couple people who got all "hurt". I guess maybe your goal is to repeat it over and over until people just kind of take it for granted that it was some huge disaster that rocked the very foundations of Domebo (cue dramatic music), but there's maybe three people who were really upset over basically nothing, and maybe a dozen desperately codependent people who are terribly, terribly anxious to show how sensitive they are to your injury, and a whole lot of people who either had fun or are indifferent.

Why do you feel entitled to make a big stink about a tiny thing and ruin something else? I'm sorry that in this circumstance, you're the hurt one. I really am sorry you feel bad. But it just doesn't -- or at very least shouldn't -- mean that you get to stop everyone else from having fun.

And from seeing you around in the past, I bet you're exactly as exasperated as I am when schools ban tag on the playground. This is exactly the same kind of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I might not have expressed it exactly the same way, but I think for the most part Exy is right. I think one thing we all wanted here was a little bit of lightheartedness...not taking everything so seriously, not worrying constantly about saying the wrong thing, not being able to state an opinion without a 20-poster pileup. I feel bad that some folks feel hurt or upset over this prank, but I hope that in the end, the fact that it was meant to be amusement for all of us will mitigate some of the bad feelings, and we won't lose any more posters over it.

---

Yes, perfect. Except you need to stretch it out another 2000 words with a bunch of pointless analogies, then it will be just like my post.

Seriously, succinct and exactly right.

---

Why, thanks, Exy. I thought about adding some pointless analogies, but I figured you had it covered.

I forgot that I was going to add one other thing...McNutty was also spot-on when he pointed out that it IS April Fool's Day. You can't open your browser without seeing all the pranks that are going on across the intarwebs. If I thought for one minute that the mods were going to be pulling shit willy-nilly and we would never know when they're serious or when they're kidding, I wouldn't be happy, either. But I think we won't need to worry about it for another 364 days, and from that standpoint, I don't see any reason to feel that a trust has been violated. It's a silly social convention that we all indulge for one day a year, and feel grateful that it's not more often than that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

As for credibility, all the mods and admins have lost credibility for me because they didn't see the obvious fallout for how this would go down.

---

I would like to let you in on a secret. The mods and admins know about this "obvious fallout" of which you speak, and frankly, it's absurd. Days ago, I suggested the simple prank of just randomly swapping around everyone's avatars for a day (you can even see it in action here). At first, this idea was rejected for the sole reason that ... it might offend some people. No, I'm not joking. That's the ridiculous level we've sunk to: you can literally expect some subset of posters to be offended about anything. Take all those ridiculous objections into account and you end up with a paralyzing fear of doing anything at all.

Perhaps you should propose some non-offensive April Fool's jokes and I can shoot them down with convoluted ways in which people could be offended by them if they really tried. Sound like fun? It is apparently what you want the mods and admins to do. Or maybe you want them to not pull any April Fool's pranks whatsoever. I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

*I'm* not entitled to redefine what happened?

---

Right. You do not get to decide that an event that, as far as can be seen, most people enjoyed, was some sort of tragedy for the community because there are a couple people who got all "hurt". I guess maybe your goal is to repeat it over and over until people just kind of take it for granted that it was some huge disaster that rocked the very foundations of Domebo (cue dramatic music), but there's maybe three people who were really upset over basically nothing, and maybe a dozen desperately codependent people who are terribly, terribly anxious to show how sensitive they are to your injury, and a whole lot of people who either had fun or are indifferent.

Why do you feel entitled to make a big stink about a tiny thing and ruin something else? I'm sorry that in this circumstance, you're the hurt one. I really am sorry you feel bad. But it just doesn't -- or at very least shouldn't -- mean that you get to stop everyone else from having fun.

And from seeing you around in the past, I bet you're exactly as exasperated as I am when schools ban tag on the playground. This is exactly the same kind of thing.

---

That was sarcasm. The emphasis on the "I'm" was to indicate that I think Excalibre is accusing me of doing the same thing he's doing.

And I'm done with this discussion. I think it was a bad idea and I'm not going to change my mind about that; other people think it was just fun, and you're welcome to that opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

That was sarcasm. The emphasis on the "I'm" was to indicate that I think Excalibre is accusing me of doing the same thing he's doing.

---

I got the point. It's just not a valid point. You're trying to define some very minor internet drama as a Great Big Deal, when it just isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

That was sarcasm. The emphasis on the "I'm" was to indicate that I think Excalibre is accusing me of doing the same thing he's doing.

---

I got the point. It's just not a valid point. You're trying to define some very minor internet drama as a Great Big Deal, when it just isn't.

---

Seems to me that if the event has produced a 200+ post thread in one day, it kinda is a big deal, whether you're prepared to acknowledge it or not. Repeatedly pooh-poohing the big dealyness of it hardly makes it less so.

Since it's a handful of posters behind the majority of the posts, I think the post count alone doesn't qualify it as a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

Seems to me that if the event has produced a 200+ post thread in one day, it kinda is a big deal, whether you're prepared to acknowledge it or not. Repeatedly pooh-poohing the big dealyness of it hardly makes it less so.

---

Nope. It's not a "big deal" that a very small number of people are terribly, melodramatically upset over it. It still isn't a big important issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

P.S. A mod thinking that it is okay to reveal any level of private information is a Very Bad Thing. People send private messages on the assumption that that information will remain private. People set themselves to invisible on the assumption that they will be invisible. Disrespecting those boundaries, no matter how trivial the transgression, is, at best, setting a dangerous precedent and, at worst, a complete breach of the trust given to the people in positions of power around these parts. Frankly, I'm a lot less offended by the prank and a lot more offended that a mod thinks group privacy is not something worth respecting.

---

This.

Almost a day later, my initial displeasure with the joke (which was a March 31 joke for me, but that's been covered elsewhere) has subsided somewhat and the "What does this mean for the future?" has begun.

And it doesn't mean a lot that's new, but what's new is, to me, unacceptable.

It strikes me as beyond ludicrously bad practice for anyone in a position of leadership in an organization, volunteer or otherwise, to say things like "This person is online but you can't know that" or "This person is PMing me right now, and s/he is pissed" or "I don't care what you think, so if you're going, bye."

(I am aware that elements of those practices have now been registered firmly as Bad Things We Won't Do Again. I appreciate that. Other elements have --as far as I have read -- not been registered firmly as Bad Things We Won't Do Again.)

Should I think these things are ludicrously bad practice? I'm open to discussing the issue with people who think they aren't ludicrously bad or even bad, but only in respectful terms -- i.e., "I don't think they're so bad, and here's why," not "You're wrong and stupid and this is the only way to think about them." The latter quite proudly betrays a lack of respect I don't honor.

If someone I'm talking to tells me s/he doesn't care what I think, and I have no reason to believe that will change, I am probably going to stop communicating with that person. Really, the sooner I find that out, the better. Saves me time I can spend doing nothing, which I at least know in advance will not be productive.

But if the person I am talking to tells me this and is in a position of authority within a group, that -- rightly or wrongly -- tells me this is seen by that group as an acceptable thing to say. Been there. Done that. Not happening again.

I am not trying to threaten anyone (though intent and result are by no means inextricably linked), but that sort of attitude comes out again from anyone given a position of authority on this board and it'll be extraordinarily difficult to keep me here. (And in case anyone needs this much of a hint, "I'd tell you what I think of you, but oh noes you'd just run away in a huff" would similarly impress me. I am spectacularly uninterested in being told I don't matter. Besides which, if I don't matter, why respond to me?)

I'm not asking for an apology, I don't expect one, and frankly, an apology would mean nothing to me. Maybe this is just a good opportunity to discuss, to the extent such hasn't apparently already been discussed, what privacy/goodwill practices should be adopted/secured.

And the earlier that happens in a place's life, I think, the better for all.

iampunha, I will be speaking out of turn here but you are right. PM's should not be shared without permission and if someone is in stealth mode, no one on the staff should out them. I do think this is something that needs to be addressed. I think it already has been partially addressed by CRSP.

If you want this discussed more, can I please suggest you start a new thread on this concern in ADF and bug us until we address. If you are wrong, you at least deserve to know it ahead of time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

Seems to me that if the event has produced a 200+ post thread in one day, it kinda is a big deal, whether you're prepared to acknowledge it or not. Repeatedly pooh-poohing the big dealyness of it hardly makes it less so.

---

Nope. It's not a "big deal" that a very small number of people are terribly, melodramatically upset over it. It still isn't a big important issue.

---

And yet you've been one of the most active posters in this thread, melodramatically insisting that there's nothing to see here. Curiouser and curiouser...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by iampunha

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

P.S. A mod thinking that it is okay to reveal any level of private information is a Very Bad Thing. People send private messages on the assumption that that information will remain private. People set themselves to invisible on the assumption that they will be invisible. Disrespecting those boundaries, no matter how trivial the transgression, is, at best, setting a dangerous precedent and, at worst, a complete breach of the trust given to the people in positions of power around these parts. Frankly, I'm a lot less offended by the prank and a lot more offended that a mod thinks group privacy is not something worth respecting.

---

This.

Almost a day later, my initial displeasure with the joke (which was a March 31 joke for me, but that's been covered elsewhere) has subsided somewhat and the "What does this mean for the future?" has begun.

And it doesn't mean a lot that's new, but what's new is, to me, unacceptable.

It strikes me as beyond ludicrously bad practice for anyone in a position of leadership in an organization, volunteer or otherwise, to say things like "This person is online but you can't know that" or "This person is PMing me right now, and s/he is pissed" or "I don't care what you think, so if you're going, bye."

(I am aware that elements of those practices have now been registered firmly as Bad Things We Won't Do Again. I appreciate that. Other elements have --as far as I have read -- not been registered firmly as Bad Things We Won't Do Again.)

Should I think these things are ludicrously bad practice? I'm open to discussing the issue with people who think they aren't ludicrously bad or even bad, but only in respectful terms -- i.e., "I don't think they're so bad, and here's why," not "You're wrong and stupid and this is the only way to think about them." The latter quite proudly betrays a lack of respect I don't honor.

If someone I'm talking to tells me s/he doesn't care what I think, and I have no reason to believe that will change, I am probably going to stop communicating with that person. Really, the sooner I find that out, the better. Saves me time I can spend doing nothing, which I at least know in advance will not be productive.

But if the person I am talking to tells me this and is in a position of authority within a group, that -- rightly or wrongly -- tells me this is seen by that group as an acceptable thing to say. Been there. Done that. Not happening again.

I am not trying to threaten anyone (though intent and result are by no means inextricably linked), but that sort of attitude comes out again from anyone given a position of authority on this board and it'll be extraordinarily difficult to keep me here. (And in case anyone needs this much of a hint, "I'd tell you what I think of you, but oh noes you'd just run away in a huff" would similarly impress me. I am spectacularly uninterested in being told I don't matter. Besides which, if I don't matter, why respond to me?)

I'm not asking for an apology, I don't expect one, and frankly, an apology would mean nothing to me. Maybe this is just a good opportunity to discuss, to the extent such hasn't apparently already been discussed, what privacy/goodwill practices should be adopted/secured.

And the earlier that happens in a place's life, I think, the better for all.

---

Well said!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

iampunha, I will be speaking out of turn here but you are right. PM's should not be shared without permission and if someone is in stealth mode, no one on the staff should out them. I do think this is something that needs to be addressed. I think it already has been partially addressed by CRSP.

---

As long as the staff know not to share privileged information, I'm good, and I believe CRSP already covered that. I included it in my post largely because it was part of the going-forward process. But thanks for validating my understanding of where things stand :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by iampunha

It strikes me as beyond ludicrously bad practice for anyone in a position of leadership in an organization, volunteer or otherwise, to say things like "This person is online but you can't know that" or "This person is PMing me right now, and s/he is pissed" or "I don't care what you think, so if you're going, bye."

---

Sure, but that wasn't part of the April Fool's prank; and CRSP has already reprimanded Q.E.D. for doing that. These are two separate issues.

iamphuna, I agree with Jim, you are totally right. But you do understand that that wasn't part of the joke, right? QED was unquestionably out of line, and that shouldn't have happened. I can't speak to him being delt with, that's for CRSP, but it was out of line.

Speaking to the prank, threads like this one are really what we were intending to poke fun at. My hope, when we were planning this, was that maybe we could defuse a bit of the tension that has been building over the past week or two.

Yes, we pulled it off kinda badly.* Yes, maybe it was in questionable taste. But really, if we can't laugh at ourselves this place isn't going to be any fun in the long run.






*I think that if things had started on time and if we had stuck with the plan of having the mods split into two factions and start our own splinter boards, one supporting What Exit and one supporting Winston, it would have been a lot funnier, and maybe fewer people would feel so bad.

I hope no one thinks that my attitude towards the prank extends to QED's behavior towards Oakminster after the whole thing was over and done with. That's a different issue and is far more of a concern, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

PM's should not be shared without permission

---

Should not be shared by whom? Are you saying you think moderators are under some particular obligation to keep PMs private?

Without getting into the particulars of this situation, I don't think that's a normal rule anywhere else. You're going to probably have to create a very involved, weird set of rules about when a message needs to be construed as "secret" and when it doesn't. How much are they allowed to share with other mods? If you make a law that says messages are secret, what if someone sends you a message that, say, some poster has died? Do you have to presume that knowledge is to be kept secret unless they very explicitly ask you to make an announcement?

Or else the folks in charge can make it clear to the few people who don't understand the common sense idea that you're not usually entitled to secrecy in a message you send out to someone else. Mods shouldn't be revealing personally identifying details, and if a mod was routinely publicly mocking post reports or something they should probably go, but beyond that, when you're talking about a message someone deliberately sends out, it's a lot more reasonable to place the onus on the message sender to keep things they care about to themselves, rather than creating some convoluted scheme to decide when something can and can't be revealed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

And yet you've been one of the most active posters in this thread, melodramatically insisting that there's nothing to see here. Curiouser and curiouser...

---

Well, yeah. Longtime member of the SDMB, community that's important to me, and yeah, I would like to not add anything else to the pile of issues that everybody has to tiptoe around because one or two people will be offended and throw a big shitfit. We can't ever say anything about fat people. Or people with OCD. Or unemployed people. Or this, or that, or the other thing. Now we can't ever have any pranks on this message board, because one or two people will get upset, and instead of saying, "Well, sorry you feel that way, but everyone else enjoyed it" now the administration is going to be obligated to, what, apologize for having the horrible temerity to have an April Fool's prank? I'm sorry, but pranks like this happen on every other internet community. We can handle them here to.

Like I said, I like this place, I like many of the people, I don't see why everything has to be smoothed out to be acceptable to everyone all the time. I'm sorry featherlou was upset, but, well, people get upset sometimes, and they can get over it. I hope she sticks around. But, if not, the rest of us will probably manage.

Maybe you think I'm overreacting or something. More likely you're needling me because you want to stick by your wife (and if so good for you.) I just don't want "pranks" to turn into yet another item on the increasingly long list of things we just can't approach because someone will burst into tears.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NAF1138

But you do understand that that wasn't part of the joke, right? QED was unquestionably out of line, and that shouldn't have happened. I can't speak to him being delt with, that's for CRSP, but it was out of line.

---

Yes, I got that when he was told publicly by CRSP to not do that again :) As I said, better for that to happen now than at a potentially worse time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheFlame

Sure, but that wasn't part of the April Fool's prank; and CRSP has already reprimanded Q.E.D. for doing that. These are two separate issues.

---

1) It was part of the aftermath, which we are dealing with here.

2) CRSP has reprimanded QED for revealing privileged information. I thought he'd said publicly that he thinks revealing PM information (including their existence) is a bad idea, but I can't find the post now; maybe it's been deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

iampunha, I will be speaking out of turn here but you are right. PM's should not be shared without permission and if someone is in stealth mode, no one on the staff should out them. I do think this is something that needs to be addressed. I think it already has been partially addressed by CRSP.

If you want this discussed more, can I please suggest you start a new thread on this concern in ADF and bug us until we address. If you are wrong, you at least deserve to know it ahead of time.

---

Seconded, thirded, whatever it is. Mods shouldn't be sharing private details and mods shouldn't be blatant dicks to people even if they're complaining (especially considering that mod snarkiness is something Q.E.D. specifically said he hated from the SDMB and would not let other mods get away with).

Let us all remember that QED is not a mod.

I very much appreciate what he does for Domebo, but he isn't a mod any more than McNutty is an Admin.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

PM's should not be shared without permission

---

Should not be shared by whom? Are you saying you think moderators are under some particular obligation to keep PMs private?

---

In general, I share your view that you have no expectation that a private you send to someone else will necessarily be kept secret by them, but I think we'd be well-served by a policy that requires board "officials" to treat PM's as private if one of the parties is acting in a mod/admin capacity. That obviously involves a judgement call, and I have no idea what the conversation between Oakminster and Q.E.D. was in order to make that call, but certainly if I were in Q.E.D.'s shoes, I'd have played it as safe as possible and assumed that Oakminster had an expectation that it was private. I'm not seeing what's so difficult or restrictive about holding ourselves to standards that prevent this kind of disagreement from happening. It's common sense.

ETA: NAF, if you're responding to me, please read "mods/admins/people with access to privileged info" wherever I say mods. I was being imprecise.

Excalibre, I think you're wrong as to the etiquette of private messages. If the sender intended for the content to be public, they would have published it in a thread accordingly. Now, I realize that any of us are vulnerable to having our PMs made public, but that doesn't mean that no consideration should be shown. If I were CRSP, I wouldn't want posters to be afraid to communicate with Mods and Admins for fear the info will be announced on the boards.

Regarding the revealing that a poster was logged in secretly, that's clearly an abuse of power that really shouldn't be tolerated.

Even if he isn't a moderator, he's still a member of staff, hence representative of the board as a whole, and has access to information that regular posters don't, given that he has admin privileges. Abusing this information when not acting in an admin capacity isn't something I want to encourage, and there should be an apology from Q.E.D., IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by iampunha

2) CRSP has reprimanded QED for revealing privileged information. I thought he'd said publicly that he thinks revealing PM information (including their existence) is a bad idea, but I can't find the post now; maybe it's been deleted.

---

To my knowledge no posts where deleted after this thread got started. Some posts were moved to Room 101 this morning from 4 different threads and merged together for Truth and Beauty, but none were deleted. We do not generally delete posts unless the posts are duplicates or Spam and even then someone would usually have to report it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

ETA: NAF, if you're responding to me, please read "mods/admins/people with access to privileged info" wherever I say mods. I was being imprecise.

---

I was a bit. I just feel like I am seeing a lot of "the mods are..." or "TBTB are (something that pisses off the general board populace)" and the example of what is happening is then QED.

Again, I have no problems with QED personally, and I think he has done a lot of good for the board, but I don't like being lumped in with that. He isn't a mod, he is this board's equivalent of Jerry on the SDMB. He just happens to post here too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

To my knowledge no posts where deleted after this thread got started. Some posts were moved to Room 101 this morning from 4 different threads and merged together for Truth and Beauty, but none were deleted. We do not generally delete posts unless the posts are duplicates or Spam and even then someone would usually have to report it.

---

OK, well, I'm pretty sure I saw CRSP say he thought it was bad form (or at least not a stellar idea) to reveal information about PMs, including that one had been sent a PM, but I now can't find it, and I searched for every post CRSP made and went back to the 30th.

Maybe I'm missing something. 't would be fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CRSP

Even if he isn't a moderator, he's still a member of staff, hence representative of the board as a whole, and has access to information that regular posters don't, given that he has admin privileges. Abusing this information when not acting in an admin capacity isn't something I want to encourage, and there should be an apology from Q.E.D., IMO.

---

You are a good guy, CRSP.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

but I think we'd be well-served by a policy that requires board "officials" to treat PM's as private if one of the parties is acting in a mod/admin capacity.

---

And there's where you start seeing the odd rules. If I send QED a message saying "Fcuk you you tool!" is he entitled to share it with others and mock my misspelling? But if I say "Fcuk you you tool and also you're not a competent technical support person for the DoMeBo forum!" suddenly it's secret? That's where you start inventing all sorts of weird, dumb addenda, and people start quibbling over whether this counted under item 1c or 3b, and we're back to the problems people bitched about at the SDMB.

There's no possibility of PMs being kept actually secret because, uh, you're sending them to someone else. Inventing a rule where suddenly people are obligated to pretend they're secret is dumb; probably the rule will eventually be broken again, too, leading to more agitation anyway. Better not having people rely on something like that. That kind of thing is exactly why rules like this don't exist elsewhere.

I'm not saying it's nice to share people's private messages, but Oakminster had every right not to send a message to someone he knew didn't like him if he cared about keeping it secret. What about emails? Twice at the SDMB other people publicly revealed emails I had sent. Because, duh, I sent those emails to other people, who now controlled where they went. If I send abusive emails to a mod, are they obligated to keep them secret? How do we determine if my routine vulgar, disgusting, and sexually obsessed emails to What Exit? are intended for What Exit? the guy or What Exit? the mod?

Revealing what someone said to you in a private message when the intent of the message is private (and most people older than 10 would easily grasp the distinction) is being a jerk.

It isn't a difficult rule because we're not fucking morons. I'm going to let that sentence stand even though the ambiguity is bound to inspire a joke or three.

If someone feels that they just can't handle the responsibility of keeping things private, they can turn off private messaging and, perhaps, return to kindergarten where we learn things like "Don't talk about people behind their backs" and "Don't tell tales out of school" and "Don't be a snitch."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

How do we determine if my routine vulgar, disgusting, and sexually obsessed emails to What Exit? are intended for What Exit? the guy or What Exit? the mod?

---

I'm afraid judgement would be involved. The horrors.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

I'm afraid judgement would be involved. The horrors.

---

Well, it never seemed to go well at the other place.

But wow, I guess it's nuts for me to think people should be expected to exercise judgment for themselves. It's very important that we be protected from ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

But wow, I guess it's nuts for me to think people should be expected to exercise judgment for themselves. It's very important that we be protected from ourselves.

---

So how do you deal with the case where someone needs to communicate with the mods and wants it to be private? Can't be done? Can only be done via "report this post"? Should only be done with both parties in a sealed room and one should be killed afterwards?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

Should only be done with both parties in a sealed room and one should be killed afterwards?

---

If y'all are planning for next year's April Fools' Day yet, I think unveiling this rule change would be a smash :mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

So how do you deal with the case where someone needs to communicate with the mods and wants it to be private? Can't be done? Can only be done via "report this post"? Should only be done with both parties in a sealed room and one should be killed afterwards?

---

When would that ever come up?

I mean, you can have a special rule that says people are entitled to ask moderators to keep things private and that should be respected; generally, that should happen without a rule. Moderators shouldn't be, and won't be, revealing secret things willy-nilly.

I mean, the only plausible circumstance when this would come up is in situations like this -- someone sends off an outraged private message declaring their intent to leave forever and it gets shared because it's funny. (And, FTR, all that happened in this case was that QED said that there was a PM indicating that Oakminster really was leaving and it wasn't just a joke -- what is even bad about that?)

And when someone does make a ridiculous spectacle of themselves and then throws a tanty via PM, why do they need to have that kept secret? I mean, again, a minor embarrassment on a message board isn't that big a deal, and if people are worried about that they are perfectly capable of being responsible for themselves. I'm not in kindergarten anymore. I can cut with big-boy scissors and decide not to have big embarrassing fits via PM.

Just, once again, isn't the idea of this place supposed to be that this is the message board that doesn't treat us all like children? Maybe that's scary to some of you but I think I can control what I say in PMs. I certainly don't need or want people to make rules wherein it will be politely kept secret for me if I am a total jackass.

I just wanted to say that I am not against pranks (I find the one on Giraffe's board to be quite funny--but please note how it differs from this one or from one where someone is made the butt for all to point and laugh at--those I dislike online in RL). BECAUSE we have had this thread, I don't see any longterm repercussions at all for this board.

The whole PM thing is a bit more disturbing, IMO. We as posters depend on the discretion and diplomacy and maturity of mods. If I were to PM a mod here and say that I feel harassed by X poster, I expect the mod to perhaps give me advice on how to handle that or to look into the matter, not spray my concern all over the board. I just made that example up, but surely it's obvious how making PMs public can become problematic, especially if they are mocked by the very mod or administrator they've been sent to.

Let's face it, we've all been around long enough to know that if anyone sends a mod/admin a jerkish PM that that tendency will quickly show itself in the posting, and the PM does not need to be made public. I can't think of any reasons a PM would need to be made public--between posters or posters and mods. Aren't private conversations just that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

The original April Fool idea, as Winston explained it to me, was for him to jump into the McNutty thread about me in Jibba Jabba and begin attacking me as part of a meltdown. I was supposed to create drama as a distraction while the mods divided into factions and fought among one another. Winston was good enough to ask my permission, so if I had said no, it would not have happened. But I thought it was a great idea.

And then, suddenly, a majority of the mods who were supposed to participate went offline. No one realized this until the shit had fit the fan, and Leander had already fueled the snark board. So here we were with something like two mods available for a plan that had counted on half a dozen.

---

Just to clarify a point, I was never told I had a part to play in this little drama, and I didn't 'suddenly go offline.' I work long hours, and have no web access at work, so I didn't even know what happened until I got home last night and found my PM box nearly filled. I can't even figure out half of what happened because some of the threads have been deleted.
I'm not trying to deflect blame, but just making clear that some of us mods are just as surprised as everyone else at the shitstorm this created.

Just for the record, I liked McNutty's idea of random avatars. THAT would have been funny, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by eleanorigby

If I were to PM a mod here and say that I feel harassed by X poster, I expect the mod to perhaps give me advice on how to handle that or to look into the matter, not spray my concern all over the board.

---

If a moderator decides to be a complete asshole to you for no reason, which I don't imagine will happen, the fact that one particular avenue of assholery is against the rules isn't exactly going to stop them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by eleanorigby

If I were to PM a mod here and say that I feel harassed by X poster, I expect the mod to perhaps give me advice on how to handle that or to look into the matter, not spray my concern all over the board.

---

If a moderator decides to be a complete asshole to you for no reason, which I don't imagine will happen, the fact that one particular avenue of assholery is against the rules isn't exactly going to stop them.

---

No, but it might result in one of several consequences. The mod might get disciplined for violating the implicit confidentiality of the PM. If that doesn't happen, the board's members might decide to leave and start their own board where management is less likely to act like jerks (hmmm... that sounds vaguely familiar).

I'd love to live in a world where a collection of adults could behave in a mature fashion where standards of behaviour were simply self-evident without the need for any direction. But I don't -- none of us do. And so we have rules to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. I think it is self-evident that a message sent to another person privately, using a system called "Private Messaging" should be considered private. You seem to think that private messages are a matter of public interest and there should be no restriction on people broadcasting them all over the universe. Looks to me like the exact sort of circumstance where management would be well served to announce a board policy and stick to it. That isn't rule making for the sake of rule making and it shouldn't be difficult to enforce: "Thou shalt not make public that which has been revealed in private." That's just a good policy which doesn't treat anyone like a child and isn't open for interpretation. Hell, it could be included as a corollary within the "don't be a jerk" rule and not a rule unto itself. Insisting that private matters on a board shouldn't be considered private or contending that everyone should just play nice strikes me as rather asinine, frankly.

Incidentally, I'm not "needling" you in an effort to "stick by [my] wife." She is perfectly capable of defending herself in an online argument. What I am doing is arguing against what I see as a wrong point of view. The fact that I'm on the same side as my wife merely indicates that we have some things in common, not that I think she is somehow ill equipped to adequately deal with you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

You seem to think that private messages are a matter of public interest and there should be no restriction on people broadcasting them all over the universe.

---

You know, if you had an actual legitimate line of reasoning, it wouldn't be necessary for you to assign an imaginary opinion to me.

So, I know I'm right. You apparently know I'm right. Excellent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BiblioCat

Just to clarify a point, I was never told I had a part to play in this little drama, and I didn't 'suddenly go offline.' I work long hours, and have no web access at work, so I didn't even know what happened until I got home last night and found my PM box nearly filled. I can't even figure out half of what happened because some of the threads have been deleted.
I'm not trying to deflect blame, but just making clear that some of us mods are just as surprised as everyone else at the shitstorm this created.

Just for the record, I liked McNutty's idea of random avatars. THAT would have been funny, IMO.

---

I was aware of the original plan, but had to leave for work before it happened and believed that it wouldn't really be taking off until after I was home and maybe not even until morning. Imagine my surprise when I came back to discover it was already over with. I'm still not entirely clear on what all happened and don't think I have the time, energy, or attention span to attempt to figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

You seem to think that private messages are a matter of public interest and there should be no restriction on people broadcasting them all over the universe.

---

You know, if you had an actual legitimate line of reasoning, it wouldn't be necessary for you to assign an imaginary opinion to me.

So, I know I'm right. You apparently know I'm right. Excellent.

---

Imaginary opinion:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

PM's should not be shared without permission

---

Should not be shared by whom? Are you saying you think moderators are under some particular obligation to keep PMs private?

Without getting into the particulars of this situation, I don't think that's a normal rule anywhere else. You're going to probably have to create a very involved, weird set of rules about when a message needs to be construed as "secret" and when it doesn't. How much are they allowed to share with other mods? If you make a law that says messages are secret, what if someone sends you a message that, say, some poster has died? Do you have to presume that knowledge is to be kept secret unless they very explicitly ask you to make an announcement?

Or else the folks in charge can make it clear to the few people who don't understand the common sense idea that you're not usually entitled to secrecy in a message you send out to someone else. Mods shouldn't be revealing personally identifying details, and if a mod was routinely publicly mocking post reports or something they should probably go, but beyond that, when you're talking about a message someone deliberately sends out, it's a lot more reasonable to place the onus on the message sender to keep things they care about to themselves, rather than creating some convoluted scheme to decide when something can and can't be revealed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

but I think we'd be well-served by a policy that requires board "officials" to treat PM's as private if one of the parties is acting in a mod/admin capacity.

---

And there's where you start seeing the odd rules. If I send QED a message saying "Fcuk you you tool!" is he entitled to share it with others and mock my misspelling? But if I say "Fcuk you you tool and also you're not a competent technical support person for the DoMeBo forum!" suddenly it's secret? That's where you start inventing all sorts of weird, dumb addenda, and people start quibbling over whether this counted under item 1c or 3b, and we're back to the problems people bitched about at the SDMB.

There's no possibility of PMs being kept actually secret because, uh, you're sending them to someone else. Inventing a rule where suddenly people are obligated to pretend they're secret is dumb; probably the rule will eventually be broken again, too, leading to more agitation anyway. Better not having people rely on something like that. That kind of thing is exactly why rules like this don't exist elsewhere.

I'm not saying it's nice to share people's private messages, but Oakminster had every right not to send a message to someone he knew didn't like him if he cared about keeping it secret. What about emails? Twice at the SDMB other people publicly revealed emails I had sent. Because, duh, I sent those emails to other people, who now controlled where they went. If I send abusive emails to a mod, are they obligated to keep them secret? How do we determine if my routine vulgar, disgusting, and sexually obsessed emails to What Exit? are intended for What Exit? the guy or What Exit? the mod?

---

You have stated that the sharing back and forth of private information is acceptable. You indicate that from your point of view information passed from one person to one other person no longer meets the standard of privacy and therefore be shared freely with anyone (although you acknowledge that the sharing might not be "nice"). You say that you assume any information you send "privately" will be shared and that this has happened before. I'm not fabricating an imaginary opinion for you; I'm summing up your entire argument.

I missed the whole joke, so can't make any comment on it's execution.
April Fool pranks are part of the culture, but can nevertheless upset people (so should be carefully planned and executed). If they cause offence, an apology is civilised.
Moderators and Technicians on a Message Board have a responsibility to respect their members.

I have read the whole thread and feel strongly about Excalibre's posts in it.
He sneers at posters expressing concern, telling them they are wrong.
He says it doesn't matter because it's just a message board. It does. The point of boards like the SDMB and here is that they have a quality not found elsewhere. (If I want e.g. txt mssgs, incoherent ramblings, abuse and repetitive claims, there are plenty of choices.)
He should not have revealed information he can access only as a technician (about the online status of posters) - and (as CRSP said) he should apologise for that.

Private Messages should be kept private unless there is a good reason to do so. It's courteous.

I certainly don't think keeping posters like myself, Julie, dread pirate jimbo, eleanorigby, BiblioCat, Sarahfeena and featherlou happy here means Moderators have to 'walk on eggshells' as Excalibre claims.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo

You have stated that the sharing back and forth of private information is acceptable. You indicate that from your point of view information passed from one person to one other person no longer meets the standard of privacy and therefore be shared freely with anyone (although you acknowledge that the sharing might not be "nice").

---

It strikes me that this approach to private messages as not being private anymore because if two people know something and nobody else does, it isn't sufficiently unknown as to be private, ... well, does anyone want to start talking about his or her sex life without consulting his or her spouse? Because let's review:

1) Sharing back and forth of private information (how the person looks naked, what the person desires in a sexual relationship, that the people just had sex)

2) Standard of privacy apparently stops once anyone else in the world knows it

3) Share with anyone, though it might not be nice.

I'd be interested to see how many people who believe this is a fair way to treat PMs would consider posting the specific details of their sex lives in the manner QED posted the details about his PM from Oakminster -- without consulting their partners.

Because I can pretty much guarantee you that if I posted about my sex life without asking my wife, and my wife were on this board, I'd pretty quickly be posting about how quickly it had died.

Also, glee, the person doing the sharing of PM information was not Excalibre but QED. Excalibre has merely been defending it as not sharing private information (because apparently private messages stop being private once they are used, which -- if Excalibre is right about that -- means they are labeled rather uselessly and falsely).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BiblioCat

ust to clarify a point, I was never told I had a part to play in this little drama, and I didn't 'suddenly go offline.' I work long hours, and have no web access at work, so I didn't even know what happened until I got home last night and found my PM box nearly filled. I can't even figure out half of what happened because some of the threads have been deleted.
I'm not trying to deflect blame, but just making clear that some of us mods are just as surprised as everyone else at the shitstorm this created.

Just for the record, I liked McNutty's idea of random avatars. THAT would have been funny, IMO.

---

Same here. I went home with a developing head cold Tuesday night (Tues morning US time), thinking everyone's avatars would be randomized for the day. I then spent the next 36 hours in bed or otherwise offline, and came to work this morning to find 200 PMs in my mailbox.

Next time, better planning. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

So how do you deal with the case where someone needs to communicate with the mods and wants it to be private? Can't be done? Can only be done via "report this post"? Should only be done with both parties in a sealed room and one should be killed afterwards?

---

When would that ever come up?

...

I mean, the only plausible circumstance when this would come up is in situations like this -- someone sends off an outraged private message declaring their intent to leave forever and it gets shared because it's funny.

---

You don't have a very good imagination for plausible circumstances. How about when a user reports a post (which is, naturally, to be kept private, although I'm not sure what the distinction is in your mind; it would seem your ethics dictate that once that's been shared with any other person, it's fair game to be made public), then a mod replies in PM for clarification, and the user PM's back their answer. Is it suddenly fair game to be publicized? It seems that you think so.

Personally, I feel like you made your statements about private messages from the hip and are now defending them to the death, despite the fact that if you really thought them through, they are pretty impractical.

I think the point Exy is making is that there are some occasions when the PM isn't sacred.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this incident arose from Oakminster's announcement that he was quitting the board, as he was disgusted at the shennanigans going on around him. I imagine that what happened then is QED sent the aggrieved Oaky a PM asking him to reconsider, to which he didn't react very well. So, Oaky entered an off-board discussion about onboard matters, claiming he hates this place and the way it is run, and unbeknown to him, QED knows he is still lurking, seeing what sort of fuss he has created.

In this instance, I say "Fuck him, and his privacy!".

In addition, this whole scenario could be avoided if we had our own 'self-banning' button.

If you are that flighty that you'll click it at the drop of a cyber-fart, you probably shouldn't be on a messageboard, and for anyone who seriously wants to leave, they don't have to make a big song and dance out of it, although they are still free to do that to entertain the remaining readers.

Holy crap people get a grip! This place is quickly turning into crazyville, with far too much navel-gazing nonsense going on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by iampunha

It strikes me that this approach to private messages as not being private anymore because if two people know something and nobody else does, it isn't sufficiently unknown as to be private, ... well, does anyone want to start talking about his or her sex life without consulting his or her spouse?

---

That's a ludicrous reinterpretation of what I said. If you don't actually think that's an accurate summation of my point, you're being a dick by trying to sum it up that way. If you do, you're impaired in some way.

Let it go.

Please.

It's the (why must there be a) Morning After (earworm)

This thread is now about the Lambada.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Next time, better planning. :)

---

Planning is for accountants and actuaries. I refuse to plan. There's nothing better than a plan to take the fun and spontaneity out of something.

There. Put that in you sig line and post it.

Plans are what people make when they are under the mistaken delusion that they are in control of their world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

You don't have a very good imagination for plausible circumstances. How about when a user reports a post (which is, naturally, to be kept private, although I'm not sure what the distinction is in your mind; it would seem your ethics dictate that once that's been shared with any other person, it's fair game to be made public), then a mod replies in PM for clarification, and the user PM's back their answer. Is it suddenly fair game to be publicized? It seems that you think so.

---

That counts as a "plausible circumstance"? The reason it's not plausible is that there's no reason a moderator would want to do that. Even if we imagine that our moderators are acting out of deliberate malice, doing what you describe wouldn't really make sense. Are we now assuming, for the sake of argument, that the moderators have Alzheimer's? In that case, what purpose does inventing a rule to cover one tiny circumstance serve?

The only circumstance in which a moderator would conceivably want to reveal a PM (and let me reiterate that QED didn't) would be because someone sends some crazy Dear Domebo letter via PM (as Oakminster may have done here, although I don't know for certain.) The consequence of that being revealed is some minor embarrassment for the sender -- embarrassment that they brought on themselves. Your scenario above doesn't even make sense -- what, The Flame is going to get a report, she's going to ask the poster why they're upset, the poster explains, and then MWA-HA-HA-HA, . . . uh, what? There's no plausible reason, even if we assume she's malicious, for her to reveal something that is almost certainly not embarrassing. The scenario doesn't make sense, at least not in how you put it forth.

That was my point with "plausible circumstances". Just like eleanorigby's one above, where she PMs a mod to complain about another poster, and the moderator just spontaneously posts it all over the board -- again, why? Again, even if we impute active malice to moderators, the story stops making sense here. The only actual circumstance it comes up is if a moderator gets some crazy, embarrassing screed by some loser who is taking their toys and going home. The thing this rule is trying to prevent is a situation in which one user embarrasses themselves. But, like I said, not in kindergarten, don't need hand-holding.

In any case, it makes a lot more sense to make it clear to users that moderators should and will treat them respectfully, but PMs are not presumed to be secret (just like they are not presumed to be secret anywhere else in the world.) That way, a user will be able to decide what to send for themselves. People shouldn't be relying on the moderator to stop them from embarrassing themselves anyway -- say Winston Smith gets a potentially embarrassing crazy rant from a user named "Caliburn". Caliburn sends a nutty, invective-filled screed so insane that Smith can almost feel the spittle in his face as he reads it. He doesn't share it with the other staff or with the users, because of the rule. But he sends it to one friend. That friend posts it on the snarkboards and it gets repeated and quoted until Caliburn ends up fleeing in shame.

See? In this case, Caliburn's reliance on the rule is actually to his detriment, since the rule isn't going to prevent some moderator from potentially releasing stuff. Sure, the moderator can be disciplined, but the damage is done. So then: not only have we invented a rule whose sole purpose is to protect people from having to take responsibility and not sending crazy, embarrassing rants to moderators (since the usual messages about posts and whatnot wouldn't be interesting enough to bother sharing even if the moderator was malicious.) Not only that, but posters who rely on this rule instead of policing themselves are quite possibly going to face embarrassment. There's been plenty of cases in which private information has made it to the snackpit and been gleefully repeated, and whatever is on there makes its way here pretty quickly.

If a moderator acts maliciously, it can be handled on a case-by-case basis. If a moderator is posting people's PMs and mocking them, they can be fired. It's not necessary to invent a new rule to prevent one of a dozen dozen possible types of malicious behavior if we act under the assumption that moderators should and will treat users respectfully, especially not a rule based on a bad premise (that PMs are "private data", which they aren't anywhere else -- mods potentially may have private data, like email addresses of users who keep theirs hidden, and actual private data should of course be kept that way), a rule that would forbid basic things moderators do (so then in reality they will be violating it at their discretion) and a rule that probably wouldn't even affect the circumstance that inspired it. That's why I think it's a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

Personally, I feel like you made your statements about private messages from the hip and are now defending them to the death, despite the fact that if you really thought them through, they are pretty impractical.

---

Actually, my initial reaction was outrage too. But then I stopped, and thought, and realized that there's no reason anyone should act as though a message they send to someone else is sacred. It's the same with email. There's certainly no legal expectation that if I send you an email, you'll keep it secret. Or with a regular letter. (At least in the absence of some special circumstance; if it's information that falls under a non-disclosure agreement, that's different.) And, again, it doesn't work that way on other message boards. Shouldn't that, at least, be a clue that this doesn't actually make sense? If the kneejerk reactions of a bunch of posters here were actually representative of reality, why wouldn't this be standard practice everywhere, instead of one nutty, ill-thought rule on one tiny website?

One of the things that, to put it bluntly, makes me smarter than other people is that, after I have an immediate reaction, like "how dare you reveal a poster's personal information?!", I stop and think about it, and try to figure out if my reaction is justified and reasonable, or if instead it doesn't actually make sense. This one doesn't. I couldn't come up with some scenario in which this rule would actually help. Maybe if you try again you will be able to, but the last one didn't.

In this case, the only thing QED 'revealed' was that he was fairly sure Oakminster was gone for good, since people were speculating on that. Even if a poorly thought out rule is invented to require PMs to be kept secret, it certainly wouldn't rule out giving out some basic information about posters. There's been plenty of times on the other board in which a user contacted a moderator to say that, for instance, a member had died, and the mods posted an announcement. So obviously, in many circumstances, we will expect the moderators to reveal things that are sent to them through some private means of communication. This isn't any bigger in scope than those other things. I can't imagine how to formulate this stupid rule in a way that would actually forbid what QED did, not if the rule is going to permit the stuff moderators are inevitably going to do anyway, like posting announcements about users. The incident has been exaggerated (or even mischaracterized) in a lot of the posts in this thread, and people have been proceeding from a poor premise in order to justify the overwrought outrage, but in the end the kneejerk response just doesn't make sense when you actually look at it. The basic idea here (that private information should be kept secret unless there's some compelling reason to reveal it) makes sense. The problem is that the characterization of what QED did as some sort of damning violation of that principle doesn't work, as I think I have pretty clearly shown.

And does this rule apply to emails as well? If I email a moderator, are they also supposed to keep that secret?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glee

I have read the whole thread and feel strongly about Excalibre's posts in it.
He sneers at posters expressing concern, telling them they are wrong.

---

Well, Glee, no one else has managed, but maybe you can explain why a handful of people who are deeply, deeply traumatized by this event have the right to apologies and promises that nothing like this will ever happen in the future. Why do a couple people who are unreasonably upset get to ruin it for everyone else? Explain why that makes sense to you.

Excalibre, I fail to see any references to the Forbidden Dance in your post. And while you are so well spoken that most everything you write is a pleasure to read, this is all getting rather tl;dr.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

This thread is now about the Lambada.

---

Isn't that the...


Forbidden Dance?


Show us how!

You show us, Jali.

Come on ladies, feel free to join in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

Excalibre, I fail to see any references to the Forbidden Dance in your post. And while you are so well spoken that most everything you write is a pleasure to read, this is all getting rather tl;dr.

---

I'm sorry, it's just so frustrating to me that decisions have to be made so badly. It was exactly how it always happened at the other place; people would be upset about something, in this case the QED deal. And then a consensus just sort of develops, but it's a consensus that doesn't make sense. There's a simplistic emotional appeal here ("It's just outrageous that private information would be released!"), and the fact that this emotional appeal doesn't actually make sense in this particular circumstance doesn't matter, because people find it appealing. It's just frustrating that no matter how many perfectly clear reasons I offer; no one will even try to address them because people here love being part of a warm fuzzy consensus too much.

End result: we have a byzantine set of rules inspired by single events, the rules don't make sense (and thus are routinely ignored), and then people complain there are too many rules. It's just too bad -- this is a new messageboard, it's not necessary to proceed in the same dumb way things always happened at the old place.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

Excalibre, I fail to see any references to the Forbidden Dance in your post. And while you are so well spoken that most everything you write is a pleasure to read, this is all getting rather tl;dr.

---

I'm sorry, it's just so frustrating to me that decisions have to be made so badly. It was exactly how it always happened at the other place; people would be upset about something, in this case the QED deal. And then a consensus just sort of develops, but it's a consensus that doesn't make sense. There's a simplistic emotional appeal here ("It's just outrageous that private information would be released!"), and the fact that this emotional appeal doesn't actually make sense in this particular circumstance doesn't matter, because people find it appealing. It's just frustrating that no matter how many perfectly clear reasons I offer; no one will even try to address them because people here love being part of a warm fuzzy consensus too much.

End result: we have a byzantine set of rules inspired by single events, the rules don't make sense (and thus are routinely ignored), and then people complain there are too many rules. It's just too bad -- this is a new messageboard, it's not necessary to proceed in the same dumb way things always happened at the old place.

---

But Exy, no rules have been made about anything that's happened in the past couple days. April Fool's Day pranks have not been outlawed. As for the PM thing, there is a discussion going on here and the consensus seems to be that it should be a matter of etiquette and not an actual rule.

People are just expressing their opinions here. Board policy has not changed. It's OK.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

But Exy, no rules have been made about anything that's happened in the past couple days. April Fool's Day pranks have not been outlawed. As for the PM thing, there is a discussion going on here and the consensus seems to be that it should be a matter of etiquette and not an actual rule.

People are just expressing their opinions here. Board policy has not changed. It's OK.

---

I just cleared my post as I saw this on my submit.

Myrnalene got it in one. The only rule that has been added is for those on the staff not to reveal when a poster is in stealth mode. I think you'll admit that is a reasonable rule. I don't think we'll have a hard and fast rule on PMs. I don't think we need one. I made the mistake already of trying to pre-regulate on something and I was burnt by it and am now in your (Excalibre's) camp of less rules are better. Having fun should be kept a priority.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

You show us, Jali.

Come on ladies, feel free to join in.

---

I need someone to dance with. (Big Hint)

I'm trying to down the requisite amount of alcoholic beverages as quickly as humanly possible in order to reach a state where I can dance with you, jali.

It will of course mean I can only dance for 2 minutes before unconsciousness takes me, but it will be worth it, I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

But Exy, no rules have been made about anything that's happened in the past couple days. April Fool's Day pranks have not been outlawed. As for the PM thing, there is a discussion going on here and the consensus seems to be that it should be a matter of etiquette and not an actual rule.

People are just expressing their opinions here. Board policy has not changed. It's OK.

---

I didn't see a discussion elsewhere about PMs but people in this thread seem to be all bound and determined to make it a rule.

As for the prank thing, no, no one's made a rule but What Jim?!, being the extraordinarily nice guy he is, has already apologized and said he regrets suggesting anything, which just sucks. I just think it sucks that someone who was trying to do something nice for us all, and gave me and a bunch of other people a pretty fun evening as a result, now regrets it. Great, you've successfully made someone feel bad for doing something fun for us and, I'm guessing, think very carefully before doing it again.

Good work, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

But Exy, no rules have been made about anything that's happened in the past couple days. April Fool's Day pranks have not been outlawed. As for the PM thing, there is a discussion going on here and the consensus seems to be that it should be a matter of etiquette and not an actual rule.

People are just expressing their opinions here. Board policy has not changed. It's OK.

---

I didn't see a discussion elsewhere about PMs but people in this thread seem to be all bound and determined to make it a rule.

As for the prank thing, no, no one's made a rule but What Jim?!, being the extraordinarily nice guy he is, has already apologized and said he regrets suggesting anything, which just sucks. I just think it sucks that someone who was trying to do something nice for us all, and gave me and a bunch of other people a pretty fun evening as a result, now regrets it. Great, you've successfully made someone feel bad for doing something fun for us and, I'm guessing, think very carefully before doing it again.

Good work, guys.

---

"I will not be ignored!"

Aight, I've drunk enough. Let's shake it!

/passes out

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

As for the prank thing, no, no one's made a rule but What Jim?!, being the extraordinarily nice guy he is, has already apologized and said he regrets suggesting anything, which just sucks. I just think it sucks that someone who was trying to do something nice for us all, and gave me and a bunch of other people a pretty fun evening as a result, now regrets it. Great, you've successfully made someone feel bad for doing something fun for us and, I'm guessing, think very carefully before doing it again.

Good work, guys.

---

But that's What Exit?! He's an awesome guy but he would apologize for the desert having too much sand. ;) I wouldn't worry that his response is signaling some new regime of humorlessness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

"I will not be ignored!"

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

"I will not be ignored!"

---

Exactly!

---

Wut wut I tried for size 300, but I got this message: You may only use fonts up to size 200, so I guess you win.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

"I will not be ignored!"

---

Exactly!

---

Wut wut I tried for size 300, but I got this message: You may only use fonts up to size 200, so I guess you win.

---

Yeah, I tried 300 too! Why doesn't that work? Those jerks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Wut wut I tried for size 300, but I got this message: You may only use fonts up to size 200, so I guess you winYeah, I tried 300 too! Why doesn't that work? Those jerks.

---

I guess someone here might try "to infinity...and beyond".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Winston Smith

Planning is for accountants and actuaries. I refuse to plan. There's nothing better than a plan to take the fun and spontaneity out of something.

---

Spontaneity is on my list of items about which to inquire. Therefore, I will discuss it at the scheduled time.

("Scheduled" should be pronounced in that snooty British way.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

<snip> I was burnt by it and am now in your (Excalibre's) camp of less rules are better. Having fun should be kept a priority.

---

"Fewer"rules.

Too soon?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Winston Smith

Planning is for accountants and actuaries. I refuse to plan. There's nothing better than a plan to take the fun and spontaneity out of something.

---

Spontaneity is on my list of items about which to inquire. Therefore, I will discuss it at the scheduled time.

("Scheduled" should be pronounced in that snooty British way.)

---

Pardon me Sir Liberal.

Since it has been established (above) that my signature line does, in fact, exist, your use of my signature line in quotes is unnacceptable without crediting me for using words spaked by Winston Smith earlier in said above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by featherlou

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

<snip> I was burnt by it and am now in your (Excalibre's) camp of less rules are better. Having fun should be kept a priority.

---

"Fewer"rules.

Too soon?

---

Not too soon; but why is "fewer rules" better than "less rules"?

Hell, I am just glad you're still posting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cluricaun

This thread is now about the Lambada.

---

Isn't that the...


Forbidden Dance?


Show us how!

---

Holy SHIT! I've been sig lined!

I'M A FUCKING SUPASTAR BITCHES!!!111!!1 I roolz11!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Winston Smith

Planning is for accountants and actuaries. I refuse to plan. There's nothing better than a plan to take the fun and spontaneity out of something.

---

Spontaneity is on my list of items about which to inquire. Therefore, I will discuss it at the scheduled time.

("Scheduled" should be pronounced in that snooty British way.)

---

Those Canadian poseurs say it that way, too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glee

I have read the whole thread and feel strongly about Excalibre's posts in it.
He sneers at posters expressing concern, telling them they are wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Well, Glee, no one else has managed, but maybe you can explain why a handful of people who are deeply, deeply traumatized by this event have the right to apologies and promises that nothing like this will ever happen in the future. Why do a couple people who are unreasonably upset get to ruin it for everyone else? Explain why that makes sense to you.

---

See, you're doing exactly that again.

Who has said they are 'deeply deeply traumatised''?
Who has demanded that 'nothing like this will happen again'?

It's certainly more than a couple of people who didn't like the joke or the followup behaviour, yet you state they are ruining it for everyone else.

My point (made by others too) is that pranks can upset some people. What Exit?, who is a classy guy, has apologized in this thread to those that did not like the prank. No worries and the gesture is much appreciated.
Hoever your insistence on calling posters who disagree with you 'ninnies, 'people who freak out', 'emotionally impaired ', 'fragile', 'nutty', 'extraordinarily delicate ', 'there's something wrong with you ', 'melodramatic whining ' and 'oversensitive'.

And you finish with :'This is a great illustration of exactly why all the people who are agonizing over something so trivial need to suck it up. Either it's a desperate ploy for attention, or else it's a sign that you're really screwed up.'
Thank you so much. :x

Quote:

---

Originally posted by eleanorigby

<snip> BECAUSE we have had this thread, I don't see any longterm repercussions at all for this board.
<snip>

---

You make an excellent point.

I apologize to the mods and admins; I think was too harsh on you. I understand that your intentions were not to cause problems.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by glee

Who has said they are 'deeply deeply traumatised''?
Who has demanded that 'nothing like this will happen again'?

---

Several people in this very thread have made it very clear that they don't want anything like this to happen again. No, no one has said they are "deeply deeply traumatized", so forgive the hyperbole, but people have definitely claimed they were emotionally wounded by this, and yeah, that's an overreaction. Everyone has their emotional responses to things, and like I said earlier, everyone is over-sensitive to something or other, but it doesn't mean the rest of us

Quote:

---

It's certainly more than a couple of people who didn't like the joke or the followup behaviour, yet you state they are ruining it for everyone else.

---

I have so far seen two people claim to actually be really upset by the joke, Oakminster and Featherlou, and maybe half a dozen people who feel the need to show how much sympathy they have for their pain. It is not a great number of people who were really offended by this.

Quote:

---

Hoever your insistence on calling posters who disagree with you 'ninnies, 'people who freak out', 'emotionally impaired ', 'fragile', 'nutty', 'extraordinarily delicate ', 'there's something wrong with you ', 'melodramatic whining ' and 'oversensitive'.

---

The claim is that this event was so upsetting that it should never have happened, and people are owed an apology for being so upset. Why is it not fair to use those terms? They are not terrible people, but they are overreacting to something really minor.

I'm sorry, I know that the squishy mipsims thing is to validate everyone's feelings, and agree that everyone is always right to feel however they feel, and have a community where no one ever judges anyone ever, and that's fine insofar as it goes. But it's not fine when everyone else suddenly has to change their behavior to accommodate every precious snowflake's personal sensitive spots.

Scroll back up and find Sarahfeena's brief post, she explained it better than me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guinastasia

Whoa-when was this?

---

QED linked the post, it was when he left because enough people told him they weren't amused by his "pit rating" thing or his attempt to turn "fuckwit" into a meme that it finally clicked with him that, while he thought the whole deal would be his claim to SDMB fame, everyone else thought it was lame and annoying. I personally suspect he wasn't planning to leave, and was hoping people were going to spring up to beg him to stay.

---

I'll have to take a look at that.

Huh. I think I got more attention when I first used "asshat". :D

Quote:

---

Excalibre, there is such a thing as "an excluded middle?" You don't have to walk on egg shells, but you don't have to stomp the shit out of them either.

---

I can tell my mileage varies here but I don't think this is an issue at all. It's not "excluded middle", it's just something I don't care about and I kind of think it's counterproductive to worry about it. I can see I'm basically alone here, and that's cool, but I'm still right and you're all still wrong. :)[/quote]

FWIW, I thought the whole thing was pretty amusing. (And the fact that it started a day early I think made it even better-because it made it slightly more believable) BUT, I can see why people were pissed off-if only because of the recent events with the Dope, and that this is a new board, etc. And I don't think that means that they're thinskinned or butthurt or whatever. And I don't think you should be telling them that they're wrong to feel that way. Otherwise, you're no better than the jackasses over at the Dope telling people they're only complaining about the new rules because "you just want to say 'cunt'!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

PM's should not be shared without permission

---

Should not be shared by whom? Are you saying you think moderators are under some particular obligation to keep PMs private?

---

Well, yeah-that's why they're called PRIVATE messages in the first place. And this isn't the first time Q.E.D.'s pulled rank and waved his dick around, and I doubt it'll be the last. And no, he's not a mod-but he IS board staff. And he should start acting like one. I believe that was one of the complaints that people had about Lynn and Tuba-revealing information they shouldn't have.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guinastasia

Well, yeah-that's why they're called PRIVATE messages in the first place. And this isn't the first time Q.E.D.'s pulled rank and waved his dick around, and I doubt it'll be the last.

---

Hey, retard, pay the fuck attention: I did not reveal the contents of any PMs. So, take your me-too snark and shove it up your ass, you annoying cunt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Hey, retard, pay the fuck attention: I did not reveal the contents of any PMs. So, take your me-too snark and shove it up your ass, you annoying cunt.

---

Uh . . .

What?

The fun never stops!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

The fun never stops!

---

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

hugz

The success of a prank is directly proportional to the outrage over it. If no one was upset the joke would have been a failure. Six pages into this thread I'd say it's this one was classic.

Jali shall we dance?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guinastasia

Well, yeah-that's why they're called PRIVATE messages in the first place. And this isn't the first time Q.E.D.'s pulled rank and waved his dick around, and I doubt it'll be the last.

---

Hey, retard, pay the fuck attention: I did not reveal the contents of any PMs. So, take your me-too snark and shove it up your ass, you annoying cunt.

---

Well, I am glad you decided to come back with a different tack because you could have embarrassed those who defended you and said you are not off your hinges.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sapo

Well, I am glad you decided to come back with a different tack because you could have embarrassed those who defended you and said you are not off your hinges.

---

look it is sapo

sapo have you been in any knife fights lately

sapo how are the snarkboards

sapo are you popular and well loved there yet

The knife fight business has been slow of late. Estoy muy triste.

The snarkboards are fine, but you knew that. Your last post there came after my last.

As for my popularity there, I am afraid that my latest lack of interest on board drama has me off the radar. I guess I need to have less of a life and get back to business.

And notice how I didn't need to put your name on every sentence for you to know I was responding to you.

sapo luchemos con cuchillo

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Glazer

The success of a prank is directly proportional to the outrage over it. If no one was upset the joke would have been a failure. Six pages into this thread I'd say it's this one was classic.

Jali shall we dance?

---

C'mon Papi!

Sweet Christ on a hickory stick! Some of you people need to seriously get a fucking life. THIS IS STILL JUST A FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD!

A bunch of y'all are sounding like whiny little pussies, just like on the Dope.

Get a fucking grip or go join Giraffes MPSIMS board.

Unfuckingbelievable

I agree with klaatu. It's time to let this go.

I agree with BiblioCat. It's time to stop debating and focus on world domination.

I agree with beebs. I'm thinking a blitzkrieg type operation against Southeast Asia to grab the up-and-coming economies and establish a power base.

I'm with Harlequin. Panty raid on the girls' dorm at 0200 hours.

I'm with McNutty. If I'm not back in 6 hours don't send a rescue party.

We'll send beer.

Grab a cheap bottle of champers for the ladies too, if you can see anything under the £5 mark.

Oooh, a spender. You'll totally be getting some.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

Oooh, a spender. You'll totally be getting some.

---

I just need something wet to slip my Rohypnol in and Coca-cola's not much of a draw.

ETA: I just have to remember not to drink it myself, like the last time!

Yeah, that was embarrassing for all concerned. No, not really, just for you. By the way, your monthly not-showing-the-pictures payment is late.

Whoever dressed me up as a hooker is dead when I find them!


( I wouldn't mind, but ordinarily I wouldn't be seen dead in imitation leopard-skin shoes!)

So ivan is the one who took my shoes! I want those back, dammit!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BiblioCat

So ivan is the one who took my shoes! I want those back, dammit!

---

Hey, I didn't take them! Someone superglued them on my feet! I spent 8 hrs in casualty waiting to get them removed.

AND...to add insult to injury, I didn't have anything of my own that went with them.

I thought the black bustier that you were wearing in the pictures went well with the shoes.
The jewelry was a bit over the top, though. Next time, skip the pearl necklace.


:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

I'm with Harlequin. Panty raid on the girls' dorm at 0200 hours.

---

Fuck you and all your elitist friends!

We, who can't afford to board are left out in the cold. Some of us live off campus.

No love in the projects. ::tear slowly rolling down my face:: :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BiblioCat

I thought the black bustier that you were wearing in the pictures went well with the shoes.
The jewelry was a bit over the top, though. Next time, skip the pearl necklace.


:D

---

I'm not sure whether or not to forgive them for shaving my nutsack. I kinda like the look and texture now!

Do you want a feel? :) ( I'll be more like :D if you say "Yes."!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

I'm with Harlequin. Panty raid on the girls' dorm at 0200 hours.

---

Fuck you and all your elitist friends!

We, who can't afford to board are left out in the cold. Some of us live off campus.

No love in the projects. ::tear slowly rolling down my face:: :(

---

There, there! How about a nice cup of tea?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

I'm with Harlequin. Panty raid on the girls' dorm at 0200 hours.

---

Fuck you and all your elitist friends!

We, who can't afford to board are left out in the cold. Some of us live off campus.

No love in the projects. ::tear slowly rolling down my face:: :(

---

There, there! How about a nice cup of tea?

---

::brightening:: Okay. I'll drink a little tea with you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

::brightening:: Okay. I'll drink a little tea with you.

---

Are you suggesting I sit down and drink tea with you? I'm not sure if that would be proper. Let me check my English Butler's Handbook.

Well, I didn't see anything specifically referring to tea-drinking, so I guess it'll be okay.

Just don't be touching the small of my royal back.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liberal

Just don't be touching the small of my royal back.

---

To whom are you speaking? ::quickly pulls hand back just in case::

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jali

Quote:

---

Originally posted by McNutty

I'm with Harlequin. Panty raid on the girls' dorm at 0200 hours.

---

Fuck you and all your elitist friends!

We, who can't afford to board are left out in the cold. Some of us live off campus.

No love in the projects. ::tear slowly rolling down my face:: :(

---

jali, why would you want to raid the girl's dorm with those pigs?
You and I can go raid the guy's dorm instead. That will be much more fun!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

I'm not sure whether or not to forgive them for shaving my nutsack. I kinda like the look and texture now!

---

Waaaaaay more than I needed to know! :D

Quote:

---

Do you want a feel? :) ( I'll be more like :D if you say "Yes."!)

---

Thanks, but I'm gonna have to go with 'NO!'

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BiblioCat

I thought the black bustier that you were wearing in the pictures went well with the shoes.
The jewelry was a bit over the top, though. Next time, skip the pearl necklace.


:D

---

I'm not sure whether or not to forgive them for shaving my nutsack. I kinda like the look and texture now!

Do you want a feel? :) ( I'll be more like :D if you say "Yes."!)

---

Hey, would you like to volunteer to stay in this thread and not, say, ... viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1689 ?

Just asking.

:mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

I just hope Jeff saw my morse code double entendre before the thread got dioleted.

---

I saw some weird-assed shit, but luckily for me I don't pay any fucking attention to anything other people post, ever.

Now kiss me and get me drunk, lover.