# Banned



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Recently a member of this group was banned, for the second time and seemingly forever. I'm just curious how others feel about this action by the moderators. The particulars in this case revolve around the question of using a MFD chart plotter vs a couple of iPads running chart plotter apps. The banned member offered up his experiences with iPads and iPhones and compared them with previous experiences with MFDs. Several other members, three in particular, voiced their preference for MFDs. Vigorously, I might add, citing specific deficiencies for the iPad approach; visibility, reliability and serviceability. In the tit-for-tat that followed the banned member countered each objection with factual personal experience and plenty of "documentation" to support his case. The tit-for-tat ended with some pretty severe criticism of the banned members person, very specific and very demeaning, and I believe, inappropriate. It is also interesting to note that some other members offered up their experiences and observations in support of the iPad approach.
To me, it is pretty clear that the the iPad vs MFD approaches are going in the same direction. The biggest difference being MFDs are very expensive and use proprietary charting information, while iPads are very affordable and can use no cost charting information. 
But that is not the issue. The issue is; are you comfortable with the moderators banning (for life?) a member who aggressively pursues his argument? Since an argument is a two way street (in this case and 3:1 street) don't you think the banishment was a little lopsided?
I will be interested to read your take on this issue of banishment.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

As someone who was banned recently on their first warning for a month (3 warnings are supposedly necessary for a month ban) on another site, I'm well aware than those in power can abuse that power. I was banned for an overly harsh post, meant to be a very forceful statement that everyone should at the very least understand the rules of operating a boat before actually leaving the dock. It has completely destroyed any enjoyment that site brought me helping others and I no longer participate nearly as much as I did.
I have no idea of this case and therefore cannot give a specific opinion, but generally I think sending a supposed adult to the corner for an infraction is overstepping a moderator's authority. Perhaps a better way would be a private discussion between the member and the moderator about the infraction and if possible, a private resolution without treating someone like a child.
I will say that I left CF many years ago because so many members there use personal attacks instead of a well thought out discussion of the subject of a post. I believe this is because they don't have enough knowledge to actually discuss the subject intelligently.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

Definitely NOT COOL! I give the two mods that I posted to a REP of ZERO. One was a PM from Donna, and the other was open questions to TDW, who was unwilling to comment on my questions. 

Ralph


----------



## arf145 (Jul 25, 2007)

I think the moderators have a tough job and they do it well here at SailNet. I've never seen any sign of _abuse _of power. ccrider's post caused me to go look at the thread in question and I see no abuse of power there. Obviously the mods have _used _their power in this case, but that is their job.


----------



## mikel1 (Oct 19, 2008)

Has Smacky been banned? I read that entire thread and did not feel there was anything there worth banning anyone over . . . . Please . . This isn't Sunday school . . .I've been here about 8 years now and am well aware of Smackys demeanor and tenacity, that's who he is . . all in all he is a net positive in my opinion . . .I'll miss his posts, hope he comes back . .


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I just joined this site after putting up with CF for years. I find both the mods and members on this forum to be WAY more cool.

People that have spent time over their know there is a core group of "cruisers", mostly American Expats living south of the equator who are rich and very very conservative and appear in nearly every thread spreading their wisdom. The problem isn't just that the core members are a bunch of bullies, their belief that they are always right is made worse by the fact the moderators consistently back them up.

This doesn't seem to be the case on this forum. So, although I value free speech, I can say this forum is run much better than the competition.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I've moderated a number of lists and forums over the years, and in all that time only found it necessary to remove one person. It is an extreme measure for an extreme situation. Most successful forums, like most communities, are largely self-moderated. A heavy police hand is usually self-defeating. That said, there are people who simply don't get it, and need to be smacked in the head with a 2x4.

I don't know the details here, so can't say how justified it might be. I just know it is not an action that should be taken lightly.

From what I've seen, I do think the moderators here do a pretty good job. It's a pretty thankless task, and quite frankly, I'm not sure why anyone volunteers, so I cut them a lot of slack. But a permanent ban is as harsh a penalty there is. I hope it is justified...


----------



## BillB36 (May 4, 2015)

I commend the moderation members for banning a troll. Thank you mods you made a good choice


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

I read the thread too, and unless there is something that was deleted I don't see anything that looks like it justified being banned for.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Didn't read the thread but the mods here are extremely thoughtful and reasonable. I know one of them personally and I wouldn't presume to second guess them. I know they discuss problem posts amongst themselves before any action is taken and that only after warnings except in extreme situations.

If a moderated forum offends your sensibilities might I suggest SA?

P.S. Who got the vacation?


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

BillB36 said:


> I commend the moderation members for banning a troll.


Smackdaddy was hardly a troll. Look in the mirror, dude.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

A few quick points .... 

Smack was not banned simply because of that thread. 

RTB .... where did I refuse to comment on your questions ? (edit ... see later post) 

Parole and/or reduced sentence is not completely out of the question.

I agree with RTB .... Smack was not IMHO, a Troll.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

I think it is bs...

I find that people who have no real power in life flock to positions of imagined power and try to be heavy handed. Examples being homeowners associations, condo boards, fraternal organizations, Vbulletin mods, etc...


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

RTB said:


> Definitely NOT COOL! I give the two mods that I posted to a REP of ZERO. One was a PM from Donna, and the other was open questions to TDW, who was unwilling to comment on my questions. Ralph





RTB said:


> One or two bannings (I don't know who the other was) is a start. So, point blank, I'll ask if you believe the smack ban was necessary? Yes or no? Is it good for sailnet? If so, what is your reasoning? I'll leave it at that. Ralph


Apologies .... not that I was unwilling, more that I didn't notice said question.

Necessary ? No ban is absolutely necessary so no it was not. It was however a course we chose to take.

Good for SailNet ? Debatable. Impossible to tell at this juncture. Perhaps time will tell.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I was on Smack's side on a lot of threads, but still thought he was too far "out there" sometimes.

In my defense I don't have much respect for any forum that allows me to be a member.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Damn, i didnt read that thread because I knew it would be a lot of codswallop.

I am very surprised the Mods have banned Smack. He is like a bit of the furniture here.

So the Mods is justa bout to get a PM from me! Stick up yur dukes cos I gunna fight for my mate whats-his-name.


Mark


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

tdw said:


> A few quick points ....
> 
> Smack was not banned simply because of that thread.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ. He was a troll and, worse, he was a bully. He loved to hear himself talk and argue, always pontificating how he was the only one who knew the 'facts.' Dismissing the experience of others, hundreds of times more experienced and knowledgeable. Drowning the forum with a barrage of repetitive drivel.

As someone noted, he very quickly mutated from someone who confessed he was a bloody beginner to a self-declared expert on all things sailing. All based on _one_ off-shore race he was a crew on, and some local cruising. And lots of copy-and-pasted pictures.

I sincerely thank the moderators for FINALLY throwing him out. If you want to be among the grown-ups, behave like it, or after too much child-like behavior you will be shown the door. I only came back to Sailnet when I saw he had been banned. I have better things to do than to read the drivel of some ignorant person who is overly impressed with himself.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Smack is a good sailor, class act, and a totally cool cat who always brought life and humor to this site, as well as lots of practical wisdom and experience. Banning him is just not smart. Maybe he had a bad day or a bad week. Considering his overall contribution to this site, WTF were you mods thinking?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Smack can be obnoxious... not enough to be removed. Of course he could have toned it down a bit but in the aforementioned thread... he provided sound information. Lifetime ban seems too extreme. 

More respect is a good thing... and we need more of it.

I don't know his experience... I do know some member have tons of experience and have been at this for decades and scores of thousands of miles. Opinions are just that... no one on a forum is the arbiter or truth or facts. But sure... professionals, navel architects, engineers and so forth probably should be listened to a bit more carefully.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Smackdaddy was sometimes more confrontational than I was comfortable with, but I always looked forward to the threads he started, and those he participated in. He wrote about interesting topics, and he always supported his opinion with facts or personal observations. And with the exceptions of when he let the snark overtake him (yes, he could be mean), he was a highly entertaining writer. It took a thick skin to argue with him, but it seemed to me that those who took his sometimes overblown prose with a grain of salt would come away unscathed. Obviously, not everyone agreed with him, but that doesn't mean he was dangerous, bad or even wrong. If you didn't mind that he always had to have the last word (no matter how much you disagreed), there was no problem. I think it was only those who couldn't let a Smack down go unanswered that got angry.

Having said that, I don't want to second guess the mods for their actions. They've been models of restraint here; witness the infamous Steel Boats/Brent Swain/Bob Perry/Smackdaddy steel cage death match that went on forever with only occasional pokes by the Mods to tone it down. But I looked at that Ipad thread, and for the life of me, I can't see why that in and of itself lead to a lifetime ban. It wasn't nearly as vicious as the Swainfest. The only thing I can think of is that a few members had finally had their fill of Smack, overreacted to what was a relatively minor kerfuffle, really blew up, causing the Mods to realize they too had had enough, and to issue the ban. I'm not saying that their actions weren't reasonable, just that I disagree (respectfully), and wish it hadn't come to this.


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

Smacky is banned?
Damn I lived for Smacky posts... 

SA is moderated as well, pretty much anyone who disagrees with the mods and does so openly get banned... then they come back as sock puppets.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SHNOOL said:


> pretty much anyone who disagrees with the mods and does so openly get banned... then they come back as sock puppets.


Funny! Once banned from stuffers, smack came back as churchlady. Fun stuff. Beware sailnet....

Ralph


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Having been banned once here for 1 month I feel somewhat uniquely qualified to weigh in. While I have at times vehemently disagreed with the moderators I do believe as a group they are fair. I beleive they make their decisions as a group after much discussion. I think they are well though out and measured . 

In order to allow normal disagreements between people there has to be respect and some sembelence of civility. After all the goal is to engage other sailors and not deter people from posting or asking questions or having opinions for fear of ridicule. 

This is where Smacky crossed the line. He often singled certain others out here and followed you from topic to topic not just arguing with you, but demeaning and insulting you. I was one of those singled out by him. However I was not alone as we saw in this thread. I did not ask the moderators to ban him, but I applaud them for stepping up to this bully. Some may see this as OK and you should be able to take the personal ridicule, but when it's directed at so many as to deter people from commenting, I guess that's where they drew their line. He never intimidated me, but I chose or tried to avoid threads where he was involved 

In terms of his knowledge, I found some of his posts interesting but rarely was it information I couldn't find after google searching myself on the Internet. I assume others who post can do that already. The difference in listening and following advice for me is I look for personal experience, not cut and paste Internet ads. Coming accross as an authority without the experience may cost others to unwisely spend money. 

Ridiculing Auspicious on his knowledge which he is a subject expert in ( electronics or delivering boats) the way he did was plain rude and disrespectful. Although it provided amusement to some , it really was unnecessary. He did not know how to stick to his points without the personal demeaning comments or antagonism. 

Lastly, this is not his first rodeo or site he has been banned from. Maybe there is a pattern here. Lifetime ban is up to the mods. But if he returns he should be on a very short leash. The first sign of disrespect should be the last. 

I applaud their actions.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Can someone direct me to the thread in question?


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SloopJonB said:


> Can someone direct me to the thread in question?


http://www.sailnet.com/forums/elect...d-chart-plotter-all-will-2-ipads-suffice.html


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

My experience in life illustrates tome that we are devolving from independent adults to diaper wearing babies when it comes to our feelings. Insecurity is running amok in our world today and people with no self confidence do not wish to defend their closely held beliefs because they fear that the truth will illustrate the fraudulence of these beliefs. Thus, we have heavily moderated websites that ban comments that they deem to be political, religious, or personal attacks because they do not wish to have some "offended" person being critical of them. Add to that the basic human character flaw of wanting to be the big frog no matter how small the pond and you have a largely variable highly selective ability to be important in your own world. I lean towards allowing _factual comments to be posted whether someone's finer sensibilities are offended or not. If an individual is truly a bully or a boor most intelligent participants will ostracize the individual involved as a troll and the offender will disappear. It only takes a bit of a tough skin...._


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

tdw said:


> Apologies .... not that I was unwilling, more that I didn't notice said question.
> 
> Necessary ? No ban is absolutely necessary so no it was not. It was however a course we chose to take.
> 
> Good for SailNet ? Debatable. Impossible to tell at this juncture. Perhaps time will tell.


Thank you for the post! I feel better now! _heh-heh_

So, on smacks blog, he says "PS - Those back-channel discussions that were purported to have happened previously with me directly - which did NOT happen - are happening now. I trust that things will be set straight soon."

Any thoughts or comments from the mods? I have not seen anything here or on smack's blog.

Ralph


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

I've always thought you should wear your big boy pants if you are going to post in the midst of an argument. If you are easily offended by personal attacks, then just read and enjoy the show. Also, you can ask questions without joining the debate. Many do.

a. You don't need to respond.
b. Many times I have deleted something hastily written within moments of posting it. Arguments are seldom worth it.
c. Never swing at a pitch in the dirt. If someone says something that is personal an illogical (they tend to go together) leave it alone.
d. Always think about why you are posting. To convince an argumentative person? You will fail. To inform others? OK, but avoid discussing the attack. To inform yourself? Good on you!
e. If you think someone is all wrong, ask them to explain. MAny they are right. Maybe you misunderstood. Maybe they will offer a terrible explaination and discredi themselves. Often, they simply go away. All of these outcomes are better than an argument.

Just like e-mail, only worse. forums are an incomplete communication, and yeah, we should try to be more polite than we need to be. A good reminder to myself!

Banning? I don't really have an opinion.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

RTB said:


> Thank you for the post! I feel better now! _heh-heh_
> 
> So, on smacks blog, he says "PS - Those back-channel discussions that were purported to have happened previously with me directly - which did NOT happen - are happening now. I trust that things will be set straight soon."
> 
> ...


Watch this space. :laugh


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Most if not all bans of active members, so we are disregarding outright Trolls and Spammers here, are as a result of cummulative sins. It is very rare indeed that anyone gets banned for a single incident. 

The other person who managed to get the boot this year was in fact BrentSwain. Sure it all came to a head in one particular thread but the carbuncle was seeking a lance long before that.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

tdw said:


> Watch this space. :laugh


Oh!!! I can't wait.


----------



## gptyk (Mar 20, 2013)

Sheesh, I'm gonna have to read SA to get my dose of smack? Signal/Noise is kinda lousy on SA. 

His ban from CF was totally unfounded (IMHO)
His contribution here was really good, if abrasive. (look at the post counts on his threads)
He often pointed out the silliness of being the "internet expert" on all things; mocking that by being the internet expert of all things. I found that very meta and funny as all get out. Lots of folks found it mean. 

That said, forum moderation is a thankless job. It's their sandbox, they can kick out whoever they want.


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

I believe the moderators were patient for a long time. On many threads, many times, there were posted advisements to keep the comments civil. Both Smack and Brent went into name calling and belittling rants. They liked to argue. There were times when I was interested in a thread, but felt like I had to wade through childish behavior to get to the adult discussion. Sometimes people say the damnedest things on the internet. Perhaps they feel there are no consequences. But there are. I don't know why a lifetime ban was used instead of a time out, but I figure that I will trust the moderators in that decision.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

tdw said:


> the carbuncle was seeking a lance long before that.


Reminds me of Peter Ustinov's greasy little hustler role in *Topkapi*. When he was a child his father had told him he was "Nothing but a carbuncle on the backside of humanity".

A very apropos comment on B.S. actually. :wink


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

ianjoub said:


> I think it is bs...
> 
> I find that people who have no real power in life flock to positions of imagined power and try to be heavy handed. Examples being homeowners associations, condo boards, fraternal organizations, Vbulletin mods, etc...


Damn I wish there was a YAWN emoticon thingy .....


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

SloopJonB said:


> Reminds me of Peter Ustinov's greasy little hustler role in *Topkapi*. When he was a child his father had told him he was "Nothing but a carbuncle on the backside of humanity".
> 
> A very apropos comment on B.S. actually. :wink


I suspect I may well have been plagiarising Mr Ustinov or did the phrase appear even earlier than that ? The Python boys used it in the Yorkshirmen Sketch and before that it appeared in the At Last the 1948 Show but they both post date Topkapi.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

Awww. You guys really banned Smack? Sheesh. I am never here anymore. I liked the old chat and I was never much for the protracted discord that makes for interesting forum posts. The forums and listserves are dying because of Fakin facebook. But banning Smack? Smack was an idiot and occasionally an ass but he was never more than that. Did y'all have a bad day? Seriously. Did you? There were some jackasses of a different stripe (outsized egos) who were trying to get SD banned for years . . . I hope that wasn't the reason. 
Small ponds small fish. :/ BS


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Oh for god sake, he was a complete troll. No good information nor experience, and insulted and demeaned anyone who disagreed with him. A bully by any definition. His third banning from a forum and the common denominator is????? Good on the moderators and anyone who thinks they have any easy job - try to walk a mile in their shoes and get back to me.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Major plus was he was a good thread starter. But once that's was done he was an obstacle to meaninful discourse. The huge advantage of SN is the relative lack of "mines bigger than yours" behavior. He proposed the contrapositive. Mines smaller than yours but better. He would state this when delivery captains, live aboards, experienced cruisers and others in the industry would explain why in actual use he was mistaken. In the entire time time I've been here not once have I seen him say "I was wrong - thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience and correcting me". 
This is the only site I now follow. Reason being not the knowledge imparted but the wisdom. Read stuff from Mainesail, Bob, the circumnavigaters, the long term cruisers, and the various skilled pros and learn useful stuff. Then there are some whose warm personality or humor makes me smile. Smack never imparted useful knowledge nor wisdom nor did he ever make me smile. However, he did serve a useful function as a thread,starter. I will miss that aspect of his presence here. 
Most of us are aware of our inadequacies but we muddle along. Most of us greatly appreciate any help we get or encouragement we get along the way. With sailing much of it is fear of the unknown and fear of dispensing limited resources (labor, time, money) incorrectly. Here he was a detriment. On one hand you had knowledgeable people trying to help folks not make mistakes- on the other a intransigent position supported only by insult. Risk being some would be swayed by his rhetoric.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

outbound said:


> On one hand you had knowledgeable people trying to help folks not make mistakes- on the other a intransigent position supported only by insult. Risk being some would be swayed by his rhetoric.


I agree with most of what you said, but not this part. Most of what is discussed on Sailnet is subjective; it's based on preferences and opinions - "what's the best way to navigate? Which boat is best for me?" - in short, there is no absolutely correct answer. I recall a recent thread where at least one very experienced Sailnetter disagreed with JeffH on the sailing characteristics of a particular boat. Both based their opinions on facts and experience, and both wrote persuasively. But they came to the exact opposite conclusions as to whether this particular model of boat tended to hobby horse in a chop.

Maybe they're both right, or maybe they're both wrong. The point is that no one got bent out of shape that Jeff and this other poster were disagreeing, or that some newbie with no experience might base a decision on - gasp - an opinion not shared by all.

The fact is that some people on this site were, quite reasonably, rubbed the wrong way by Smackdaddy and his confrontational attitude and style. I've got no issues with that. But let's not pretend that you were concerned for others -or that he was banned - because he was a "danger".


----------



## avenger79 (Jun 10, 2009)

huh that stinks, smack is banned. I personally don't have a problem with the mods here. Overall I have always felt they were fair. 

if I am not mistaken Smack's was one of the first posts I ever read here and it was a reason for me to come back. yes he was a gruff individual but honestly I thought everyone just accepted that as part of his personality online. I would say I also thought his posts generally held points of wisdom we could all use. they were argumentative and could be abrasive but they also made you think and question your own skills/goals/ etc. 

BTW I didn't read or know about the thread in question, so if he talked bad about somebody's mom well I'm not defending him, I didn't know. LOL


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

The simplest way to disarm an annoying bore, which is what Smack becomes after a thread has more than run its course, is let him have the last word and don't respond.

Banning is a form of censorship and should be limited to those that engage in personal attacks.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

It sucks that Smack was banned because he was entertaining but his behavior on that thread was boorish. I remember when this thread started and I wanted to add my opinion but stayed away because it quickly devolved into an argument between him and those who knew better than to rely on only one source of navigation.

When someone shows up drunk at your party picking fights and shouting over other opinions you ask them to leave and if they do it often enough you stop inviting them to your party. I wish there was a way to filter out his posts in that thread and responses to it so I could cull the information on a thread that was instead ruined by bad behavior.


----------



## mikel1 (Oct 19, 2008)

Yea know . . . .Anyone offended by Smacks posts could have just skipped them and edited their own reading consumption . . . . Who forced you to read something posted by Smack or anyone? You know . . . like skipping the pictures in Playboy and just reading the articles . . .


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I am very surprised the Mods have banned Smack. He is like a bit of the furniture here.


:laugherDamn... I wish I had said that!

Sorry to learn about Smack. He usually knows when he is dancin' close to the edge, and usually steps back before he goes over. I hope that it is temporary, AND that if he comes back he tones it down a bit. However, he does sometimes behave like a dog with a bone (Waterway Guide beats Active Captain as one example), and simply won't let a discussion drop, long past when he should have.

Eventually debates simply degrade into disparagment or contradiction. Before that point is reached, continuing the discussion becomes pointless. I have used the "ignore user" feature to keep me from going down this path on many occasion.

That said; I also believe that the mods have a thankless job, and they do their best to see that a level of decorum is maintained on the site. Some people seem to forget that we are all guests on the site, and we should behave accordingly. Think of it as a party to which we've all been allowed to crash; act as guests, or get thrown out. I know that the mods don't wield the ban-stick without a complaint, or reason, or debate amongst themselves. In every case when they have done so in the past (Bwalker42, Guiletta, and a bunch more) I have 100% agreed with them.


----------



## jsaronson (Dec 13, 2011)

It is too easy for comments to spiral out of control. If you want to be an a-hole, go to SA. The mods there put up with almost anything.

I did not see the offending posts, so I can't judge the apparently harsh response of the mods, but I'm confident they did not make the decision lightly.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

mstern;3639049 Most of what is discussed on Sailnet is subjective; [/QUOTE said:


> Yes! Hell even "technical" things on forums are 90+% subjective as they rarely stay on track past post 10. The best part is when a newbie makes the leap to an expert.
> 
> It should be said here that there is a regular group here that I feel liked to argue with Smack. Both Smack and them I feel had a need to "win". Smack didn't exactly get himself banned by himself.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

jephotog said:


> I wish there was a way to filter out his posts in that thread and responses to it so I could cull the information on a thread that was instead ruined by bad behavior.


I find the Blocking feature works well. No, it cant filter the replying messages but thats fine.
I don't think anyone on this forum active is blocked from me atm. But there is on CF. it works well.

And its not always the lack of knowledge that leads to me blocking them, more likely a difference in opinion that is so repetative that never reading any of their posts is nice 

With Smack, i didnt realise so many had a problem with him. He has never been rude to me. Probably because i have been around too long.

:boat :


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Maybe if he reads this thread he should be allowed back in


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

Well that was an interesting read. Nothing like confirming why people refer to this place as "Smacknet". His ego is skyrocketing now as he knows this love fest thread is blowing up here.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I just quickly skimmed through that thread that got him boosted and the only truly rude name calling I saw was from the people arguing with him.

Being a "professional" or self-proclaimed "expert" on something does not give them any additional powers over others. They can state their claim and back it up with data and evidence, but they cannot demand to be free of questioning and they cannot use their proclaimed profession as an answer. Particularly on something they seemingly have no experience with, or their experience is decades out of date. 

I did see someone actually contact the site administration and request a "vote off the island" button be added to the site. And others applaud the effort. This is reprehensible and beyond belief. Really? Didn't you spend enough time in grade school? The site moderation isn't authoritarian enough that one feels the need to have authority put in their own hands? And these people aren't bright enough to understand how something like that would quickly go wrong six ways to sunday? I can't express how disgusted I am with this idea and the people supporting it.

Gimme that button, I've got some clicking to do...

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Agree most posts are subjective but there hard some immutable realities which are not. Agree any one who doesn't trust but verify deserves the impact of Darwinism. Still think it's unhelpful to not respect opinions generated by those more informed or experienced than you.
Never understood the ignore function. Think it's up to you to not rise to the bait and try to redirect the conversation to sailing. Unfortunately all to often threads would deteriorate to a "this bird is dead" parody when the subject was of interest. I wouldn't have banned him but again he was obnoxious but not personally insulting to me. Rather hopefully this a "time out" and a lesion to others. Would hate to be a moderator and think we have awesome people in that function. Agree no need for "vote off the island".
?can we return to the scheduled program?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

outbound said:


> ?can we return to the scheduled program?


Isn't this the actual subject of this thread?:wink


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I dunno. I get the complaints against Smackdaddy's online persona (personally, I always felt that screenname was kinda dumb for a sailing forum), but at the same time I always sensed that underneath the online presence was a very decent guy who would be fun to have a beer with and shoot the $hit.

It seems silly to ban people from an online forum of adults absent some really outrageous comments. I've heard mention of an ignore feature, maybe that would help some people out.


----------



## avenger79 (Jun 10, 2009)

is his name smack on the other site as well?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

ccriders said:


> Recently a member of this group was banned, for the second time and seemingly forever.


Good. I won't miss smackdaddy at all. He was mean, confrontational, and a bully. He thought (and probably still thinks) that his opinions are of greater value than facts. In my opinion the moderators acted appropriately. In my opinion it took them a long time to come to the right conclusion.

I know two of the active moderators in real life. I know the third active moderator through intermittent correspondence. There are, I believe, two other moderators (one of whom I also know) who have drifted away a bit due to life issues or active cruising. In all my discussions with my friends who happen to be moderators when SailNet comes up they have been very careful about protecting the privacy of individual members. Accordingly I have some insight into process but not anything about the details beyond what we all can see from posts.

I can say with assurance that the moderators do not act capriciously or individually. They discuss things at length (possibly too much length) before taking action.

It is clear to me from the posts that have been made by moderators that smackdaddy was banned for a pattern of behavior and not a single post or thread. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back and the iPad v. MFD thread may well have been that straw but it was far from isolated causation.



ccriders said:


> The banned member offered up his experiences with iPads and iPhones and compared them with previous experiences with MFDs. Several other members, three in particular, voiced their preference for MFDs. Vigorously, I might add, citing specific deficiencies for the iPad approach; visibility, reliability and serviceability. In the tit-for-tat that followed the banned member countered each objection with factual personal experience and plenty of "documentation" to support his case.


Smackdaddy misstated what others, including me, had said. When he challenged the experience of others he ignored or again misstated the substantially greater experience of those who disagreed with him. Now I'll be the first to say that experience is not always everything. But facts are facts and smackdaddy's poorly informed and minimal experience that drive his conclusions does not mean his opinions are facts.



ccriders said:


> The issue is; are you comfortable with the moderators banning (for life?) a member who aggressively pursues his argument?


I don't believe that smackdaddy was banned for aggressively pursuing his case. I believe he was banned for being uncivil and a poor member of the community, for being confrontational, for being a bully, and for being that kind of person consistently over time. My understanding based on the public posts of the moderators, who I believe to be truthful, is that smackdaddy was counseled repeatedly and I know that he received a vacation previously. None of those previous actions by the moderators resulted in any change in behavior by smackdaddy. As others in this thread have noted the time comes when suspensions are proved to be ineffective and expulsion is the only remaining course of action.



MikeOReilly said:


> I've moderated a number of lists and forums over the years, and in all that time only found it necessary to remove one person. It is an extreme measure for an extreme situation. Most successful forums, like most communities, are largely self-moderated. A heavy police hand is usually self-defeating. That said, there are people who simply don't get it, and need to be smacked in the head with a 2x4.


I agree. In my opinion the moderators at SailNet have a fairly light hand. Like Mike, I have and continue to moderate a number of lists and forums. I like to think I have a pretty light hand. In the position of the SailNet moderators I would have acted more forcefully and early in the case of smackdaddy.



RTB said:


> Smackdaddy was hardly a troll. Look in the mirror, dude.


I don't think he was a troll, or at least not a good one. I do think he was a bully and in the end was a dangerous bully in that his _cut and paste_ posts and ignorance can mislead others into decisions that are not in their best interests.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Drowning the forum with a barrage of repetitive drivel.


He did post a lot, didn't he?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I sincerely thank the moderators for FINALLY throwing him out. If you want to be among the grown-ups, behave like it, or after too much child-like behavior you will be shown the door. I only came back to Sailnet when I saw he had been banned. I have better things to do than to read the drivel of some ignorant person who is overly impressed with himself.


Which raises an interesting consideration. Did the moderators consider the impact of smackdaddy on the participation of others? I know that smackdaddy was responsible for the reduction or complete absence of participation by other respected SailNet members.



SanderO said:


> But sure... professionals, navel architects, engineers and so forth probably should be listened to a bit more carefully.


"naval architects." *grin*



RTB said:


> So, on smacks blog, he says "PS - Those back-channel discussions that were purported to have happened previously with me directly - which did NOT happen - are happening now. I trust that things will be set straight soon."


I trust the SailNet moderators a lot more than smackdaddy. In smackdaddy's original blog post about being banned (which he has since deleted when called out here on SailNet) he said he came home to find he was permanently banned without notice. Aside from the previous counseling and vacation, if he did not get notice how did he know he was permanently banned and not just on another vacation? In my mind the credibility of the SailNet moderators is much higher than that of smackdaddy.



outbound said:


> Major plus was he was a good thread starter.


Absolutely true. I thinking banning smackdaddy was the right thing to do. I also think he was quite good at identifying discussion topics that really were helpful (absent his own follow-on obstacles to meaningful discourse). It is up to the rest of us to fill that gap.



Ulladh said:


> The simplest way to disarm an annoying bore, which is what Smack becomes after a thread has more than run its course, is let him have the last word and don't respond.
> 
> Banning is a form of censorship and should be limited to those that engage in personal attacks.


I can give you a specific example. I put smackdaddy on my ignore list. He continued to address me directly (other members would send me excerpts). Sometimes the only way to deal with an uncivil and confrontational bully is with extreme measures.

Banning smackdaddy was a good call by the moderators. SailNet will be better for his absence.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Blander isn't better.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> I did see someone actually contact the site administration and request a "vote off the island" button be added to the site. And others applaud the effort.


That would probably be me. I didn't contact site administration.

I was thinking along the lines of the thumbs up button (like a 'Like') and a thumbs down button such as YouTube uses. "Vote off the island" was the way I chose to express the idea.

In my personal opinion the thumbs up only approach of SailNet and Facebook etc. is part of the current US culture of "everyone gets a blue ribbon." YMMV.

I don't think that is really relevant to banning smackdaddy.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I've had some warnings. TDW really does not like me. I think Jeff has been instrumental keeping me here. I am banned for life on CF over an extremely harsh exchange. I wear that banishment like a crown!

Smackers is having the time of his life over on CRUISING ANARCHY. He is in his element there.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I have to say that this entire thread reminds me of this;





And now, back to toiling in the filth...


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I've never had a personal run in with Smacky, but I did avoid threads he became invested in. Most seemed to be babble fests anyway, and if they weren't, he had a way of dragging things down. I did find him a boor, a bully and someone too-full of himself; not the kind of person I would normally hang out with. But I also found him easy to ignore him. I didn't really take much of what he said seriously.

Banning, or banishing, is a serious sentence. It's also the ultimate punishment a community can hand out. I'm rarely in favour of officially silencing anyone ... ignoring them usually sends the right message. But for those who can't hear, won't listen, and refuse to learn, banishment is really the only thing a community can do.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> That would probably be me. I didn't contact site administration.
> 
> I was thinking along the lines of the thumbs up button (like a 'Like') and a thumbs down button such as YouTube uses. "Vote off the island" was the way I chose to express the idea.
> 
> ...


My bad. Here are your actual words: _"I have asked the mods to ask admin to ask tech for a "vote off the island" button. You need to go."_

Seems to me that is directly relevant to banning someone, speaks to one's need for authoritarianism, and I can't help but interpret the meaning very much differently than your above description of a simple "don't like" button to complement the "like" button.

I respect you Dave, but find this in particular to be reprehensible thinking and action, and a dangerous path. I can't imagine any way such an implementation could not go wrong and make this place one I could no longer tolerate.

I'm not arguing for no control, but rule of mob clothed as "egalitarian" and a cure for "the current culture" (whatever that is) is overboard.

And I saw nothing in that thread that should have produced the results it did. I saw thin skins and taking offense for sure, which is part of the current US culture of "I'm a victim".  Granted, I read it quickly. Granted, I am relatively new here and not aware of past threads.

Mark


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

SVAuspicious,
I believe you inflate your opinion to fact, and that is what he argued by pointing to errors in your statements about iPads.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> My bad. Here are your actual words: _"I have asked the mods to ask admin to ask tech for a "vote off the island" button. You need to go."_


Mark,

I have great respect for you. Your well-based, well-reasoned disagreement with me about VHF-AIS splitters is one reason. You described my position on splitters as out-dated and backed it up with verifiable facts (good for you). I accepted your position, verified it, and am now working on testing to see what the real impact may be (good for me). Open minds and the scientific method.

In no way do I suggest that we should all sit around and sing Kumbaya. I do object to high volume opinions being confused with facts. I think smackdaddy was a mean-spirited bully whose shrieking was a danger to those who read his posts and made decisions on the basis of what he said. That's why I thought and think that it was past time for him to go. While he was not evil per se he did reduce the benefits of the SailNet community. His positive contributions simply did not balance his negativity and ignorance. That assessment is of course a judgment which is obviously opinion. Other reasonable people can look at the same data and come to a different conclusion. Yet other people come to a conclusion first and--like smackdaddy--cherry pick data and spout opinion to support that conclusion.

With respect to authoritarianism, many years ago when I was president of a condominium association (a position I ran for and held for many years specifically to protect my investment) I was often asked to add a rule for one issue or another. I chaired a homeowner working group that reviewed our covenants and homeowner's rules and we passed a rewrite that reduced the rules by over 60%. I share this story to reflect my strong belief that civility is more important than rules. Treating people decently and asking them to do the same for others is good. Smackdaddy didn't treat people who disagreed with him with respect. "Off the island!" *grin*

I'll be the first to admit that I have a somewhat warped sense of humor. That is at the root of the "vote off the island" button idea. If voted off, I would have gone quietly. *grin* In fact when I made the suggestion I promised that very thing to the moderators.

It should be apparent that smackdaddy was not banned for one post or one thread. It is the pattern of his behavior over an extended period and many posts and threads that caught up with him.

At the end of the day the job of the moderators is to apply judgment to the facts. Other people could make other choices (more moderation at CF and less at SA for example). At the end of the day people participate in communities they find comfortable. I'm a member of CF, SA, SSCA, SBO, and a ton of email lists and Facebook groups. These days I like SN best and so spend more time here. That can change with time for me and every other member.

Again, there is always a straw that breaks the camel's back. It is not the straw that is causal, it is all the straws that came before.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

I find it sad and somewhat amusing that Smack seems to have become that which he resisted and ridiculed when he first got here- Sailingdog.
I'll leave you gentle readers to search for that username's posts in the archives. They are still there.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I respect my dog. The rest of you are suspicious. I am always leary of guys who volunteer to sit in judgement of others. I think some of them are compensating for the fact that their wives regularly beat them up.
I think this place is well run. Seems to be a good balance of opinions here. I have deserved the warnings I have received. I'm not sure if they qualified a formal "warnings" though.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

Ajax_MD said:


> I find it sad and somewhat amusing that Smack seems to have become that which he resisted and ridiculed when he first got here- Sailingdog.
> I'll leave you gentle readers to search for that username's posts in the archives. They are still there.


I followed the suggested links about "banned" at the bottom of this thread and came up with this.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/off-topic/61148-my-guess-ill-banned.html

The first two posts are a must read.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

tdw said:


> Damn I wish there was a YAWN emoticon thingy .....


I agree with you 100%. I can only hope and wait for the day that these types of people have to face reality.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

bobperry said:


> I am always leary of guys who volunteer to sit in judgement of others.


So Bob, how do you feel about politicians? :captain:

notice I've made no judgement about politicians as to whether or not they really are low life judhemental scum


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

... and Pickle's Last Post: Looking for Nice "Liveabord" Marina in Naples Fl area.. *07-07-2010 *03:08 PM

Like many who have are warned, he had nuthin' to contribute to *SAIL*Net and left.

I also weighed in on that thread in post #9... (now I gotta go unsub again.)


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

I'm sure Smack was a decent guy but it's not uncommon that the Internet side of people isn't exactly the same as the individual however it's the internet guy you have to deal with.


----------



## avenger79 (Jun 10, 2009)

bobperry said:


> I've had some warnings. TDW really does not like me. I think Jeff has been instrumental keeping me here. I am banned for life on CF over an extremely harsh exchange. I wear that banishment like a crown!
> 
> Smackers is having the time of his life over on CRUISING ANARCHY. He is in his element there.


thanks


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

robert sailor said:


> ............. it's not uncommon that the Internet side of people isn't exactly the same as the individual


I never have accepted that. I always figure that if you an ******* on line you are an ******* in person. The only difference is that the online ******* is freer to be who they are, while the in person ******* may have some restraint


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

the following is a test of misplaced word editing

anus = *******


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Don0190 said:


> the following is a test of misplaced word editing
> 
> anus = *******


that's what I suspected, it's the word not the meaning

sorry for the drift but this thread seemed OK for such a thing


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

I just read a few pages of the iPad vs Plotter thread... Typical Modernist vs Traditionalist thread. Modernist says something and then the Traditionalists heave in and suggest only their experience is relevant. But technology changes so fast.

I have learned that those threads are to be avoided.
Its only death that modernizes the world. When the Tadraditionalsts finally die off the Modern is then Traditional.

Why it can go on for 250 posts over 2 months is beyond me! That must be the point: It takes 2 to Tango. It takes 2 arguers. 1 person dont make an argument.

So the others in that thread should take responsability too.

As for bullying... Yes, thats not acceptable.:eek


BTW talking of technology changing fast... When i first came on here and CF lots of old buggers would say things like EPIRBs were stupid because a REAL seaman gets himself out of it or dies.
There were threads about liferafts being stupid too, and HF radio because calling for assistance puts someone elses life at risk, so the seaman should just quietly die...
And that was only 8 years ago!

So a decade does change things... Those stupid old fools are either in a nursing home or living their advice on Cloud 9

In being respectful, and I am often at fault, is letting people exist that we think are idiots. Taking the high moral ground can just be, occasionally, to shut up... Especially at post 250...
For some people the forum is all they have. Bannng them hurts. Hurting them hurts.


Mark


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> I trust the SailNet moderators a lot more than smackdaddy. In smackdaddy's original blog post about being banned (which he has since deleted when called out here on SailNet) he said he came home to find he was permanently banned without notice.


Sorry, you are wrong. Forgive me for pasting the link, but since you can't find it.....The Banstick Swings Again! | SmackTalk!

Ralph


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Brent Swain is getting an earful over on CRUISING ANARCHY. He never changes. He never learns. He has run into a wall of ridicule on CA but he sticks around. He'd have to kill someone to get banned on CA. The guy is stupid but he is entertaining and he keeps the pot stirred.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RTB said:


> Sorry, you are wrong. Forgive me for pasting the link, but since you can't find it.....


There it is. It was there, then it wasn't, and now it is again. It is edited from what I remember the initial post to be.

Since I expect smackdaddy is following this discussion look quickly to note the date on the current version is January 5, 2015 instead of August 22 (or whatever it was), 2016. Isn't that interesting? Continuing to rewrite history.

The moderators said they counseled him and he ignored them. I believe the moderators. The moderators say they told him he was banned. I believe the moderators.

Smackdaddy has a pattern of behavior of making things up. The moderators do not. I stand with the moderators.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> There it is. It was there, then it wasn't, and now it is again. It is edited from what I remember the initial post to be.


Wrong again. Same content. He just moved it from the cover page to Forum World in Categories. Smack was right - you aren't very good at this.

Ralph


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I just read a few pages of the iPad vs Plotter thread... Typical Modernist vs Traditionalist thread. Modernist says something and then the Traditionalists heave in and suggest only their experience is relevant. But technology changes so fast.


It's a funny day when someone eschewing GPS, MFD, AIS, and radar is labeled as being a traditionalist.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Isn't that the exact definition in this context?

Mark


----------



## sailpower (Jun 28, 2008)

tdw said:


> Damn I wish there was a YAWN emoticon thingy .....


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/blue-face/feeling-sleepy-smiley-emoticon.png

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/smiley-face-yawning.gif


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

BillB36 said:


> I commend the moderation members for banning a troll. Thank you mods you made a good choice


I call that bold talk for 14 post, 0 thanks newbie.

Are you always that quick to form an opinion?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RTB said:


> Wrong again. Same content. He just moved it from the cover page to Forum World in Categories. Smack was right - you aren't very good at this.


I am right again. That post is edited.

No comment on the date change or is that just too inconvenient for your preconception?

No comment on how smackdaddy learned he was permanently banned if, as he still maintains, he was not notified?

The new/edited post doesn't show up (at the moment) on the index on the left side of smackdaddy's blog. It did originally.

For someone who reportedly makes his living working on websites smackdaddy isn't very good at covering his tracks.

None of that matters. The moderators concluded that SailNet is better off without smackdaddy. The fact that I agree and that you do not is not relevant.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

You can be sure that if Smack weren't banned, this thread would be 20 pages long, and would only end when everyone but him got bored of his repetitious posts. He is a bulldog.

Banning seems harsh.

I'm going to assume someone, or more than one, whined. What reputation would you rather have...banished from SN, or a whiner? My guess is Smack is wearing his banishment as a badge of honor. Probably flying _Semper Eximo_ on his pig stick.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> I am right again. That post is edited.
> 
> Nope. Maybe you are not reading the comments after the post? That might be what you seem to be missing?
> 
> ...


Then, what are you babbling about? I don't agree with you, and I seem to have company.

Ralph


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

He's been banned multiple times, on multiple forums. I bet he holds the record for the number of times he's been warned. That should equal permanent ban. It has nothing to do with any single thread or post. It's a clear pattern of behavior.

His behavior is intentional, as admitted in his linked blog. On balance, I'm glad he's gone, despite the positive side of his contribution. The pushback will definitely die off and the forum will be better off in the long run. If one liked him that much, then follow him to Sailing Anarchy and get your fill, where Bob says he's having a great time. This despite his blog saying he's pretty much done with forums, a very typical contradiction.

The real question is how this thread is "sailing related general discussion". It's actually irrelevant to any sub-forum. It's just personal and those of us left, will just have to agree to disagree. Permanently, I hope.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Sure, come on over to CA. It's a friendly place where you can say **** and **** all day long. If saying **** and **** offends you better to stay here.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> The real question is how this thread is "sailing related general discussion". It's actually irrelevant to any sub-forum. It's just personal and those of us left, will just have to agree to disagree. Permanently, I hope.


I considered putting this in the "off topic" area, but then very few would read it and even fewer would respond to it. But I ask you, how is this not sailing related? The iPad vs MFD discussion is sailing related and having one part of the discussion banned is sailing related. What, are we supposed to do in response to your arguments just say, "Oh, that's different, never mind?"
I, along with many others, am not going to put a $10,000 suite of electronic gadgets on my less than $10,000 boat. But a system that does the same thing for less than $1,000, well maybe, let's talk about it. Just don't give me that "not invented here" attitude. Your whole argument channels the Microsoft losing argument that "it's not a computer, it doesn't even have a USB port". That is a failed argument.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

bobperry said:


> Sure, come on over to CA. It's a friendly place where you can say **** and **** all day long. If saying **** and **** offends you better to stay here.


Doesn't offend me. However, SD wasn't banned for salty language. He was banned because he typically belittled, taunted, and bullied anyone who disagreed with him. It's called lack of human decency.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Lazerbrains said:


> Doesn't offend me. However, SD wasn't banned for salty language. He was banned because he typically belittled, taunted, and bullied anyone who disagreed with him. *It's called lack of human decency.*


Edited by TDW. Offensive remark deleted.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

The telling thing to me is that he was proud of being banned for here and CF. That's a pretty telling character trait.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Flogging a dead horse here. Almost 100 posts about **** all.Whose gonna have the last word? One of the two remaining musketeers?


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

aeventyr60 said:


> Flogging a dead horse here. Almost 100 posts about **** all.Whose gonna have the last word? One of the two remaining musketeers?


Hey, it's a Smack related thread .... lots of life in it yet. :laugh


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

ianjoub said:


> Edited by TDW. Offensive remark deleted.


I guess they should move to the swamp so you can teach them some manly gator rasslin'


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Don0190 said:


> The telling thing to me is that he was proud of being banned for here and CF. That's a pretty telling character trait.


Doesn't seem to take much to get banned on CF. From what I can see re: bans they must be a bunch of VERY delicate flowers there.

I took a look at it and decided it was a waste of time.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

SloopJonB said:


> Doesn't seem to take much to get banned on CF. From what I can see re: bans they must be a bunch of VERY delicate flowers there.


I was once banned for a month because I AGREED with a moderator. I'm still trying to figure that out. *grin*


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

ianjoub said:


> Edited by TDW. Offensive remark deleted.


Well, here we go again. I didn't think my remark was offensive. I did not remark about anyone in particular. I did not use offensive language. Was it my opinions that a mod didn't like?


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> I just read a few pages of the iPad vs Plotter thread... Typical Modernist vs Traditionalist thread. Modernist says something and then the Traditionalists heave in and suggest only their experience is relevant. But technology changes so fast.
> 
> I have learned that those threads are to be avoided.
> Its only death that modernizes the world. When the Tadraditionalsts finally die off the Modern is then Traditional.
> ...


ABSOLUTELY
Smug, holier than thou, sneaks off laughing about how they baited their enemy.

It does indeed take 2 to tango.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I didn't read the closed thread until now. like Mark, I tend to avoid some of those chart vs paper threads, or ipads vs. chart plotter threads because you have sift through the vitreol to mine the decent information.

I don't have a horse in this race, but from what I read, what Smack was saying was not any different really than what Ben Ellison says here in his column;

"What if the next iPad model has a non-reflective screen that makes it more useful in sunshine, as rumored? I'm just riffing here, but isn't it possible that a DRS4W combined with a small NMEA 2000 sensor network, a WiFi gateway (like, say, what's already built into the Vesper XB8000 AIS transponder) and a couple of iPads could be a pretty elegant and economical navigation system, no MFD involved? "

Unless you have the time and capability of wiring all the components of an integrated system up, the professional installation costs can often exceed the purchase price of the components, and in less than 5 years, your system is outdated. 

So, Smack solved the glare problem to "his" satisfaction by working under a bimini or below decks and having multiple devices. 

It worked for him, and he was eager to share his experience with those of like mind or those like myself who are interested in how others utilize technology in different ways. It's a shame that it always seems to get to a "my way is better than your way thang". I sensed a history there. Ten years from now young people will be looking at the old ipads and wondering what the hell were they thinking, and chartplotters may be museum pieces, who knows, what's next ...50 mph America's Cup boats that fly on the water?


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

SVAuspicious said:


> Edited Quote .....
> No comment on how smackdaddy learned he was permanently banned if, as he still maintains, he was not notified?


This is not a valid issue Dave. If one tries to log on when one has been banned then you will see a message that says "You have been banned for the following reason. In Smack's case "PM Sent". Date Ban to be Lifted. In Smack's case "Never".

It would have been the first thing he saw when he tried to log on post ban.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

ianjoub said:


> Well, here we go again. I didn't think my remark was offensive. I did not remark about anyone in particular. I did not use offensive language. Was it my opinions that a mod didn't like?


Yes.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

ianjoub said:


> Well, here we go again. I didn't think my remark was offensive. I did not remark about anyone in particular. I did not use offensive language. Was it my opinions that a mod didn't like?


I read your post before it was deleted and it might have been done simply because you are a primitive, swamp dwelling *******.

That's just a possibility though.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

ccriders said:


> ?...But I ask you, how is this not sailing related? The iPad vs MFD discussion is sailing related and having one part of the discussion banned is sailing related....


I don't understand your point at all. The thread on iPads and MFDs is available to have whatever discussion you like on that topic. You could also start your own. This thread was started with express purpose of asking folks opinion on Smack's banning. That has nothing to do with sailing.

If you're suggesting that his input was critical to the discussion, I disagree. In fact (and I know it to be fact), his participation was stifling input from many on this board. Some of it has been offered since his banning.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I don't understand your point at all. The thread on iPads and MFDs is available to have whatever discussion you like on that topic. You could also start your own. This thread was started with express purpose of asking folks opinion on Smack's banning. That has nothing to do with sailing.
> 
> If you're suggesting that his input was critical to the discussion, I disagree. In fact (and I know it to be fact), his participation was stifling input from many on this board. Some of it has been offered since his banning.


I must admit, I noticed the thread, spent a bit of time reading early on, then quickly exited since it was clear it was quickly becoming yet another pissing match between Smack and others.

I have some pertinent experience and knowledge I could have contributed. But I could see there was no point.

I don't know if this was solely or even largely due to Smacky. But experience has taught me that when he gets rolling in a thread, it seems to bring out the worst in many others. This usually dooms a thread to the level of car-crash entertainment.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Minnewaska said:


> This thread was started with express purpose of asking folks opinion on Smack's banning.


Actually, it seems like someone missed the stink since SD left, so they decided to stir up the S###.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Did someone say swamp dwelling ******** ? I live in NYC. I have met the Smackster/aka Steve in the flesh, er real life. He is a lot less abrasive in person which I was thankful for and in fact a decent guy. 
What else nice can I say about Smackdaddy? ...
He always seems to create traffic on your forum.

Meh.
They don't pay you enough for this as moderators.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

bobperry said:


> I've had some warnings. TDW really does not like me. I think Jeff has been instrumental keeping me here. I am banned for life on CF over an extremely harsh exchange. I wear that banishment like a crown!
> 
> Smackers is having the time of his life over on CRUISING ANARCHY. He is in his element there.


Oh dear, here we go again.

Rather than warnings they were requests to tone it down somewhat, specifically, from memory, regarding your interaction with Brent Swain. They did not come only from me btw, indeed if memory does serve me well, even Jeff chimed in.

The rancour that exists or more accurately existed cos I'm sorry Bob but I am over it, was based purely and simply on the fact that you had claimed and have continued to so claim that I threatened to ban you. I informed you at the time that this was not true yet you persisted with the lie. That you have lied about something I supposedly said most certainly did poison the well but now it is not so much that I don't like you as much as I don't like the way in which you have allowed the lie to stand. Now it may well be that you misinterpreted something I said way back when but again at the time I did tell you that whatever you were thinking was incorrect.

To my knowledge, at no time have the mods discussed actually banning you from SailNet. Again you have been told this on previous occasions and not just by me. Of the currently active mods (Jeff, Donna, Ron and myself) not one of us has suggested such a thing, privately or publicly. Of course we have discussed your behaviour at times but your suggestion that only Jeff has protected you from being hurled into the pit has, I'm afraid to say, all the hallmarks of paranoia. It most certainly lacks any ongoing relationship with reality.

At the time of the great schism even Ron reached out to you in order to try and sort out what was an obvious misunderstanding but in turn you shat on him as well. Despite this did Ron call for you to be banned ? Nope. Donna ? Nah. Jeff ? No. Me ? No no no no no.

So, whatever your problem with me is, it is your problem not mine. By all means deal with it as you wish but please don't try dumping your paranoid fantasies onto me or indeed onto the forum as a whole. It is a bullshite fairytale that should have long been put out to pasture.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Gee this thread is coming along nicely isn't it ? Smack would have been proud.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Mention has been made that this thread is not really sailing related. Probably correct but my feeling is that at least for the moment it should stay where everyone can easily see it. I'd not like to see anyone being able to claim that we tried to hide it away from general view.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

tdw said:


> Gee this thread is coming along nicely isn't it ? Smack would have been proud.


Just imagine if Smack & BS could get involved.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

The track of this thread is illustrative of the character of the membership here. I think, as a relatively new member and an avid reader of a lot of the threads posted here, that Bob Perry, BS, and Smack share a lot of common traits that I don't care to be around in person, but I think they should be allowed to illustrate their inflated ego's, their pompous attitudes, and their blind arrogance to their own personal flaws so that the casual member can be forewarned to apply the proper weight to their postings. If you salute only those who agree with you how rich is your existence?????


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

1) Sailng. Sailing boat. Water. Floppy white thing.

2) i went and saw Mel Brooks tonight!! We watched Blazing Saddles and the Mel talked fir a hour. The ENERGY that 90 year old man has is utterly astounding. Sat down just for questions then sprang to his feet to answer them! Ran, yes, ran off the stage at the end to come back for his encore.

3) Technology is changing on a daily basis. Today was a bad day... That Israli satellite that blew up in Cape Canaveral was a private company. Part of the job was to get coms equipment for Facebook up into geostationary orbit... Thats a very high orbit that is not easy to attain anymore. I hate Zukkerbaby, but i do think today was a black day. The satellite company will go broke, FB will drop the ideas it had.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> The track of this thread is illustrative of the character of the membership here. I think, as a relatively new member and an avid reader of a lot of the threads posted here, that Bob Perry, BS, and Smack share a lot of common traits that I don't care to be around in person, but I think they should be allowed to illustrate their inflated ego's, their pompous attitudes, and their blind arrogance to their own personal flaws so that the casual member can be forewarned to apply the proper weight to their postings. If you salute only those who agree with you how rich is your existence?????


WHOA!
This is simple. 
If you want respect etc., then give/offer respect, etc.; such works usually much better than posted derision and invective. 
Unless I totally misunderstood your recent posting ..... what you just listed is a highly disrespectful personal attack of several forum member who are renown to have passion. .... and then you want these very same or similar forum members to help / offer suggestions & opinion to your needs, huh? 
Do you really expect help or inclusion in future discussion, responses for help and requested opinion ... when one can only remember your ATTACKS? 
WTF??


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Mark- Jerome Silverman died a few days ago. Mel's partner in humor. They and Gilda represent a passing of a generation of humor that depended on self awareness and a modicum of intelligence. Surprising Mel's is the sole survivor. Listen to the "humor " channels on sirus and it's sad to see how the ADD of American technological social interactions no longer permits such nuanced humor. Got rid of FB, Twitter etc. and my life is better for it.

It's that sense of humor and awareness of the absurdity of a bunch of hairless apes running the world that is needed to decrease the friction between us. Think BP has it but unfortunately the others didn't display it. At times Bob can laugh at himself which is a key feature. So think that's an unfair hit.

Others have described some posters as boors or bullies. Look around at your politicians. One has no personal friends and when asked who would he discuss a problem with or ask for a favor he said he only had his kids. The other is a stiff not yet buried. Johnson can laugh over a jar of pickles but he has no chance according to the media. British humor got them through the bitz. Sabra humor is dark but always present. Here I think Donna, Gary, you, Steve and quite few others could share a hoot or two. Unfortunately some others view this forum as a zero sum game and are constantly keeping score.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Thanks Out. I'm not really concerned too much about my reception here. I try to chime in when I think I have something of value to say or maybe a wrong to right. There is this little thing called Facebook. On Facebook I have 1,752 "friends" who follow me. About two months ago I discovered there was a Robert Perry Fan Club on Facebook. It is kind of embarrassing. It now has 244 members and 2 mods. If I piss off a half dozen people on SN I think I can survive.

My work keeps me quite stable.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SloopJonB said:


> I read your post before it was deleted and it might have been done simply because you are a primitive, swamp dwelling *******.
> 
> That's just a possibility though.


A fine example of the double standards of 'moderation' used here.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

tdw said:


> Mention has been made that this thread is not really sailing related. Probably correct but my feeling is that at least for the moment it should stay where everyone can easily see it. I'd not like to see anyone being able to claim that we tried to hide it away from general view.


Does it strike you as odd that it is one of the top threads of the week?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

tdw said:


> This is not a valid issue Dave. If one tries to log on when one has been banned then you will see a message that says "You have been banned for the following reason. In Smack's case "PM Sent". Date Ban to be Lifted. In Smack's case "Never".
> 
> It would have been the first thing he saw when he tried to log on post ban.


Thanks for the insight Andrew. Sometimes a smoking gun is just a gun. I will try not to shoot myself in the foot too often.

I think Donna posted that she spent three hours on the notice - did y'all send that to smackdaddy by email?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

People would rather talk about each other than a stability curve.

Here is a really interesting one:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## SkywalkerII (Feb 20, 2008)

I don't post often, but I read almost daily.

It seems to me that unless a person is preventing others from contributing to and enjoying the site, almost anything said is in bounds, given agreed upon standards of language. 

I don't know if smack's behavior was detrimental to this site. In my view, he would deserve a ban if many people no longer participated because of his presence. Empirical data would be interesting. Is there any change in participation and activity?

Maybe he was good for activity. Maybe not. Sites like these are about mixing it up, aren't they?

One guys thought.

Skywalker


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Yes, Bob, but not everyone reads the forum on a computer where scrolling past irellevant diagrams is easy.
Some smartphones and this damn ipad make it difficult.

One thing that this thread shows is that we *ALL* need to realise our online personas, even when well meant, can be totally annoying to others.

Its up to each of us to show consideration for each other user. 
Its not a matter, imho, of 'respect'. Respect is a thing that is earned, not a thing demanded (though US police seem to read the second definition where respect is imposed - it cant be). However, when we show consideration to other people their respect for us can grow, no matter if they agree with us or not. 

Mark


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I've written this before, but part of the problem with most online forums is the anonymity they offer. Someone mentioned that they knew or met Smack (Steve?) in real life, and that he was a nice guy; civil and reasonable. Yet here on SN he, and many others, take on characteristics that no "real" social gathering would tolerate.

Anonymity of the web is like wearing a mask. It removes many of the social structures and strictures we as social animals have evolved. It's a well-studied phenomena that online anonymity promotes anti-social behaviour. One way to push against this is to stop using pseudonyms.

I know... it's not a panacea. I know... there are lots of challenges with it. I know... you can't really hide your identify. I know, I know... But forcing people to sign with their own name is also shown to improve civility of online communities. The opposite has also shown to be true. It's one of those, _whaddyacallthem_? Oh yeah, facts.

There will always be dycks in any community, and we can all become one (me included!) at certain times. Taking this one small step would help curb some of the boorish behaviour.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

I'll add a bit; I just try not to annoy people on this forum. It is much too easy to push a button on the computer and piss someone off needlessly. That is a concept some posters never entirely get. Yes I have sparred with a few posters, I hope good naturedly...its fine to make your point but I also know when to just STFU and laugh it off.... let people be and I hope that counts for something.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Mark: 
I never thought of that. I keep three monitors and two computers going all day so it's easy for me to forget that some check in on their phone.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

I'm much more of a jerk in person


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

SVAuspicious said:


> I am right again. That post is edited.
> 
> No comment on the date change or is that just too inconvenient for your preconception?
> 
> ...


Right - then why write it?

You have been right there with SD in those pi$$ing matches in many of the threads I have read.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

outbound said:


> Mark- Jerome Silverman died a few days ago.


Don't know this Silverman guy but I know that Gene Wilder AKA Jerome *Silberman* died a few days ago. :wink

Big loss but there are still a few funny people left. AFAIAC there is no better stand up living than Chris Rock. He doesn't transition to movies well IMO but on stage he's as good as it gets.

" When people see a homeless person with a dog they feel sorry for the dog"


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

ianjoub said:


> A fine example of the double standards of 'moderation' used here.


I suspect you get a lot of that.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SloopJonB said:


> I suspect you get a lot of that.


Possibly, but I have a thick skin. I am not:

Precious Lil Snowflakes: Rutgers Warns Students About ?Microassaults,? ?Microinsults? & ?Microinvalidations? | The Daily Sheeple


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

ianjoub said:


> Possibly, but I have a thick skin.


Then you should go on Cruising Anarchy - somehow I doubt you would last long.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Hey Jon, we are not so bad over on CA. If you treat the other guys with some respect you'll get respect back. If you come on like Brent Swain and immediately start telling everyone how wrong and stupid they are you will be treated in kind. Smack has no trouble there and neither do I. But I'm not sure you want your kids reading over your shoulder. They do have moderators but I don't think they do anything.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

Does this mean we can talk sh*t about Hunters and not fear retribution?


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

rbrasi said:


> Does this mean we can talk sh*t about Hunters and not fear retribution?


Yes!

That is one of those double standards in moderation :lol:


----------



## choppyseas (Jul 14, 2016)

This reminded me of a sign I saw recently: "What if nobody was President and we all promised real hard to just be cool." Switch out the President with Moderator. I know that's not really possible, but wouldn't it be cool if it was?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

bobperry said:


> Hey Jon, we are not so bad over on CA. If you treat the other guys with some respect you'll get respect back. If you come on like Brent Swain and immediately start telling everyone how wrong and stupid they are you will be treated in kind. Smack has no trouble there and neither do I. But I'm not sure you want your kids reading over your shoulder. They do have moderators but I don't think they do anything.


I like SA - I feel quite at home there. The general tenor of the place is very similar to me and my old friends.

There does seem to be a pretty low tolerance for stupid and/or ignorant there with a concomitant lack of restraint in pointing it out.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> One thing that this thread shows is that we *ALL* need to realise our online personas, even when well meant, can be totally annoying to others.


Ouch !!!! That hurt.

My inperson persona just slapped my online persona.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Just pickles my cucumber when the SA people switch to SN and 'forget' theres two sets of rules. 
I have tried sailing anachy once and found it by far the worst for non-sailing idiots to pretend they know something.
Also very surprised that some nice people from a normal forum act like total dickheads when on SA.

So rulz do affect the style of a forum.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

This is quite interesting to me, Smack isn't even here any more and we are already at 139 whats up with that?
Im of the don't engage mindset, Im sure banning is necessary (at times) and have no desire to second guess the moderators but my thought is the same as the last time this came up, if you don't have someone to argue with then there's no argument.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> One thing that this thread shows is that we *ALL* need to realise our online personas, even when well meant, can be totally annoying to others.


Good - it's called free speech.

If you can't annoy someone, somewhere then you only have polite conversation, not free speech.

Two words that I have come to really, really despise are "Inappropriate" and "Offended".

People who use them with any regularity need to HTFU. The last thing we need is for society to start widely reflecting the PC that has been getting created on college campuses for the past couple of decades.

Thankfully, the latest I've heard is that the Millennials are becoming very intolerant of PC so there's hope for the world.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

But no hope foe sailnut!


----------



## eko_eko (Sep 7, 2012)

When you put bait out there hoping for a bite while your boat moves along, it's called trolling. That's where the online term comes from: fishing. Button-pushing in order to elicit an angry response is trolling pure and simple.

Own it if you do it. Rail against the restrictions on trolling if you want to!

But to deny it? That's cowardice and duplicity.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> ....If you can't annoy someone, somewhere then you only have polite conversation, not free speech.....


I get that. However, there is a huge difference between a standard that say you may never saying anything that might offended someone and having one member of the community who admits to making an effort to get under others skin, when they've unilaterally decided the other party is wrong. Huge difference.

I'm sure he's banned due to his intentional effort to disrupt, not the simple lack of PC. Read the linked blog, if you haven't already. It's intentional and he says he likes it.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> Good - it's called free speech.
> 
> If you can't annoy someone, somewhere then you only have polite conversation, not free speech.
> 
> ...


No. You are advocating talking to me in a manner that would get your face smacked in if you did so without the distance and anonymity of the internet.

And believe me I would bounce a fist on your nose if you tried that crap in real life.

Dont get me wrong, i have a smile on my face most of the time... But there are times that people can wipe that off... To their detriment.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Hey, this is getting good. Makes me feel like I'm back in the Coast Guard, some of the best seamen I know solve their issues by pounding the snot out of each other when they get back to the dock.

It's usually over women, booze or smokes though, I've never seen a fist fight over political correctness.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> No. You are advocating talking to me in a manner that would get your face smacked in if you did so without the distance and anonymity of the internet.
> 
> And believe me I would bounce a fist on your nose if you tried that crap in real life.
> 
> ...


No I'm not advocating that and the proof is demonstrated by the fact that I've never gotten in a fight since I was a little kid.

As for your tough talk;


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Friends don't let friends drink and post.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I am the same person here that I am in person. I type faster here. That's all.


----------



## BillB36 (May 4, 2015)

SloopJonB said:


> Good - it's called free speech.


No free speech on web forums once you acknowledge to the term of usage and dot the I agree cube. Forums have rules and sailnet has the rules.

If you require freer speech visit to sailing anarchy. He was a brawl maker. I have been attacked by him on other forms where he tolds people I said things I did not even say. He was not honest, mean also disruptive to the forum.

For the one before who labels me as a troll I belive you sir are being rude. I fail to respond to much because I have RA and my hands don't move like they did in years ago. This type is over 20 min. I read but post not to much. I have been on the forms for 12 years but post very few times. I still go to anarchy to but not to much. sailnet is my favorite to read and many are nice he was not,


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

RobGallagher said:


> I'm much more of a jerk in person


I don't believe this, but maybe I caught Rob on a good day


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Norman Lear was asked what got him through the travails of life recently in an interview. He said" two words- over and next". By over he seemed to mean when it's over it's over, done, finished, in the past. Sure analyse it learn from it but move on. By next he seemed to mean that's where your focus should be. 
So what's next for SN? How can we avoid this crap. If it's unavoidable how's best to deal with it?


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

outbound said:


> Norman Lear was asked what got him through the travails of life recently in an interview. He said" two words- over and next". By over he seemed to mean when it's over it's over, done, finished, in the past. Sure analyse it learn from it but move on. By next he seemed to mean that's where your focus should be.
> So what's next for SN? How can we avoid this crap. If it's unavoidable how's best to deal with it?


Restore the old chat platform . . . life here will be bliss


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

tdw said:


> I suspect I may well have been plagiarising Mr Ustinov or did the phrase appear even earlier than that ? The Python boys used it in the Yorkshirmen Sketch and before that it appeared in the At Last the 1948 Show but they both post date Topkapi.


Fuzzy it worries me deeply that you know that level of trivia...


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

I don't think it needs any philosophical changes. The moderation works well as is - Smack is a unique case because he is extremely outspoken and tends to polarize people a bit. The tiny handful of other bannings I know of didn't cause any controversy.

If *this* place is too tough and controversial for you I would suggest that Internet Forums are not your natural home - your feelings are far too delicate for public discussions of any sort.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” 

Some people like to argue for argument's sake. They can be interesting for a while, especially if they don't take themselves too seriously. But after a while it just gets boring. 

As some others have said I've started avoiding threads that became a "smack fest". 

For me Sailnet is a diversion, why would I want to read or engage with someone who's annoying?


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

tdw said:


> damn i wish there was a yawn emoticon thingy .....


:-o


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> No. You are advocating talking to me in a manner that would get your face smacked in if you did so without the distance and anonymity of the internet.
> 
> And believe me I would bounce a fist on your nose if you tried that crap in real life.
> 
> ...


Mark, there is a LOT of truth in what you say. I've only met a few SailNetters face to face (none trolls), but I have met people from other forums over the years who were. It's funny the most in your face guys were always _so nice_ in person.

So it doesn't have to be a crack in the jaw, just face to face interaction tends to cool down folks who hide behind aggressive personas online.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

JimMcGee said:


> Fuzzy it worries me deeply that you know that level of trivia...


One thing about carbuncles on the backside of humanity .... they are rarely trivial. :laugh


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

tdw said:


> One thing about carbuncles on the backside of humanity .... they are rarely trivial. :laugh


LOL and they seem to be multiplying !

Hope life is treating you well Andrew,

Jim


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

As a group, we moderators want to address the conversation about Smackdaddy being banned, and the circumstances surrounding that banning. Except with the specific member involved, we rarely explain if, how, or why a moderation action has taken place. This case is unusual in that Smackdaddy has agreed and asked us to publically shed light on this. 

The decision to ban someone is the most difficult decision that we, as moderators ever have to make. These are never black and white decisions. That is especially true when dealing with a long term and contributing member. 

As evidenced in this thread, Smackdaddy has built up a group of fans, but also equally has his strong detractors. We readily acknowledge that he contributed a lot to SailNet. He has contributed in the form of frequent posts, which staked out his idiosyncratic viewpoints on all things sailing. He generously spoke about his growth from a relative newbie and his lessons learned along the way. He contributed financially in the form of paid advertising. Even when his posts were arguably mistaken in their position, the ensuing dialogue was helpful in providing a better understanding of the countervailing viewpoints on the topic.

Which brings us to the reason that Smackdaddy was banned. To be clear, Smackdaddy was not banned because of the content of his posts, or his personal viewpoints on sailing. We do not ban people for content that does not otherwise violate the Forum Rules.

Smackdaddy was banned because we, as moderators have a long held policy that SailNet should be a place where civil discourse can and should take place. We had concluded that Smackdaddy's in-your-face style of arguing violated that policy. 

Having read years of complaints, we moderators have discussed Smackdaddy’s tone and its impact many times. In the past, we have sent Smackdaddy warnings and he has been banned twice previously. When he has responded in the past, he has been civil and agreed to what was asked. But our impression is that after a while he always returned to the same tone and patterns of behavior. 

The situation that led to Smackdaddy’s banning was a collision of events. In a very short period of time, there were a cluster of complaints about Smackdaddy’s tone that came in the form of posts, reported posts, PM’s, and emails. These came from a mix of long term members and new members. It came from people who had sparred with Smackdaddy in the past, but also from other members who had not or who recently joined SailNet and seemingly only barely knew him. While many of you would not consider these to be personal attacks, from the perspective of the people making the complaints, they felt that they were being personally attacked. When the offendiong posts were viewed in that context, the case was made that this was a pattern of personal attacks in violation of forum rules. A guiding principal here is that members should feel like they can simply make a post, and not be personally attacked for it. 

When the decision was made ban Smackdaddy permanently, there was a sense that there had been years of warnings and two prior bannings. The decision was seen as consistent with the previous precedents in those few cases in which a member had been banned permanently.

In the weeks since the banning, there has been an email dialogue with Smackdaddy in which a number of things have come to light. To begin with, once the decision was made to ban Smackdaddy, Donna had sent what was an extremely well written explanation of the ban to Smackdaddy. It was sent via Private Message, as we had done in the past, with the assumption that it would be forwarded via email to Smackdaddy’s email. 

Unfortunately, what we did not realize was that Smackdaddy did not have his Private Messages set up to forward as an email. Smackdaddy was alerted that he was banned permanently when he attempted to log in and there was a pop-up box that said he could not log in because he had been banned permanently. That box did not state a cause for the banning. This led to some unfortunate speculation, charges and counter-charges. 

The moderators also reviewed our previous warnings to Smackdaddy. It was found that the some, if not most, of the warnings did not explicitly address the moderator’s concerns about the civility issue. Instead they addressed the specific issues in the particular post or thread we were objecting to. Beyond that it was not clear that all of these PM’s even got to Smackdaddy since his PM’s were not forwarded, and most recently he was away for the summer.

In light of the above, the moderators are in the process of discussing altering the length of Smackdaddy’s banning. 

Lastly, we want to emphasize that it is our policy that personal attacks on current members are not acceptable, but that attacks on former members will not be tolerated since they are not here to defend themselves. This applies to everyone. 

The moderators are still discussing next steps, but agreed that the above should be disclosed in fairness to Smackdaddy.

Your Moderators,
Andrew, Donna, Jeff, and Ron


----------

