PDA

View Full Version : The banning of SciFi Chick



Archer17
2005-Mar-18, 03:23 AM
The banning of SciFi Chick had to be the most unjustified thing I have ever seen from you BA. If defending oneself, and doing it with a restraint I can only hope to learn someday, is grounds for a banning you might as well take a gander in P.R.'s stupid dino thread because I put her to shame last night. The thing is, sometimes someone has to stick up for one's self instead of eating crow. In SciFi Chick's case she did it without resorting to insults and, if sarcasm is a sin here, you might as well ban 80% of the board. Not everyone will walk 5 miles out of their way to avoid defending themselves like you do (think Hoagland - you attack him but then duck and cover when he calls you on it). If you can live with yourself, that's fine and dandy. To demand others to march to that tune just to have the privilege to post here is too much .. for me anyway.

This is unacceptable. Whether you ban me or not, I'm done here.

mickal555
2005-Mar-18, 03:28 AM
:( I don't want to be BANNED, but its so unfair.... :cry:

Please don't ban me... I'm just upset...

jt-3d
2005-Mar-18, 03:34 AM
Well it does seem like she had quit the argument. Oh well, not my board.

Doe, John
2005-Mar-18, 03:38 AM
I join with the others in stating that I feel the banning of SciFiChick was unjustified. I know it's your board Dr BA, but I think you made a bad decision this time.

Herodotus
2005-Mar-18, 03:40 AM
Do Unban SciFi!

Normandy6644
2005-Mar-18, 03:45 AM
I feel that it would be hypocritical of me not to publicly voice my defense of SciFi Chick given that I have mentioned it privately and on FWIS. For a poster such as Jpax to be allowed to engage in his tactics for as long as he has and eventually cause his own banning as well as one of the boards best posters is a statement that something is wrong here. I absolutely love posting here, and have for some time now as many others have, and as a growing number come to find each day. We have 5643 posters and 433550 posts as of now, and these numbers are growing faster all the time. Of course things will go unchecked, but for awhile now this tension has been building and, as many of us have already attested, Jpax has come across as rude and manipulative, especially towards SciFi Chick. I believe that SciFi Chick had a right and a need to defend herself against him, and while she may not have done it in the best manner (though certainly better than the majority of us if faced with the same situation), her actions should not have provoked a banning. I only hope that this situation is fixed, and something similar is not allowed to happen in the future.

Morrolan
2005-Mar-18, 03:46 AM
i second that. =D>

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Mar-18, 03:49 AM
I'll admit that I'm torn. I can see both sides of the argument. SciFiChick was an exemplary poster, and I'm very sad to see this happen. But the BA does have rules about politeness, despite past behaviour.

I really don't know what to think.

Musashi
2005-Mar-18, 03:52 AM
Sure you do. ;)

I agree with Archer and the others in this thread.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Mar-18, 03:53 AM
Gut feeling, yes, I do agree.

But the rules are pretty specific. Hence my dilemma.

Normandy6644
2005-Mar-18, 03:55 AM
Gut feeling, yes, I do agree.

But the rules are pretty specific. Hence my dilemma.

Yes, the rules are specific. But in that case Jpax should have been gone long ago.

teddyv
2005-Mar-18, 03:56 AM
Boy, go away for just a little while and all hell breaks loose. Based on the evidence I must agree with the majority here.

Andromeda321
2005-Mar-18, 03:57 AM
I agree that niceness is in the rules, but you're not breaking them by defending yourself. At least that's how I see it.
I think what worries me the most about this situation is how I've seen so many other posters get by for saying much worse. Now I'm not saying this is a justification for the numbers thread but instead I worry because it shows a lack of consistancy in how the board is run. And when people aren't sure just how to act and how and when the rules are going to be enforced the board does not run smoothly and it suffers as a whole.
I'm sure I speak for all of us when I state that I believe the BABB to be one of the best places to hang out on the Internet and I have nothing but great hopes that it will continue to be that way. I just want to state that recent events have made me worried about the state of the board, and I have nothing but great wishes that they'll be resolved soon.

The Supreme Canuck
2005-Mar-18, 03:58 AM
Gut feeling, yes, I do agree.

But the rules are pretty specific. Hence my dilemma.

Yes, the rules are specific. But in that case Jpax should have been gone long ago.

I won't disagree with that. But they apply to everyone.


I hate this.

tuffel999
2005-Mar-18, 03:59 AM
I have mostly been lurking lately but I had to pop and say something about this. This has got to be one of the best examples of someone starting something and the person who stands up to it gets punished too. I remember these situations in school. Johnny pokes Sally...Sally sasys stop. Teacher punishes both Johnny and Sally. Didn't like it much then don't like it much now. Never let it be said that no good deed goes unpunished.

Peace Folks. Looks like I will be out for a long time. These boots are made for walking...............

(not a Nancy Sinatra fan)

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Mar-18, 04:02 AM
I tried to make myself clear in my post where I locked that thread. If someone is posting in an immature manner, then that is one thing. But SciFi Chick started the flaming. She could have ignored Jpax, or PMed me that he was being obnoxious, or gently pointed out that what he was doing was wrong. Instead, she posted in a (marginally) rude manner, and then let herself get sucked into an argument which got much worse. The two of them have had many scraps on this board, and this one went too far.

I have no problem with people defending themselves. Despite your claim, Archer, I have done it in the past and I will no doubt need to again in the future. But I will do it politely. That's the key difference.

And it's not like I'm sitting here clapping my hands in glee. I'm pretty upset about this too.

As far as a Hoagland goes, that is a far different situation. I know what he is like in a "debate". I made myself clear in the "Debating Pseudoscientists" page.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Mar-18, 04:03 AM
As I suggested over here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=437943&#437943), I do not agree that the rules are specific. I would say that the rule "be polite" is about as vague as a rule can be. Vague rules are not a problem as long as they are enforced very consistently, and I have not been here long enough to be able to judge whether the enforcement is consistent. But I will say that this incident has cast doubt on my previous notion of what the standards were.

(I did not want to post in this thread at first, because the OP verges on a personal attack, and I did not want to appear to support that. But since this is where the discussion seems to be, I decided to add my comments.)

SKY
2005-Mar-18, 04:05 AM
I'll add my post in agreement. Sorry BA, I have never questioned a banning by you until now. Not that my opionion matters, but I don't think the banning of SciFi Chick was justified. 8-[

MrObvious
2005-Mar-18, 04:14 AM
BA, while I agree with most of the decisions you have made, this one I don't. It's mainly because I've watched JPAX do things deliberately in the past and get away with it when I felt he shouldn't have going by the rules you posted on your own board.

Yes SciFi did defend herself but she did so far better than I could have. I had a run in with JPAX a while ago too. In that thread he accused me of American bashing when I said no such thing as well as that I was talking out my rear and that I was ignorant. I pretty much stopped posting because of this person. I'm not one to whine but I brought that up only to give you an example of the way he pushed people from posting on your site.

This is a clear case of too little too late. I know it must be difficult for you to follow every thread and you rely on people to inform you when they see something wrong on your site. Well, this is it. People are informing you that you may have in-advertently made a bad call here. I just hope you are willing to listen.

Normandy6644
2005-Mar-18, 04:17 AM
If someone is posting in an immature manner, then that is one thing. But SciFi Chick started the flaming. She could have ignored Jpax, or PMed me that he was being obnoxious, or gently pointed out that what he was doing was wrong. Instead, she posted in a (marginally) rude manner, and then let herself get sucked into an argument which got much worse. The two of them have had many scraps on this board, and this one went too far.


I'm sorry sir, but I cannot agree. First of all, I don't believe that any flaming actually occured, and even if that's the label for it, then SciFi Chick certainly did not start it. I do agree with you that other actions could have been taken instead of what occured, but to fault her for all the occasions where Jpax has been rude or completely out of line is just too much in my opinion. To think that nearly everyone who was reading that thread had the same reaction when reading Jpax's posts and not SciFi's has to mean something.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Mar-18, 04:19 AM
I am going to do some research into this. I will look back over multiple threads where I can see Jpax and SciFi Chick going at it, and I will try to see what's what. I make no promises. In general, I don't think that just because everyone feels one way makes that way correct, but the outpouring here is evidence that there may be more to this.

MrObvious
2005-Mar-18, 04:41 AM
Not trying to rush you or anything BA, but the young lady's got a test tomorrow, be nice to get a good nights sleep for her, eh? :wink: :)

Jobe
2005-Mar-18, 04:44 AM
I would like to lend my support to the official "bring sci-fi girl back" thread.

That is all.

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-18, 04:45 AM
heck, give the man a chance..... :D

there must be about 100meters of the stuff.....



.

paulie jay
2005-Mar-18, 04:59 AM
I read through all of the thread and frankly Jpax has flipped more birds at SciFi Chick than you'd find in an aviary. It seemed to me to be straight out baiting - and if I was of a more comedic bent I'd go as far as saying that Jpax is the master baiter as he excels in provoking reactions.

I've got a certain young new babbler in mind when I say that there are members here who push the boundaries of civility much further than SciFi Chick has.

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-18, 05:03 AM
Yea, he keeps going on about how hurt he is about his "compliment" being misunderstood, and telling people what words mean......



and, yes, infinite numbers of cups of partly filled with water.....

.

MrObvious
2005-Mar-18, 05:10 AM
heck, give the man a chance..... :D

there must be about 100meters of the stuff.....



.


There'd be more than that, but, thats exactly the point I was trying to make. The BA needs the assistance of good posters to keep this site fair and unbiased and this thread is all about that and nothing else.....

All the posters here feel it was a call made without full background knowledge of the situation. I'd say almost all would be pretty surprised if the banning wasn't overturned based on the evidence.

I'm hoping that the BA will trust the more prominent and respectful posters more from this point on. He needs them to point out problems on the board because its too big to go through for one person. At the same time though, if there's so many of the people he relies on to help him calling injustice, what should he do?

Doe, John
2005-Mar-18, 05:12 AM
I read through all of the thread and frankly Jpax has flipped more birds at SciFi Chick than you'd find in an aviary. It seemed to me to be straight out baiting - and if I was of a more comedic bent I'd go as far as saying that Jpax is the master baiter as he excels in provoking reactions.

I've got a certain young new babbler in mind when I say that there are members here who push the boundaries of civility much further than SciFi Chick has.

Hear, hear. Age should never be a defense against repercussions for blatant incivility. =D> :wink:

gzhpcu
2005-Mar-18, 05:37 AM
BA, respectfully consider that not one poster has done anything but come out in support of SciFi Chick! This is a clear message IMHO!

Doodler
2005-Mar-18, 05:44 AM
I don't know SFC that well, but I know JPax, I think there's defensible ground to ask for SFC's reinstatement. She may have bitten into his bait, but JPax has shown real talent as an angler. At the same time, to Archer especially, when virtually all of the BA's decisions tend to fall on the side fairness, I think one or two judgement calls that are off the mark, because of lacking familiarity with the situation, is hardly grounds for that kind of hostility. I know how it went down rattled cages, but you, as much as any of the rest of us who want to hit the submit button with emotions raging, need to step back, breath and catch some perspective before we get into it.

You don't bite the judge's gavel hand when you petition an amicus curii before him.

I've seen some good people on this board get banned, and I've seen infractions slip through the cracks. Its not a perfect arrangement, its never going to be. But it is a fair system, so at least from my perspective (as one who considers himself dang lucky he's still allowed to post here), its deserving of a chance to be self correcting without a kneejerk lashing.

Doe, John
2005-Mar-18, 05:48 AM
Remember when JPax had the sigline that said something like, anything you send me in PM will be used against you in public. Just a thought about maybe why SFC didn't take it to PM's. She knew he wouldn't keep it there. Total speculation on my part.

Normandy6644
2005-Mar-18, 05:50 AM
Remember when JPax had the sigline that said something like, anything you send me in PM will be used against you in public. Just a thought about maybe why SFC didn't take it to PM's. She knew he wouldn't keep it there. Total speculation on my part.

Good call, I remember that too.

stu
2005-Mar-18, 05:58 AM
I also wish to lend my voice in saying that, in my interpretation of the BA's rules (though since it's not my board, my interpretation doesn't really matter), JPax should've been banned long, long ago, and if anything, SciFi Chick should've gotten a medal.

Personally, I got into an arguement with JPax before on this board and even though I tried to remain relatively civil, I got really ticked off at him. Among others, SciFi Chick came to my defense and she was also among those who had told me that JPax likes to start these sorts of arguments and then tries to confuse the issue with colorful and flowery language that is dripping with sarcasm. If I hadn't been in the right frame of mind, I would've posted how I felt and gotten myself banned.

I think SciFi Chick just had been up against this so many times, she was probably having a bad day, and JPax just tipped her over the edge.

In my opinion, the banning criteria should be allowed to be offset by a person's track record, in which case SciFi Chick should be welcomed back on this board with open arms.

Kesh
2005-Mar-18, 06:13 AM
I'm just glad I avoided that subject every time it was posted. I still don't understand the debate (and please don't bring it in here!), but people get insanely argumentative over it every time.

2005-Mar-18, 06:15 AM
I also agree entirely with the theme of his thread. Please think it over BA... :(

ChesleyFan
2005-Mar-18, 07:01 AM
Dang. Look what happens when I go to work...

Can't say I had much dealing with JPax. The SciFi Chick banning floored me, though.

And now here I am, waiting for the BA to submit his "lengthy post" at one in the morning...

MrObvious
2005-Mar-18, 07:06 AM
I also wish to lend my voice in saying that, in my interpretation of the BA's rules (though since it's not my board, my interpretation doesn't really matter), JPax should've been banned long, long ago, and if anything, SciFi Chick should've gotten a medal.

Personally, I got into an arguement with JPax before on this board and even though I tried to remain relatively civil, I got really ticked off at him. Among others, SciFi Chick came to my defense and she was also among those who had told me that JPax likes to start these sorts of arguments and then tries to confuse the issue with colorful and flowery language that is dripping with sarcasm. If I hadn't been in the right frame of mind, I would've posted how I felt and gotten myself banned.

I think SciFi Chick just had been up against this so many times, she was probably having a bad day, and JPax just tipped her over the edge.

In my opinion, the banning criteria should be allowed to be offset by a person's track record, in which case SciFi Chick should be welcomed back on this board with open arms.


Well said Stu, I'd go further to say she showed remarkable restraint considering all the history.
Point in case, it would never have happened if it was acted upon earlier so I quess we can all learn something here. If there is someone doing such things then report them straight away, it's too late once people are pushed beyond their limits. Secondly, it's impossible for the BA to keep this place fair without our input.....

Glom
2005-Mar-18, 10:52 AM
I think this will go down in the history of the board as the St. Paddy's Day Scandal. Usually, everyone accepts BA's decisions on banning even if they are unhappy about it. But this time, we are getting incitement to rebellion.

Lycus
2005-Mar-18, 10:58 AM
Usually, everyone accepts BA's decisions on banning even if they are unhappy about it. But this time, we are getting incitement to rebellion.
So, would the appointment of a moderator from amoung our ranks be akin to the creation of a Parliament? (Just kidding, BA :wink: )

N C More
2005-Mar-18, 11:20 AM
I also wish to lend my voice in saying that, in my interpretation of the BA's rules (though since it's not my board, my interpretation doesn't really matter), JPax should've been banned long, long ago, and if anything, SciFi Chick should've gotten a medal.

Personally, I got into an arguement with JPax before on this board and even though I tried to remain relatively civil, I got really ticked off at him. Among others, SciFi Chick came to my defense and she was also among those who had told me that JPax likes to start these sorts of arguments and then tries to confuse the issue with colorful and flowery language that is dripping with sarcasm. If I hadn't been in the right frame of mind, I would've posted how I felt and gotten myself banned.



Generally, I stay out of this type of issue but this time is an exception. Last night I sent a PM to the BA stating my observations of JPax's behavior. I have seen JPax engage in this type of thing many times. His condescending attitude coupled with suble put downs and veiled insults has been going on for some time. This sort of thing is not beneficial for free and open discussion and certainly not the sort of thing that would be found to be "welcoming" by anyone new to the bulletin board. I know that his behavior was wearing on many and feel that SciFi Chick was finally the one who broke down and voiced her frustration with this individual.

I, too, enter a plea for reconsideration.

TriangleMan
2005-Mar-18, 12:12 PM
Man, leave to celebrate St. Patrick's day and all heck breaks loose. :o

publiusr
2005-Mar-18, 06:03 PM
We need more women on these and other boards.

Gullible Jones
2005-Mar-18, 06:12 PM
There will be shortly enough...

pumpkinpie
2005-Mar-18, 06:13 PM
There will be shortly enough... What do you mean by that?

Musashi
2005-Mar-18, 06:14 PM
Don't women reproduce by budding? If so, we will soon have tons of women on the board. ;)

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-18, 06:22 PM
No, they're all on the body snatchers BB.




.

publiusr
2005-Mar-18, 06:22 PM
She's back.