Paging Lynn Hoppes ...

All true. That said, I've never checked to see when someone was last active, or on now, or whatever. To each their own, but it's a little creepy to me when someone knows someone else was last on at X time. Maybe for sentimental purposes, like the last time SF_Express was with us here, but that's about it.

 

For what it is worth, I agree with you. It's hard to make this into a moderating issue, though. To preface what I am about to say. ... The moderators are users of this board like everyone else. First and foremost. We don't see everything. We are NOT (and don't want to be) the board censors. It's a difficult, and inexact, line. We try to keep the board uncluttered, with good discussions. If we're heavy handed, we're censors. If we give something rope, we were uneven in our enforcement, or we're playing favorites. It's a no win. All we try to do is keep the board uncluttered and interesting for as many people as possible. Some people don't realize that we don't see everything, are not on all the time, are not perfect, and we're not obsessing over every word posted the way they might be.

"No personal attacks" has been about trying not to let the board devolve into threads with two people ignoring the thread topic and taking shots at each other. It's that simple. It drives people away when two users lose it and start posting insults back and forth.

So this is not what anyone had in mind with "no personal attacks."

What has made this one difficult is that the thread is ABOUT Lynn Hoppes. It's not like someone picked him randomly and tried to make him a punching bag on here. Apparently he killed the dog of someone at Deadspin. And now everything he has ever done is getting scrutinized. If someone had just randomly started a thread about him, it would be one thing. But Deadspin has absolutely hammered him, and as you said, a thread about plagiarism belongs on here. A guy getting hammered for plagiarism -- or lazy journalism, at best -- is more than fair game.

That said, this thread has made me cringe. I agree with you that it went off the rails when we got people napalming him personally -- and doing it anonymously. It really bothered me when someone who hadn't been on here in years specifically came back to take shots at him anonymously. I thought the the pile on afterward was sad.

Lynn may or may not be anything anyone on here has alleged. It's just not all that courageous to be emboldened and use this as an opportunity to post personal things and allegations about him that nobody else can verify, especially without everyone else knowing who you are or what your agenda is. Anonymity is a necessity on here. It also has the downside of allowing someone to potentially hide behind anonymity in order to grind their axe or follow a personal vendetta. My hope is that most people are smart enough to understand that when they read through a thread like this.

 

I'm with Ragu for the most part. Hoppes did something that a lot of us would see as unethical. Then someone came on to allege racism, which is ridiculous. (Didn't even know he was Asian-American, and I'm not certain how many posters do.)

Carrie's run at Hoppes made me uncomfortable, too. Reason: Something similar happened a couple of years ago with an anonymous user bashing a columnist by name. I let it slide and it was a mistake. Now, Carrie's got a history at this site (unlike the other user) and the evidence appears to be much stronger this time around. Just like any of us in all our real jobs, you can rip all you want to if you can back it up.

The anonymity thing is tough. I'm sure we'd all like to use our real names, but it's just not feasible. The repercussions would be severe in some cases. Maybe it's not perfect, but you try to make it as good as possible.

 

Of course. I'm the kind of person who is leery about Foursquare check-ins on FB/Twitter because I think someone will then rob my house. But the way some people track others here through login times is still weird to me.