The lack of control of Emergency medicine

[TooMuchResearch]

Ok, I had forgotten something, and the "dislike" I got for this post reminded me. Veers online became more stridently conservative, regularly moving rightward. However, "real life", he tried to get me a job with the tele place he worked, and was just a normal guy; he was not the living embodiment of a meme.

Wait, you guys are real? I thought you were all chat bots, too. Someone lost the password to my virtual machine so I was offline for two years...only to discover that I'm in a forum of humans. What a world.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Birdstrike]

I’m not privy to whatever warnings were or weren’t given to General Veers. But the people that chose to engage with him in those battles repeatedly, did so willingly and therefore must have been getting something out of it. They also could have used the ignore feature, but chose not to. I can’t imagine whatever he did justifies a lifetime ban. He’s done his time.

I vote to reinstate him. The forum is not better without him. It is more boring, though.

 

[Birdstrike]

Ok, I had forgotten something, and the "dislike" I got for this post reminded me. Veers online became more stridently conservative, regularly moving rightward. However, "real life", he tried to get me a job with the tele place he worked, and was just a normal guy; he was not the living embodiment of a meme.

The guy tried to make your life better in a real, non-internet way. If that’s the case, it seems you’d be in favor of reinstating him, but it doesn’t seem like you are.

 

[RustedFox]

I *second* what the planeman says.

He says what the kids need to hear.

 

[BoardingDoc]

I’m not privy to whatever warnings were or weren’t given to General Veers. But the people that chose to engage with him in those battles repeatedly, did so willingly and therefore must have been getting something out of it. They also could have used the ignore feature, but chose not to. I can’t imagine whatever he did justifies a lifetime ban. He’s done his time.

I vote to reinstate him. The forum is not better without him. It is more boring, though.

So Veers seems to have somehow managed, in absentia, to have derailed yet another thread.

I'm not going to rehash out the extensive discussions that were had among the mod team (not only the EM mods, but other subforum mods as well as several overall site administrators). Suffice it to say, he had a predilection for taking a wide variety of topics and turning them into inflammatory political posts. He was also given countless gentle (and subsequently less gentle) reminders to rein things in, largely in deference to how long he had been a member. His response, even after escalating staff intervention, was to continue or even double down in that manner.

I appreciate and understand where you're coming from. Based on my knowledge about the decision that was made at multiple levels, I can tell you with near certainty that the decision won't be revisited.

 

[NYEMMED]

I really don’t know the answer here, can’t he just make a new account with a new email address?
Log in from another source of internet etc?

 

[miacomet]

So Veers seems to have somehow managed, in absentia, to have derailed yet another thread.

I'm not going to rehash out the extensive discussions that were had among the mod team (not only the EM mods, but other subforum mods as well as several overall site administrators). Suffice it to say, he had a predilection for taking a wide variety of topics and turning them into inflammatory political posts. He was also given countless gentle (and subsequently less gentle) reminders to rein things in, largely in deference to how long he had been a member. His response, even after escalating staff intervention, was to continue or even double down in that manner.

I appreciate and understand where you're coming from. Based on my knowledge about the decision that was made at multiple levels, I can tell you with near certainty that the decision won't be revisited.

This is why, IMO, he should have been banned far earlier. He may be a nice guy IRL, but he left a wake of discord here.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

I don’t see the point in banning someone on an anonymous site. You can just make another account. It’s up to site owners’ beliefs regarding free speech and if they want to edit or remove content. You can’t effectively ban someone though when they can just make another anonymous account.

 

[CoolDoc1729]

Well they also do shiiit like go out to dinner on the company dollar, go to offsites and spend an extra 1-2 days there for vacation, their work hours are 9-5 and they roll into the office at 9:45 and leave at 4:30, taking a 45 minute lunch.

I can't remember the last time I took even a 5 minute lunch break.

I remember the last time I sat in our back office for 5 minutes for a lunch break. I tried to eat a hot pocket scrolling through a ct scan on PACS (so I guess already not really a break) and then oh dear a ruptured 11 cm aneurysm in .. … .. the waiting room?!

The time before I tried to sit in back for 5 minutes, we promptly got a code delivered by ems. Do they page me overhead ? No that’s only for SBP of 175. They ambled back and timidly knocked on the door LOL

So I’ve given up on breaks during work.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

I didn’t always (or even usually) agree with Veers views, but they challenged my views in a positive self reflective way. I think the ban was a mistake, but not up to me and not terribly concerned just like I bet Veers isn’t. It’s an anonymous free site. Real life is far more relevant.

 

[Apollyon]

The guy tried to make your life better in a real, non-internet way. If that’s the case, it seems you’d be in favor of reinstating him, but it doesn’t seem like you are.

Huh? No one is all good or all bad. Break the rules, get the boot. Being a nice guy doesn't reverse that. They're separate things.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Huh? No one is all good or all bad. Break the rules, get the boot. Being a nice guy doesn't reverse that. They're separate things.

Yep. Take me for example. I'm a big jerk but I play by the rules so here we are.

 

[xaelia]

Yep. Take me for example. I'm a big jerk but I play by the rules so here we are.

20+ Year Member right here case in point.

 

[Apollyon]

20+ Year Member right here case in point.

Just over a month for me.

 

[thegenius]

I don’t see the point in banning someone on an anonymous site. You can just make another account. It’s up to site owners’ beliefs regarding free speech and if they want to edit or remove content. You can’t effectively ban someone though when they can just make another anonymous account.

Sure you can. That's what Twitter is trying to do....find all the fake accounts (and real ones) and ban them. I'm not suggesting it's totally effective though, but I would do it.

If SDN has a ToS and one violates it, I have no problem whatsoever enforcing a lifetime ban.

If you are banned from a casino because you violate their terms of use, you can always cut your hair, grow a beard, gain 25 lbs, and go back in. They still might find out it's you.

 

[thegenius]

The guy tried to make your life better in a real, non-internet way. If that’s the case, it seems you’d be in favor of reinstating him, but it doesn’t seem like you are.

Well, in actuality he was a douchebag.

Not sure if that violates ToS though.

 

[Apollyon]

Well, in actuality he was a douchebag.

Not sure if that violates ToS though.

Well, it's something I've said for years: "On SDN, you can be a jerk, but, you can't tell another person they're a jerk". However, that said, the TOS does say something about being nice.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

Sure you can. That's what Twitter is trying to do....find all the fake accounts (and real ones) and ban them. I'm not suggesting it's totally effective though, but I would do it.

If SDN has a ToS and one violates it, I have no problem whatsoever enforcing a lifetime ban.

If you are banned from a casino because you violate their terms of use, you can always cut your hair, grow a beard, gain 25 lbs, and go back in. They still might find out it's you.

How are you going to effectively ban someone when every account is anonymous? You can just make a new account and no one would ever know it is still you?

You can certainly shut down an anonymous account (and maybe for good reason), but ultimately it won’t stop anything in the long run other than perhaps if it just makes users frustrated or annoyed enough to not want to use the site any more.

I do like your last example though. Using SDN is a little like going to a casino, the lights are always on, you lose track of time and forget to shave, you gain weight being sedentary on a computer or phone, sometimes the other people don’t seem completely normal, and it can be oddly addictive preventing you from spending time on other real pursuits.

 

[RustedFox]

How are you going to effectively ban someone when every account is anonymous? You can just make a new account and no one would ever know it is still you?

You can certainly shut down an anonymous account (and maybe for good reason), but ultimately it won’t stop anything in the long run other than perhaps if it just makes users frustrated or annoyed enough to not want to use the site any more.

I do like your last example though. Using SDN is a little like going to a casino, the lights are always on, you lose track of time and forget to shave, you gain weight being sedentary on a computer or phone, sometimes the other people don’t seem completely normal, and it can be oddly addictive preventing you from spending time on other real pursuits.

Mods and such can check the IP address or other advanced identifiers.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

Mods and such can check the IP address or other advanced identifiers.

Maybe not worth the effort, but a person could login from a different IP address or use VPN to hide their IP address.

This debate regarding free speech and censuring is being played out on a bigger scale with social media and I'm curious to see the outcome. Not sure I'm on one side or the other, but wary of suppression of speech even if I disagree with what is said.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Maybe not worth the effort, but a person could login from a different IP address or use VPN to hide their IP address.

This debate regarding free speech and censuring is being played out on a bigger scale with social media and I'm curious to see the outcome. Not sure I'm on one side or the other, but wary of suppression of speech even if I disagree with what is said.

Again, it wasn't what Veers was saying it was that despite multiple warnings (5) he kept making non-political threads political. If you do the same with liberal talking points you'll get the same result.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

Again, it wasn't what Veers was saying it was that despite multiple warnings (5) he kept making non-political threads political. If you do the same with liberal talking points you'll get the same result.

So by saying something political it was about what he was saying. The what being politics.

FWIW, I also prefer to keep things from devolving into divisive political rhetoric on either side, but just not sure the answer.

I’m primarily arguing that the idea of banning an anonymous account on an anonymous forum doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve been lurking and intermittently contributing on SDN a long time, but can’t say I ever have fully understood the anonymous yet not anonymous concept. I think how we allow public speech online in society will play out in other venues in the near future.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

So by saying something political it was about what he was saying. The what being politics.

FWIW, I also prefer to keep things from devolving into divisive political rhetoric on either side, but just not sure the answer.

I’m primarily arguing that the idea of banning an anonymous account on an anonymous forum doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve been lurking and intermittently contributing on SDN a long time, but can’t say I ever have full understood the anonymous yet not anonymous concept. I think how we allow public speech online in society will play out in other venues in the near future.

Ah, I see what you're saying now (my mistake here). I thought you were saying we banned him for being very conservative.

Generally speaking political discussions, unless relevant to the thread its posted in, are discouraged in most areas of SDN. We have areas devoted to politics if that's your thing but they very often derail otherwise productive threads and never lead anywhere good.

Most people when banned don't come back. When they do, we can usually tell because of behavior. If 2 weeks after Veers was banned a brand new account shows up and immediately starts posting conservative talking points in the EM forums.... well, even a dumb ole family doctor like me can connect the dots there. That said, we do sometimes get banned users coming back but we don't notice for some time because they don't do anything that forces us to pay attention to them. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens more than we realize but if they behave when they come back then meh.

 

[xaelia]

Just over a month for me.

And 10x the posts!

"winning!"

 

[cyanide12345678]

Maybe not worth the effort, but a person could login from a different IP address or use VPN to hide their IP address.

This debate regarding free speech and censuring is being played out on a bigger scale with social media and I'm curious to see the outcome. Not sure I'm on one side or the other, but wary of suppression of speech even if I disagree with what is said.

Places like ebay and google ads have very sophisticated means of tracking users.

I was banned once on ebay for apparently selling some Chinese dropshipped products that apparently weren’t allowed. The only way to bypass ebay ban was a new router (new IP address), new computer user to bypass any cookies, and then obviously a new ebay account. But had to create a new PayPal and connect to a new credit card and bank account as well. So a lot more than just create a new account. SDN at least should be sophisticated enough to track IP addresses and cookies, they probably do.

 

[xaelia]

if they behave when they come back then meh.

yeah, I mean, the intended outcome is civil discourse – banning is just a mechanism to serve this end. if they come back and are civil, still technically success?

the sophisticated anti-fraud bits are probably only necessary when someone continuously re-registers to post inflammatory content, but as long as it's more effort to make a new account than it is to ban one, it'll work itself out.

only some of us are dumb enough to link to our Real Life personas from this place, as well.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Ah, I see what you're saying now (my mistake here). I thought you were saying we banned him for being very conservative.

Generally speaking political discussions, unless relevant to the thread its posted in, are discouraged in most areas of SDN. We have areas devoted to politics if that's your thing but they very often derail otherwise productive threads and never lead anywhere good.

Most people when banned don't come back. When they do, we can usually tell because of behavior. If 2 weeks after Veers was banned a brand new account shows up and immediately starts posting conservative talking points in the EM forums.... well, even a dumb ole family doctor like me can connect the dots there. That said, we do sometimes get banned users coming back but we don't notice for some time because they don't do anything that forces us to pay attention to them. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens more than we realize but if they behave when they come back then meh.

I mean, if someone gets banned for violating the ToS, then starts another account and obeys the ToS with that account...seems like a fine outcome to me.

 

[WilcoWorld]

only some of us are dumb enough to link to our Real Life personas from this place, as well.

 

[southerndoc]

I mean, if someone gets banned for violating the ToS, then starts another account and obeys the ToS with that account...seems like a fine outcome to me.

I've not known of SDN to do this, but I've known of other forums do an IP ban.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

How are you going to effectively ban someone when every account is anonymous? You can just make a new account and no one would ever know it is still you?

You can certainly shut down an anonymous account (and maybe for good reason), but ultimately it won’t stop anything in the long run other than perhaps if it just makes users frustrated or annoyed enough to not want to use the site any more.

I do like your last example though. Using SDN is a little like going to a casino, the lights are always on, you lose track of time and forget to shave, you gain weight being sedentary on a computer or phone, sometimes the other people don’t seem completely normal, and it can be oddly addictive preventing you from spending time on other real pursuits.

You potentially gain some credibility if you're profile says you've been around 10+ years, you've donated cash, etc. You lose that with a new account.

 

[emergentmd]

Having a somewhat anonymous Board allows people to express themselves freely which is what makes it great. I would not say 75% of the stuff I say here b/c someone's feelings would be hurt or misinterpreted.

I thought Veers had some good take and disagree with bans unless for extreme reasons. I am not sure making everything political is a good reason. I mean, almost every hot topic could morph into political views.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Veers expressed controversial views that I disagreed with for years, and that was fine. But near the end he became what's called a "trashposter" which makes this forum far less interesting IMO. There are plenty of staunchly conservative voices that don't get banned here.

 

[xaelia]

It just goes back to the topic of this thread – the only way the mods can regain some of the control they've lost in emergency medicine is to flex that banhammer ....

 

[Birdstrike]

Veers also had said many times he’d gotten to a point of financial independence and was about to leave EM. I’m guessing (don’t know for sure) that he provoked the ban on purpose as a way to leave the forum along with his time in EM, for a fresh start all around.

 

[RustedFox]

Veers also had said many times he’d gotten to a point of financial independence and was about to leave EM. I’m guessing (don’t know for sure) that he provoked the ban on purpose as a way to leave the forum along with his time in EM, for a fresh start all around.

I've corresponded with him a few times since he left.

Believe me; homeboy is doing just fine.

 

[Siggy]

I engaged with Veers for over a decade, and we found areas of agreement. I also think we should not ban people for their political views. In my recollection what was inappropriate about his behavior was that he seemed to consistently and actively work to derail every discussion into a Red vs Blue discussion.

But I'm not a mod, so I'm not actually knowledgeable about what happened behind the scenes.

I don't think people were banned for their political views and I agree that people should not be banned for specific views unless it's something of an extreme like "ISIS did nothing wrong." (or pick your favorite 1940's dictator equivalent).

Now if you want to ban someone because they're constantly derailing threads or engaging in bad faith discussion? Then sure. This isn't the US Federal Government. As much as the side that most often engages in bad faith discussion (i.e. the side that only has one joke, normally about an attack helicopter) wants to claim... the 1st Amendment does not apply here.

 

[WilcoWorld]

It just goes back to the topic of this thread – the only way the mods can regain some of the control they've lost in emergency medicine is to flex that banhammer ....

You think that's what's going on? That this is some grasping at straws for a displaced sense of control? That's a surprising take from you.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I've corresponded with him a few times since he left.

Believe me; homeboy is doing just fine.

Oh, I suspect just about anyone is better off-line than on-line!

 

[Siggy]

These things matter. Doctors should have a voice on these matters. Red vs blue who cares. Stop the cancel culture 😅

The Dixie Chicks, Teletubbies, Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries would like a word.

 

[Siggy]

Maybe not worth the effort, but a person could login from a different IP address or use VPN to hide their IP address.

This debate regarding free speech and censuring is being played out on a bigger scale with social media and I'm curious to see the outcome. Not sure I'm on one side or the other, but wary of suppression of speech even if I disagree with what is said.

MAC address...

...so unless you're going to buy a new computer or take the time to spoof a MAC address...

Is spoofing a MAC address easier than a VPN?

 

[NITRAS]

The Dixie Chicks, Teletubbies, Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries would like a word.

The Dixie Chicks are now just The Chicks.


Did the Teletubbies really get canceled? Or did everything just hope they would stop existing?

 

[Siggy]

The Dixie Chicks are now just The Chicks.


Did the Teletubbies really get canceled? Or did everything just hope they would stop existing?

Dixie Chicks:

The Dixie Chicks backlash begins

In response to the critical comments made about him by singer Natalie Maines in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush offered this response: “The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say.” Of the backlash the Chicks (then known as...

www.history.com

Teletubbies/Tinky Winky outrage:

The gay Teletubby; Television: The Rev. Jerry Falwell insists the purple baby-show character Tinky Winky is homosexual.

www.baltimoresun.com

French Fries getting cancelled:

Did Americans Really Call French Fries "Freedom Fries"?

null

www.mentalfloss.com

If it were liberals doing it to conservatives, the screeching over cancel culture wouldn't stop. So if conservatives claim they're for "free speech" and against "cancel culture" then it's frankly an outright lie.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You think that's what's going on? That this is some grasping at straws for a displaced sense of control? That's a surprising take from you.

I think that was a joke.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Having a somewhat anonymous Board allows people to express themselves freely which is what makes it great. I would not say 75% of the stuff I say here b/c someone's feelings would be hurt or misinterpreted.

I thought Veers had some good take and disagree with bans unless for extreme reasons. I am not sure making everything political is a good reason. I mean, almost every hot topic could morph into political views.

Yes it could, and that's exactly what most people on SDN don't want.

For the ones who do want that, we have parts of the forum dedicated to just that.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I think that was a joke.

That would make more sense...so hard to tell on forums sometimes.

 

[MechEDoc]

MAC address...

...so unless you're going to buy a new computer or take the time to spoof a MAC address...

Is spoofing a MAC address easier than a VPN?

MAC spoofing and VPNs are pretty easy...

 

[KGflyboy]

Not at all. And, it was a distasteful meme, and he deserved the boot. Again, mess with the bull...

I'm not sure about that.

When it comes to political memes, how "distasteful" it is often depends on the political views of the audience. Hence why there are so many people here pissed he got booted. The fact you described the meme as distasteful pretty much guarantees you are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I am confident in that assumption despite having never met you.

The people who didn't like his posts often had opposing political views, and the people who think SDN was shady as hell for booting him tended to like his posts and find them funny or informative.

You can say his ban had nothing to do with which side of the political isle he aligned until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it any more factual.

This is another example of "canceling" someone with opposing views.

If he had posted in support of liberal ideas instead of conservative ones, the people here who hated and often reported his posts would have responded much differently.

I agree with Birdstrike. This forum is not better without him, but it is more boring.

In fact, it kind of sucks now.

 

[RustedFox]

I'm not sure about that.

When it comes to political memes, how "distasteful" it is often depends on the political views of the audience. Hence why there are so many people here pissed he got booted. The fact you described the meme as distasteful pretty much guarantees you are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I am confident in that assumption despite having never met you.

The people who didn't like his posts often had opposing political views, and the people who think SDN was shady as hell for booting him tended to like his posts and find them funny or informative.

You can say his ban had nothing to do with which side of the political isle he aligned until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it any more factual.

This is another example of "canceling" someone with opposing views.

If he had posted in support of liberal ideas instead of conservative ones, the people here who hated and often reported his posts would have responded much differently.

I agree with Birdstrike. This forum is not better without him, but it is more boring.

In fact, it kind of sucks now.

I try and stir the pot academically and comedically.

Let me try that now: I challenge another poster to explain the "finer points" of management of CHF.

Boom. Simple and broad topic, yet nuanced.
Someone start the thread.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I'm not sure about that.

When it comes to political memes, how "distasteful" it is often depends on the political views of the audience. Hence why there are so many people here pissed he got booted. The fact you described the meme as distasteful pretty much guarantees you are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I am confident in that assumption despite having never met you.

The people who didn't like his posts often had opposing political views, and the people who think SDN was shady as hell for booting him tended to like his posts and find them funny or informative.

You can say his ban had nothing to do with which side of the political isle he aligned until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it any more factual.

This is another example of "canceling" someone with opposing views.

If he had posted in support of liberal ideas instead of conservative ones, the people here who hated and often reported his posts would have responded much differently.

I agree with Birdstrike. This forum is not better without him, but it is more boring.

In fact, it kind of sucks now.

@Apollyon is neither hyper-liberal nor performatively woke. I think you may want to check your references.

 

[KGflyboy]

@Apollyon is neither hyper-liberal nor performatively woke. I think you may want to check your references.

I never said Apollyon was hyper-liberal or performatively woke.

But since you decided to challenge my assertion that there is a correlation between political affiliation and a poster's disgust or support for Veers, I should point out that I had zero sources.

My point was that it seems that Veers's biggest enemies on this site seemed to be people who oppose his views.

Now that you are challenging my references (which I didn't have or need in order to make my inference), I decided to do some more research to see if I was indeed wrong in this case.

It didn't take long to find a source.

I recognize this was a very old post, but it goes to show that maybe my assumption was more correct than you thought.

As it turns out... I'm 1 for 1 in correctly predicting political affiliation based on the way someone talks about Veers.