PDA

View Full Version : Why was the SpongeBob thread locked?



Johnny Footstool
01-21-2005, 10:46 AM
Usually, locked threads get an explanation. I didn't see the explanation for that one.

GAC
01-21-2005, 10:48 AM
I like Sponge Bob too. But I prefer Johnny Bravo and Two Angry Beavers!

WHO-HAAA!

http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/1972/jb.jpg

WVRed
01-21-2005, 10:50 AM
I think this was why.

http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/~camp/photos/misc/troll.jpg

Unassisted
01-21-2005, 10:57 AM
Discussion of fictional sea creatures is not allowed. That applies to Flipper, too. :fineprint

Danny Serafini
01-21-2005, 11:10 AM
Wait a minute, I thought Flipper was real!

RedFanAlways1966
01-21-2005, 11:24 AM
Wait a minute, I thought Flipper was real!

Flipper was only his "stage name". He would have lasted longer and probably have gotten a Hollywood Star if his agent, I think his name was Charlie Tuna, hadn't demanded more money than the two kids and their Park Ranger Dad. Charlie also demanded that the boys quit using that blasted underwater horn-caller thing... it hurt his ears.

It was a bad move (like Suzanne Sommers, 3's Company)... b/c after that people only wanted to see Great Whites chomping on people w/ their "Jaws" in movies. Hasn't changed much since other than the occasional "nice guy" killer whale movie or two.

And what did his agent, Charlie Tuna, have to say about the stupid career move for Flipper? He apologized to Flipper for years... hence, the nickname he got in Hollywood, "Sorry Charlie".

TeamCasey
01-21-2005, 12:34 PM
.

Chip R
01-21-2005, 01:23 PM
No one was bickering... yet. My guess is it was locked because of the incendiary nature of the thread title and some of the comments made by the poster. If it had been just a link to the story with a title that was less opinionated, it would probably still be open.

If you guys want political/religious discussion, that's fine but these discussions are going to be monitored closely and we will not put up with as much crap as we have in the past. If that means threads are going to be closed before anyone responds, then that is what is going to happen. If that means posters are going to be banned with little or no warning, as this offender was, then that is what is going to happen. If you want total freedom of speech, I suggest you go elsewhere. If you want to discuss politics and/or religion while being respectful of other persons' points of view, you are more than welcome to do so here.

WVRed
01-21-2005, 01:25 PM
Im guessing this is the resolution to the past threads? Or has that been decided yet?

Chip R
01-21-2005, 01:34 PM
Im guessing this is the resolution to the past threads? Or has that been decided yet?
I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you talking about locking threads that were posted before the new "get tough" policy or are you talking about banning folks who have been transgressors in the past?

Johnny Footstool
01-21-2005, 01:45 PM
My guess is it was locked because of the incendiary nature of the thread title and some of the comments made by the poster.

That's quite a narrow interpretation. What else could he have titled the thread to avoid being "incendiary"?


If that means threads are going to be closed before anyone responds, then that is what is going to happen.

I think pre-emptively closing threads will make a lot more work for the moderators than simply responding to complaints.

WVRed
01-21-2005, 01:52 PM
I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you talking about locking threads that were posted before the new "get tough" policy or are you talking about banning folks who have been transgressors in the past?

I thought I remembered CQ posting in the "Be the Last Person to Post" thread that the new resolution was being worked on, but Boss was going to announce it.

Is the solution the "get tough" policy, or is it something else that hasnt been announced?

zombie-a-go-go
01-21-2005, 01:54 PM
That's quite a narrow interpretation. What else could he have titled the thread to avoid being "incendiary"?

I think pre-emptively closing threads will make a lot more work for the moderators than simply responding to complaints.

Nothing. He would have been better off not posting it at all.

Based on that poster's posting tendencies and the history of the posts he had made on that day, the mods decided he should be shut down. And he was.

Every post is not looked at in a vacuum. Past tendencies and trends are also considered when we make a decision on how to best moderate these threads.

And they are moderated at our discretion.

Chip R
01-21-2005, 02:36 PM
That's quite a narrow interpretation. What else could he have titled the thread to avoid being "incendiary"?
How about, "US Groups attack Sponge Bob Video"? Or "Sponge Bob Video Under Attack"? Or even "Focus On The Family Attacks Sponge Bob Video"? And then he insinuated that the people attacking this video believe Sponge Bob to be "evil" but that never appeared in the article. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid here. One person claiming that an entire group of people that share the same political leanings feel like that group does. It's be tantamount to saying "Liberals believe Bush should be jailed" when just some far left wacko group feels that way.

CougarQuest
01-21-2005, 02:43 PM
That poster was warned via PM and in a thread about name calling. He read the PM and went right back to name calling in the same thread and then posted that new thread. He was banned and I closed the new thread. There is not going to be the same childish behavior that has been going on in the political and religious threads. Discuss politics/religion. But the trolling, flames, name calling, personal attacks, fights, general nuisance, and excessive criticism is over with.

Pedro made a very good posts in that thread about how to act. Hoepfully he won't mind me adding it here.

But name calling is considered offensive in mixed company and doesn't lead to alot of intelligent discussion, which is so obviously the point of this board.

Pretend you are at someone's house as their guest for dinner. Keep the conversation respectiful and quiet if you possibly can. After all, the food's good here and I think you'll want to be invited back.

RFS62
01-21-2005, 02:45 PM
Have you guys ever considered making public who gets banned or suspended and the length of the ban?

I don't think everyone always knows.

Not to humiliate the people banned, but to show what kind of behavior gets you banned and for how long.

WVRed
01-21-2005, 03:07 PM
on a side note, any way this could become an emoticon?

http://www.argueit.com/forum/images/smilies/feedtroll.gif

CougarQuest
01-21-2005, 03:23 PM
Have you guys ever considered making public who gets banned or suspended and the length of the ban?

I don't think everyone always knows.

Not to humiliate the people banned, but to show what kind of behavior gets you banned and for how long.
Boss told me last night that he was going to post the rules for political/religious threads/posts, which I believe will include the punishments for violating those rules. GIK and Boss are very busy, and it is their place to post the rules, not the moderators. I know people are anxious to get this in stone, but they do have other priorities in their lives. Please bear with them.

RFS62
01-21-2005, 03:46 PM
I'm not in any hurry at all. I'd rather they take as long as they need to get it right.

Johnny Footstool
01-21-2005, 04:01 PM
That poster was warned via PM and in a thread about name calling. He read the PM and went right back to name calling in the same thread and then posted that new thread. He was banned and I closed the new thread.

OK, that makes perfect sense. I wasn't aware of the circumstances. Thanks!

Boss-Hog
01-21-2005, 04:34 PM
CQ, Chip and Zombie, I'm ready to OK those rules we talked about, pending your (and GIK's) approval. That's what I've been waiting on before they go into effect. If you think they should be a different length (as was suggested), let me know in the admin/mods forum.

GIK
01-21-2005, 08:32 PM
Boss, see my post in the admin forum. I think we're close (if not done).

GAC
01-21-2005, 09:31 PM
No one was bickering... yet. My guess is it was locked because of the incendiary nature of the thread title and some of the comments made by the poster. If it had been just a link to the story with a title that was less opinionated, it would probably still be open.

If you guys want political/religious discussion, that's fine but these discussions are going to be monitored closely and we will not put up with as much crap as we have in the past. If that means threads are going to be closed before anyone responds, then that is what is going to happen. If that means posters are going to be banned with little or no warning, as this offender was, then that is what is going to happen. If you want total freedom of speech, I suggest you go elsewhere. If you want to discuss politics and/or religion while being respectful of other persons' points of view, you are more than welcome to do so here.

I wholeheartedly agree. You guys have to try and nip this in the bud when you know, when a thread is being posted, that it's intent is to try and and taunt or incite someone.

And the funny thing is that the media/article, from which that closed thread sprung, was totally wrong. Dr Jame Dobson (Focus On The Family) was involved and he wasn't referring to Sponge Bob or any of the other cartoon characters that were used in that video that is being distributed to 61,000 elementary schools. He never mentioned them period. Nor did he, or any Focus On The family reps, say any of the things that this article "quoted" them as saying in reference to these these cartoon characters. The article in that other thread, which is from the bbc.uk, totally distorted the entire situation. Dobson produced the manuscript of what he said, in reference to this video and "We Are Family" organization, and it was totally and purposely distorted.

Dobson has huge differences with this "We Are Family" organization, which produced this video. He admits that. But it's parts of their agenda that he has differences with, not Sponge Bob or any other cartoon character. He was laughing on TV last night when he was being accused by some (Matt Lauer for example) who went off and said things about this situation that were totally untrue. They need to get their facts straight first.

Anyone who knows Dr Dobson (and I have for almost 20 years), knows his character and the type of person he is.

Chip R
01-22-2005, 12:45 AM
CQ, Chip and Zombie, I'm ready to OK those rules we talked about, pending your (and GIK's) approval. That's what I've been waiting on before they go into effect. If you think they should be a different length (as was suggested), let me know in the admin/mods forum.
That all looks good but I think beheading after a second offense is a little rough. ;)

CougarQuest
01-22-2005, 01:19 AM
That all looks good but I think beheading after a second offense is a little rough. ;)
Yeah, but we took out the severe punishment as a compromise. ;)

KronoRed
01-22-2005, 01:59 AM
Will the be-headings be televised? ;)

WVRed
01-22-2005, 09:01 AM
I signed up for the AFA(American Family Association) newsletter unknowingly when I signed a petition to support a ban of gay marriage. I got somewhere around 10 newsletters from them before I canceled, all of them were either trying to raise money or trying to get you to vote for something else(Proctor and Gamble).

James Dobson has some books that I think have been recommended on here before in the past. "Dare to Discipline" and "Bringing Up Boys" are two of the better child-raising books out there to my knowledge.

TeamCasey
01-22-2005, 09:10 AM
I got somewhere around 10 newsletters from them before I canceled, all of them were either trying to raise money or trying to get you to vote for something else(Proctor and Gamble).

What about P&G?

GAC
01-22-2005, 09:19 AM
I signed up for the AFA(American Family Association) newsletter unknowingly when I signed a petition to support a ban of gay marriage. I got somewhere around 10 newsletters from them before I canceled, all of them were either trying to raise money or trying to get you to vote for something else(Proctor and Gamble).

James Dobson has some books that I think have been recommended on here before in the past. "Dare to Discipline" and "Bringing Up Boys" are two of the better child-raising books out there to my knowledge.

I agree WV. Dare To Discipline and Bringing Up Boys are excellent books. I'm not a fan of the AFA at all. I've gotten literature from them in the past and just threw it in the trash.

And that is where the media got it all wrong. They associated/identified the wrong organization who had come out and was railing on this video. It was the AFA and not FOTF.

Dobson was on Hannity and Combs last night. Now I know there are some that don't care for that show. Alan Combs, who asked Dobson some very point blank questions, when he saw the manuscript of what Dobson had said, agreed that some of the media outlets jumped the gun and got it wrong (and Matt Lauer was one of them).

On a side note:

I agree with what you moderators are doing (or about to do). You guys got a very tough job. I have no problem whatsover with the stricter guidelines when it comes to political/relgious/philosophical discussion. We've become such a divisive nation over so many issues, that it is only natural that people are gonna want to argue and defend their position/stance, and then it denigrates into a name-calling, insulting shouting match.

What was the name of that couple that use to do a "Point-Counterpoint" argument, and which was spoofed on SNL all the time? :lol:

RedsBaron
01-22-2005, 09:31 AM
I signed up for the AFA(American Family Association) newsletter unknowingly when I signed a petition to support a ban of gay marriage. I got somewhere around 10 newsletters from them before I canceled, all of them were either trying to raise money or trying to get you to vote for something else(Proctor and Gamble).


Fund raising, even by organizations I support, often drives me crazy. There is one historical home I support, giving it $50 to $100 a year. I've done it for years, one donation a year. I get countless fundraising appeals from the home annually. I keep wanting to tell 'em-"quit wasting so much postage-I'm giving you one donation a year."
Some charities do a more effective job of fundraising IMO by sending informative literature which does include the option to make an additional donation, but without a heavy handed approach. Those are the ones who get multiple donations from me annually.

RedsBaron
01-22-2005, 09:34 AM
What was the name of that couple that use to do a "Point-Counterpoint" argument, and which was spoofed on SNL all the time? :lol:
I think it was on "60 Minutes" back in the 1970s. This was the program SNL spoofed with Dan Ackroyd responding to Jane Curtin's commentary with "Jane you ignorant ****." It rather foretold much of the political shoutfests on today.

GAC
01-22-2005, 09:42 AM
What about P&G?

"what...you didn't know that your CEO is of ....

SATAN!

http://snl.jt.org/arc/char/DaCa-Church%20Lady.jpg

:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ:

GAC
01-22-2005, 09:43 AM
I think it was on "60 Minutes" back in the 1970s. This was the program SNL spoofed with Dan Ackroyd responding to Jane Curtin's commentary with "Jane you ignorant ****." It rather foretold much of the political shoutfests on today.

Wasn't the guy's name Patrick/Kilpatrick or something like that? And the woman's name was Jeanna?

The also spoofed them in the movie "Airplane"...

"They bought the tickets, they knew the risk. I say let'em crash!"

:MandJ: :MandJ:

WVRed
01-22-2005, 09:54 AM
What about P&G?

The AFA went after P&G because P&G offers benefits to same sex couples and gives money to repeal laws forbidding special rights for homosexuals. They have a boycott petition on their website.

RedsBaron
01-22-2005, 10:04 AM
Wasn't the guy's name Patrick/Kilpatrick or something like that? And the woman's name was Jeanna?

The also spoofed them in the movie "Airplane"...

"They bought the tickets, they knew the risk. I say let'em crash!"

:MandJ: :MandJ:
I believe the conservative guy was James J. Kilpatrick. I can't recall the liberal woman's name.

Bob Borkowski
01-22-2005, 10:27 AM
I believe it was Shana Alexander.

919191
02-22-2005, 12:35 AM
I forgot I had this pic :) in my camera until I stumbled onto it tonight. I took it specifically for this thread. Not all Christians feel Sponge Bob is a threat to our souls...why, this church right here in Terre Haute, Indiana actually welcomes the celebrity into it's congregation!