[Discussion]- A Late Find re: RThurmont

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-06-03 08:43pm

In a quick perusal through the Minimods section, I found this gem, written back in February.

well posting this here as there are no other SMs, or Admins on right now.

a suggestion to put forth to the senate a possible Deragatory title for RThurmont, for his frequent morally bankrupt stances, equating finacial wealth for some as being a greater good then life. In Iraq threads, his posting on teachers, and now in the West Virginia coal mine thread, he thinks that interupting services even if there is an adaquate surplus just because people die is "Irresponsible" in the extreme.

I don't get into the Minimods section often and by the look of it that seems to be the norm. This may be late, but it brings up a legitimate toipic and I scanned through the Senate proceedings already and saw no notice of it.

Concerned individuals who are not Senators but reading this: by all means, PM myself or any other Senator and provide examples why RThurmont may or may not be worthy.

If this was discussed in a thread already but under a different title, then I ask this be locked and the Senate accept my apologies.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-06-03 10:42pm

I don't think it's fair at all to punish him for the teacher remarks. Number 1, he didn't make them on the board; he made them in the chat, and IIRC Ein posted in the HoS to stir up shit. Number 2, even then, he apologized for overgeneralizing and offered to discuss his ideas in a more reasonable manner.

I'm not familiar with anything else listed (except the coal mine bit, which was absolutely no big deal, IMO), but my first reaction is that he hasn't done anything severe enough to warrant a custom title. There are several other members I would give a custom title first.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-06-03 10:55pm

What remarks about teachers? I knows he's expressed some opinions about teachers in threads on the board which aren't inclined to make me like him very much, but I've seen nothing that comes close to earning a custom title. Unless someone has some more information, I'm with Joe: there are plenty of people ahead of him in the custom title line.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-03 10:57pm

To be honest, I don't think that RThurmond rates a custom title right now. I don't agree with him often if at all on most issues, but he hasn't really been acting poorly, even if he has been seriously running against the zeitgeist of the board. You can't really punish him for that.

Though I don't think that "Well, he didn't post that on the board" counts as a defense. After all, if someone posts rancid bullshit elsewhere and it gets revealed, why shouldn't they be marked appropriately? For example, if someone was posting racist garbage on the chat or another message board, they'd rate the Racist Donkey Fucker moniker just as much as if they did it here since they are Racist Donkey Fuckers whether or not they disguise it on the board. At the very least, they should have some explaining to do if they didn't want it. That doesn't mean people should report examples of people having an idiotic shouting match or search people on other boards to try and trap them; that's a shitty thing to do. However, I don't think people should be exempt from titling just because they did what they did on the chat or Spacebattles or something.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-06-03 11:02pm

Personally, as far as off-board behavior goes, I would make exceptions for really objectionable stuff, like pro-pedophilia remarks and racism, but as a general rule I don't think it's fair to drag a poster's off-board shit here and demand they answer for it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-03 11:10pm

I wouldn't drag peoples off-board shit here either and make them answer for it because I think it is assholish a thing to do. However, don't think that should it come out that it should necessarily be verboten.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-06-03 11:16pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:<snip>

While I agree with you in principle, having tracked down the chat log and read it, there's nothing there that comes remotely close to titling. There's nothing there, in fact, that he hasn't said in one form or another in threads on the board. The only new thing was some chest pounding about how complicated his job is, and hell, he could have been telling the truth, since I have no idea what he actually does for a living.

The chat is not SDN. We need to keep that in mind here. We have no authority over what goes on in there, and the rules here don't apply. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what happens in the chat--if, as per your example, someone reveals himself to be a racist, then we're perfectly justified in titling someone "Racist Donkey Raping Son of a Whore" because that's what he is. Same goes for pedophilia and threats of violence and maybe one or two other things about which I'm forgetting at the moment. Stalking is a special case, since what's happening is that one SDN member is harassing another SDN member, which is against the board rules regardless of what method the poster uses. Everything else, though, is pretty much not our business. Our jurisdiction covers bbs.stardestroyer.net and that's it.

As for the matter at hand in the OP, having reviewed the chat log and based on my own interactions with RThurmont, I see absolutely no basis for a titling or any other kind of disciplinary action. It's worth noting the original thread in the Minimod forum recieved no responses, and I think there's a good reason for that. And as a side note, on the subject of posting chat logs on the board to get other members in trouble: how about that doesn't happen anymore, on account of it being childish and dumb?

Post by **Kuja** » 2006-06-03 11:47pm

RedImperator wrote:As for the matter at hand in the OP, having reviewed the chat log and based on my own interactions with RThurmont, I see absolutely no basis for a titling or any other kind of disciplinary action. It's worth noting the original thread in the Minimod forum recieved no responses, and I think there's a good reason for that. And as a side note, on the subject of posting chat logs on the board to get other members in trouble: how about that doesn't happen anymore, on account of it being childish and dumb?

I am also getting tired of seeing chatlogs posted on the board in an attempt to 'finger' someone. I think things like Ein's cross-posting of a threat to kill someone important (see HoS) merits my attitude.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-06-04 12:30am

I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer, but I wasn't talking about little stuff, like jackass general behavior. I don't think that is any concern of ours and as I said it would be jack-assish to crosspost it for the purpose of getting people into trouble here. I'm talking about bigger stuff, like racist posting. That's why I don't think that people should have immunity in general just because they didn't post their garbage here as a matter of policy.

As I said, RThurmond, whether I agree with him or not, has never rated punishment. Not for the chatlog or anything.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-06-04 12:30am

The chat is not SDN. Other boards are not SDN. Unless someone is obviously a trolling peice of dogshit, their conduct in other places isn't the concern of this Senate. That's my view, and heaven knows I've seen the ugly, stupid, and at times, downright bizarre side of some members in private chats, other boards, and the like.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-04 01:13am

I don't believe RThurmont has done anything worth custom titling; while he may have a history of advocating stances such as those mentioned in the OP, it doesn't seem to me that he's done it dishonestly or too consistently; and the chat, as has been mentioned before, is beyond the purview of the Senate and SD.net staff. If RThurmont continues to advocate morally bankrupt positions and is not amenable to reason, or breaks any of the rules in arguing for those positions, then I'm all for disciplinary measures; however, as I see it now, he hasn't done enough of it to warrant anything beyond that.

I would also second the idea that crossposting from the chat (or anywhere else) to stir up shit should be frowned upon. I'm not beyond the occasional log posting in Testing for amusement's sake, but beyond stalking, pedophilia, or other extreme and personal cases, the chat is the chat, and bbs.stardestroyer.net is bbs.stardestroyer.net; and even when those extreme cases arise, they should be handled privately, I think, or at least with discretion, not broadcast to the entire board.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-06-04 01:51am

Surlethe wrote:I would also second the idea that crossposting from the chat (or anywhere else) to stir up shit should be frowned upon. I'm not beyond the occasional log posting in Testing for amusement's sake, but beyond stalking, pedophilia, or other extreme and personal cases, the chat is the chat, and bbs.stardestroyer.net is bbs.stardestroyer.net; and even when those extreme cases arise, they should be handled privately, I think, or at least with discretion, not broadcast to the entire board.

Very good advice. Moderators and admins have PMs; if you actually have evidence of behavior so bad in the chat that it warrants attention here, the proper procedure is NOT to post it publically. It's a bad idea for two reasons. First, there may be legal issues involved, and posting them in public exacerbates them (such was the case when someone mouthed off in such a way that he may have committed a crime in the chat, and then that log was posted in the HoS, which made it a possible crime now committed on the board). Second, it is up to the administration and this Senate to decide if off-board incidents (and on-board ones, too, for that matter) are rules violations and warrant intervention, not whoever happens to see and record the incident. We will not tolerate vigilantism, and publically posting a chat log and crying, "Look! He broke the rules!" is exactly that.