Why did this get a note?

[Shot From Guns]

Maastricht, you're a lot better person than I. Not because you went through with it, but that you aren't upset that people can't have the moral decency to stick with the thread topic: reasons TO do this.
I'm going to go start a thread: Why black people suck.

And only people who agree get to post in it!

Moderator Note

AClockWorkMelon, you should know better than to use such obviously inflammatory language, even if if it isn't your intent to inflame. If it is a joke I'm still not seeing how anything that's gone on before it in the thread could possibly have created a context in which this is acceptable.

I think it's pretty clear that:

1.) BigT is taking a swipe at the people who posted in Maastricht's thread to give her reasons why a gastric bypass wouldn't be a good idea and to provide potential alternatives, when she created the thread only asking for reasons why she should have the surgery.

2.) AClockworkMelon responded with a satirical hypothetical that pointed out why BigT's criticism was so ridiculous. It was deliberately as hyperbolic as possible to make a point, and it would be interpreted by no one who was actually paying attention as endorsing that position.

Melon wasn't being racist, just being a bit snarky at someone who was snarky at him first. I could see a mod stepping in to ask people to drop the issue entirely, but I fail to see any justification for issuing a note to Melon, especially in a way that seems to be pretty clear that it's specifically the subject of the hypothetical thread (which only exists to provide an intentionally deeply stupid premise) that the moderator objects to.

[mhendo]

Yeah, that was a bit odd, especially given that the mod in question also said:Obviously it was a joke; the part I thought objectionable was the subject matter of his hypothetical thread.So we're moderating hypotheticals now? Jeebus.

The topic of the hypothetical thread was intended to be hyperbolic, in order to demonstrate the silliness of expecting everyone who posts in a thread to agree with the OP.

[Shot From Guns]

Thanks for pulling in that further clarification from Spectre. I'd meant to include it since it reinforced my assertion about what he was actually moderating.

[needscoffee]

Yes, ACM was letting BigT know that if a person starts a thread that invokes strong feelings, they won't expect that everyone is going to tell them only what they want to hear, as Maastricht already knew. There was no inflammation occurring. Maybe we're all oversensitized because of that other actual offensive thread that is going on.

[AClockworkMelon]

First my first pitting and now my first row row fight the powah thread? Shucks, guys. :)

[Cat Whisperer]

Teacher's pet.

ETA: :D

[AClockworkMelon]

No mod response? I have a vested interest in this one!

[Chessic Sense]

I vote for acquittal, for what it's worth. ACM was clearly saying "What, people can't disagree with the OP? Don't you see how that's a stupid rule? Why, I could start a racist thread and demand that everyone agree!"

[MeanOldLady]

First my first pitting and now my first row row fight the powah thread? Shucks, guys. :)You were pitted? Where?

[Freudian Slit]

Thread in question. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12725472)

[Contrapuntal]

Why did this get a note?Because the modding around here is capriciously inconsistent to the point of whimsy.

[Shot From Guns]

ACM was clearly saying "What, people can't disagree with the OP? Don't you see how that's a stupid rule? Why, I could start a racist thread and demand that everyone agree!"

And the premise doesn't even work unless the hypothetical thread is offensive and one with which (presumably) everybody will disagree.

ETA:

Thread in question. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12725472)

It's linked in the OP. (Click the breadcrumb links on the quotes and they will take you there.)

[PlainJain]

It's linked in the OP. (Click the breadcrumb links on the quotes and they will take you there.)
Cool, how do you do that?

[Shot From Guns]

I quoted the post in the original thread as though I was going to reply to it there, copied the code out, then pasted it into a new thread here.

[AClockworkMelon]

First my first pitting and now my first row row fight the powah thread? Shucks, guys. :)You were pitted? Where?Here you go. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=561726).


It's linked in the OP. (Click the breadcrumb links on the quotes and they will take you there.)
Cool, how do you do that?You just did it. Every time you quote someone using the quote button there's a list of numbers that appears after the name. That's a post number or something. It links back to where they originally said it. Obviously it doesn't happen automatically when you're manually quoting someone.

[Shot From Guns]

So, is a moderator or an admin going to comment on this at all?

[BigT]

Hey, yeah. I don't even have a problem with it. He made a valid point by using hyperbole.

Then again, I got called out for the same thing once.

[AClockworkMelon]

I'm glad you aren't upset, BigT. I was hoping you'd get what I was going for without having to ruin the point by adding a smiley.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

ACM was clearly saying "What, people can't disagree with the OP? Don't you see how that's a stupid rule? Why, I could start a racist thread and demand that everyone agree!"

And the premise doesn't even work unless the hypothetical thread is offensive and one with which (presumably) everybody will disagree.


I'm hopeful that we'll get some clarification from ACM if I'm wrong here. As I see it there were two possibilities.


[1] He is postulating an OP that asserts a premise that nobody will agree with, yet only those who do agree are allowed to respond.
[2] He is postulating an OP that asserts a repugnant premise that nobody will agree with, yet only those who do agree are allowed to respond.


I'll consider these seriatim.

the first possibility, he could have asserted the opposite of a physical law, like "gravity works upward". In that case there would have been no justification for a race-related example.

The second possibility requires a repugnant premise to work, it is true, but even so it didn't have to involve race. Knowing from the context that there was nothing more sinister at work here, and knowing ACM to be a decent guy, I was handling this as a question of good taste. We don't prohibit bad taste, and a mod note doesn't necessarily mean that something is going to happen to ACM, but we do like to encourage good taste and a racially sensitive attitude.

Remember that everything you type here is searchable by Google, and if you google "Why black people suck", that thread comes up. Do you really want people to find us that way? If you don't believe that race is a sensitive topic, just look at the other ATMB thread Why is this thread in GD (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572720), which is about this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=503736) thread, since moved to IMHO.

There's nothing to acquit ACM of--there's no formal infraction or warning. We think he's a great guy who adds a lot to the board here. I didn't think for a moment that he was sincerely expressing a racist attitude. The intent of the mod note was simply as if to say, hey, next time just use something less sensitive.

[AClockworkMelon]

The second possibility requires a repugnant premise to work, it is true, but even so it didn't have to involve race.The point was to create a hypothetical thread that BigT would be morally outraged by and realize that if he supported such a position as he did in Maas' thread he'd have to advocate a similar position for all others. But if my mentioning race is the problem, by all means, you can go edit my post so that I'm suggesting a gaybashing thread instead. :P

[Shot From Guns]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus:

I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I still think it's way out of line, unless you plan to apply this logic to every single thread on the board. (Which would be a ridiculous rule, and one that would drive a lot of posters away.) People make ridiculously hyperbolic statements here all the time, and the mods don't call them on it. Consider, for example, every time someone or something has been compared to Hitler or the Nazis. I'd say genocide is about as serious as racism, wouldn't you?

The point of hyperbole is that it's, well, hyperbole. I don't see how restricting it to non-offensive topics is remotely useful or necessary.

[Shot From Guns]

Further note:

Fat is a very touchy subject on the SDMB. Any thread involving someone's weight, and attempts to deal with it, is a lot more volatile than a thread dealing with a natural law, like gravity. I think that's definitely part of what was influencing ACM's choice of hypothetical alternative threads. People don't get personal about gravity the way they do about weight or race, and there are no moralistic analyses that come out of someone's opinions on gravity.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus;12760200] But if my mentioning race is the problem, by all means, you can go edit my post so that I'm suggesting a gaybashing thread instead. :PWell, that would be another example of the same thing. In any event it's days after the fact so I'm not going to go back and edit anything now.

Just mentioning race isn't a problem per se, it was just that this was a case of "why the ___ race sucks". I appreciate perfectly the fact that you didn't mean to imply actual support for racist beliefs; but the phrase taken out of context (like in a Google search) could suggest it.

[AClockworkMelon]

Well, that would be another example of the same thing. In any event it's days after the fact so I'm not going to go back and edit anything now.
I was joking.

Just mentioning race isn't a problem per se, it was just that this was a case of "why the ___ race sucks". I appreciate perfectly the fact that you didn't mean to imply actual support for racist beliefs; but the phrase taken out of context (like in a Google search) could suggest it.Does this mean that people should now be censoring themselves based on what could appear in a Google search? Should I report posts containing things that could be taken out of context and searched for on Google?

I'd like to report your post, the part where you said "support for racist beliefs". God forbid someone is Googling that and happens to be linked to your post.

Racist ideologies being supported on the Dope? And by a moderator no less!

[Shot From Guns]

I appreciate perfectly the fact that you didn't mean to imply actual support for racist beliefs; but the phrase taken out of context (like in a Google search) could suggest it.

And a split-second glance at the actual thread would tell anybody that the point was that the idea was incredibly distasteful and wrong. Moderating based on what someone might be able to dig up by searching for the wrong Google phrase is a terrible idea.

And yes, it's always worth discussing these things, even "days after the fact," because precedent is important. And, if I may note, you are the one who took almost a week to respond. The post in question was made on the evening of 7/25, and I commented on it here on the morning of 7/26.

[mhendo]

Just mentioning race isn't a problem per se, it was just that this was a case of "why the ___ race sucks". I appreciate perfectly the fact that you didn't mean to imply actual support for racist beliefs; but the phrase taken out of context (like in a Google search) could suggest it.
Are you kidding me? The possibility that the thread could come up in a Google search is now a criterion for Moderator intervention. I am officially dumbfounded.

[Drunky Smurf]

*snip*

Racist ideologies being supported on the Dope? And by a moderator no less!

See, there you go again typing something that someone might find on a google search and take out of context. Are you trying to get banned? :p

[AClockworkMelon]

See, there you go again typing something that someone might find on a google search and take out of context. Are you trying to get banned? :pEven in the face of Armageddon... (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3355692361_06f17e3dd7.jpg)

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus:

I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I still think it's way out of line, unless you plan to apply this logic to every single thread on the board. (Which would be a ridiculous rule, and one that would drive a lot of posters away.) People make ridiculously hyperbolic statements here all the time, and the mods don't call them on it. Consider, for example, every time someone or something has been compared to Hitler or the Nazis. I'd say genocide is about as serious as racism, wouldn't you?
Compare what or whom to Hitler, for example? In any event that would be simile, and the appropriate context it wouldn't be an issue.


The point of hyperbole is that it's, well, hyperbole. I don't see how restricting it to non-offensive topics is remotely useful or necessary.Hyperbole is nothing more than rhetorical exaggeration used to make a point, and it's usually not an issue, either. It doesn't need to use sensitive topics to make a point.

[MTCicero]

Why did this get a note?Because the modding around here is capriciously inconsistent to the point of whimsy.

Amen!

[Fenris]

[Hyperbole is nothing more than rhetorical exaggeration used to make a point, and it's usually not an issue, either. It doesn't need to use sensitive topics to make a point.

It doesn't need to use "sensitive" topics to make a point, but it was more effective with the "sensitive" topic* and until this case, there's never been a rule (or even a guideline) against it.

His post wouldn't have had half the punch if he'd written something like "I'm going to go start a thread: Why fuzzy-wuzzy bunnies are so icky! And only people who agree get to post in it!".

And the "Someone on Google might see it and take it out of context" argument is so silly as to be laughable. Censoring our discussion based on what someone somewhere might someday think about it if it shows up on a Google search and then the searcher misreads it? No. Just...no.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Just mentioning race isn't a problem per se, it was just that this was a case of "why the ___ race sucks". I appreciate perfectly the fact that you didn't mean to imply actual support for racist beliefs; but the phrase taken out of context (like in a Google search) could suggest it.
Are you kidding me? The possibility that the thread could come up in a Google search is now a criterion for Moderator intervention. I am officially dumbfounded. If you can't see the distinction between "why ___ suck" and "support for racist beliefs", then I can't help you. The latter is the way that particular attitude might be denoted in normal discourse, in an audience which is presumed to find it repugnant. To say "why ___ sucks" has the possible interpretation, when taken out of context, of choosing sides and preparing to fight. FWIW I hope it's safe to say we're discussing a general principle now, and not ACM's post, with which I hope we're done now.

[mhendo]

If you can't see the distinction between "why ___ suck" and "support for racist beliefs", then I can't help you. The latter is the way that particular attitude might be denoted in normal discourse, in an audience which is presumed to find it repugnant. To say "why ___ sucks" has the possible interpretation, when taken out of context, of choosing sides and preparing to fight. FWIW I hope it's safe to say we're discussing a general principle now, and not ACM's post, with which I hope we're done now.Way to completely miss the point.

I can see the difference easily. What i can't see is why the results of a Google search should in any way, shape, or form determine how you moderate the boards. If someone breaks a rule or steps over a line, warn them or give them a note; if they don't, then leave them alone. And this case clearly fell into the latter category, in my opinion.

ETA:

Let's use your logic for a moment. Here are two sentences:

1. "I believe that, for the most part, black people are less intelligent than whites."

2. "I've never seen a convincing argument that black people are less intelligent than whites."

And yet, by the Google test, both would be equally unacceptable, because both would be equally likely to return a result for "black people are less intelligent."

[AClockworkMelon]

I'm pretty surprised by the mods' stance.

[Sailboat]

Yeah, uh, baffling.

[Steophan]

If this is the policy, you'll have to get rid of the Pit and half of GD, basically neutering the board.
I'll not start that thread on whether ethnic minorities are more likely to give oral sex, though.

[AClockworkMelon]

Better shut down the offensive joke thread, too.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

If you can't see the distinction between "why ___ suck" and "support for racist beliefs", then I can't help you. The latter is the way that particular attitude might be denoted in normal discourse, in an audience which is presumed to find it repugnant. To say "why ___ sucks" has the possible interpretation, when taken out of context, of choosing sides and preparing to fight. FWIW I hope it's safe to say we're discussing a general principle now, and not ACM's post, with which I hope we're done now.Way to completely miss the point.

I can see the difference easily. What i can't see is why the results of a Google search should in any way, shape, or form determine how you moderate the boards. If someone breaks a rule or steps over a line, warn them or give them a note; if they don't, then leave them alone. And this case clearly fell into the latter category, in my opinion.

ETA:

Let's use your logic for a moment. Here are two sentences:

1. "I believe that, for the most part, black people are less intelligent than whites."

2. "I've never seen a convincing argument that black people are less intelligent than whites."

And yet, by the Google test, both would be equally unacceptable, because both would be equally likely to return a result for "black people are less intelligent."The fact that we are indexed by Google was an argument after the fact, although still a valid one IMO. It would not, by itself, be a reason I would want to do anything, but was suggested as an undesirable aftereffect. Bottom line: I don't believe we should be saying that an ethnic group "sucks" on this message board, even in the effort to set up a logical argument. I would extend and defend this position with respect to nationalities, age groups, or any other way you want to categorize humanity based on their heritage or other immutable attributes. FTR, I consider this to include sexual orientation. By contrast, your examples 1 and 2 here simply lead to debates about the issue, which is fine.

[Shot From Guns]

To say "why ___ sucks" has the possible interpretation, when taken out of context, of choosing sides and preparing to fight.

Who cares what something can be taken out of context to mean? That has never been a criterion of moderation on this board, nor should it be.

FWIW I hope it's safe to say we're discussing a general principle now, and not ACM's post, with which I hope we're done now.

We're looking at both. You can't toss aside discussion of a specific incident of moderation just because you find it inconvenient--even if you did manage to avoid talking about it for long enough that you hoped it would be a moot point.

Bottom line: I don't believe we should be saying that an ethnic group "sucks" on this message board, even in the effort to set up a logical argument.

Unfortunately, your job is not to moderate what you think people should be saying on this board. It is to enforce the rules of the board, period. And there is no rule about using unpleasant hypotheticals to make a point.

(Oh, and "The fact that we are indexed by Google was an argument after the fact"? At the risk of being rude, no shit. It's pretty apparent to me that you didn't have a solid idea about why you were giving ACM a note at the time you did it, nor that you'd thought through the implications of what you were trying to do.)

--------------------

IMO you overstepped, and you know you overstepped. But instead of admitting it and retracting the note, like I've seen moderators do here before, you're grasping at a bunch of really terrible justifications.

As a moderator of a community, it is your job to, more or less, act like Kant would suggest: as though you wished all of your actions to become a universal rule. So, what two univeral rules have you proposed here?

1.) That we may not use unpleasant hyperbole to make a point; and, worse

2.) That we may not say anything that could possibly be taken out of content, even as a single isolated phrase, and even when in context it explicitly does not mean anything offensive (and even indicates the exact opposite).

I do not see any member of the SBMB staff but you supporting such rules. I would very much like to see their opinions on the matter. I'm sure your fellow moderators have no desire to get involved here--after all, it's not their place to comment on another mod's actions. But it would be great to get some commentary from an admin.

[TubaDiva]

It was a mod note. It's not like you were banned, or even Warned.

One mild mod note does not a pattern make, either.

[mhendo]

Unfortunately, your job is not to moderate what you think people should be saying on this board. It is to enforce the rules of the board, period. And there is no rule about using unpleasant hypotheticals to make a point.Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. The fact that you fail to comprehend this is pretty sad.

[hajario]

It was a mod note. It's not like you were banned, or even Warned.

One mild mod note does not a pattern make, either.

I'm not seeing how this is relevant. Yes, it was a Note. That means that continued behavior along the same lines will result in a Warning, right? The question in the OP still remains. Is such behavior against the rules?

[Shot From Guns]

It was a mod note. It's not like you were banned, or even Warned.

It was a Note from a moderator, acting in that official capacity. If Spectre had been posting as a private citizen to say that he personally wished that people wouldn't use offensively hyperbolic examples, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One mild mod note does not a pattern make, either.

Any Notes or Warnings from SDMB staff are the Rule of Law and should be considered by all posters to apply universally. Otherwise, if we can pick and choose which Notes and Warnings we will pay attention to, the board will cease to function. Accordingly, they should either reflect an existing rule or establish a new one. They should not be inconsistent or capricious. So, either this Note is establishing a new rule (which should be fleshed out and published so that we can be sure to follow it) or it was a mistake (and it should be retracted).

But thank you for coming to weigh in. Hopefully you'll continue to engage in discussion. As silly as it may seem to be talking about a single mild note, I think it's important.

[Irishman]

I have to agree with the bulk of this thread. The original incident was puzzling. The justifications are idiotic.

I realize the incident in question was a simple Mod Note and doesn't have much effect on Shot From Guns, but the question is not about one specific poster, the question concerns the general principle. Is this now against the rules? Where is that stated?

The whole point was to pick an example that would trigger moral outrage. It's absolutely clear that ACM was not advocating that position. Since when is "things could be taken out of context" a justification for anything?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Any Notes or Warnings from SDMB staff are the Rule of Law and should be considered by all posters to apply universally. I don't understand your use of "apply universally." They apply universally in the sense that ANY individual receiving such a note or warning should take heed. You ignore them at your peril. However, "friendly reminders" or "notes" are not "Rule of Law" -- they are early alerts that you MAY be headed for an infraction if you continue along that line. They are situational,and apply to to one individual in one individual circumstance.

Kinda like, those little electronic signs at the side of the road that say, "Speed Limit is 30, you are going 43." If the person next to me gets such an alert, that doesn't mean that I (going 32) need to slow down. It doesn't apply "universally." It only applies to that one car, going 39. It's a friendly reminders that that car might be headed for a problem if they persist. And it's NOT the same as a ticket.

In this case, the existing rule is that racist threads are not allowed. The threat to open such a thread (whether a joke is irrelevant) was deemed to warrant a reminder. Not all mods would have done so, but some mods would have. Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. HAD such a thread been opened, all mods would have reacted in the same way: that's a rules violation.

[mhendo]

In this case, the existing rule is that racist threads are not allowed. The threat to open such a thread (whether a joke is irrelevant) was deemed to warrant a reminder.The warning didn't come as a caution not to open such a thread; it came specifically for the language in which the hypothetical was posed. Quite a different thing.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

It was a mod note. It's not like you were banned, or even Warned.

One mild mod note does not a pattern make, either.

To be clear, my mod note was in response to A Clockwork Melon's post, not anything that Shot From Guns has said. But it is the latter who decided to pick up this torch and run with it.

[Shot From Guns]

I don't understand your use of "apply universally." They apply universally in the sense that ANY individual receiving such a note or warning should take heed. You ignore them at your peril. However, "friendly reminders" or "notes" are not "Rule of Law" -- they are early alerts that you MAY be headed for an infraction if you continue along that line. They are situational,and apply to to one individual in one individual circumstance.

But they always apply to how a user is potentially coming afoul of a rule of the board. They're a means of clarifying the rules or creating new ones. They do not exist in a vacuum.

I say they "apply universally" because they are indicators of how we should all behave. If somebody else gets a note or a warning for behavior, and a mod knows that I see that note or warning, and then I engage in the same behavior, I'm liable to be treated more harshly, correct? For instance, if a couple of posters are engaged in some off-topic sniping and a mod tells them to quit it or take it elsewhere, then threatens to hand out a warning to the next person to post on the topic, I can be given a warning even if I wasn't one of the original set of off-topic posters. Because I should know better. So while a Note or a Warning given to someone else doesn't affect me in the sense that it doesn't go down on my record, it does affect me in the sense that it serves as a guide for my future behavior.

Notes and Warnings also "apply universally" because they should exhibit a consistent enforcement of the rules: i.e., any other poster exibiting similar behavior should also garner a Note or a Warning. So, the question is, what sort of universal rule is Spectre seeking to create or enforce with this Note? He has given two explanations:

1.) He doesn't approve of tasteless hypberbole.
2.) We shouldn't say anything that could be taken out of context in a Google search.

So, I ask you: do you plan to enforce either of these rules going forward? And if not, why was ACM officially reprimanded for using an (albeit hamhanded) rhetorical tool that other people have been using here for a decade or more?

Kinda like, those little electronic signs at the side of the road that say, "Speed Limit is 30, you are going 43." If the person next to me gets such an alert, that doesn't mean that I (going 32) need to slow down. It doesn't apply "universally." It only applies to that one car, going 39. It's a friendly reminders that that car might be headed for a problem if they persist. And it's NOT the same as a ticket.

Everybody knows what the speed limit is. For instance, one of the "speed limits" of the SDMB is not using racial slurs. But this was not a case of anything that broke an established rule.

So, to improve upon your analogy... I am driving down the highway, and I see an alert sign flash for the car next to me: WARNING--YOU ARE DRIVING WITH A CLOWN IN THE PASSENGER SEAT. There's not a clown in my passenger seat, but I may have reason to transport a clown in the future. (Possibly to drown it in the river.) So I have reason to ascertain whether or not I am allowed to transport clowns--and if clown transportation is allowed, I have to wonder why someone else was cautioned for doing it.

In this case, the existing rule is that racist threads are not allowed. The threat to open such a thread (whether a joke is irrelevant) was deemed to warrant a reminder.

There was no threat, not even a joking one. There was a hypothetical question about a parallel circumstance in order to force someone to reconsider a position. (Perhaps ironically, the juxtaposition again involved the necessity of universally applying standards.)

Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I'll ignore this barely disguised insult hurled at my direction, partially because I literally am unable to respond in kind (since we're in ATMB and all, remember?), and respond to the actual content. Absolute consistency in the enforcement of rules is essential for any community to function. If the members of the community have no idea from one day to the next, or from one enforcement officer to the next, what is allowed and what is not, there is no order. There is fear and frustration. Which is not to say that circumstances cannot be taken into account, but in general, everyone should be following the same set of rules, and exceptions should be made on the side of leniency--not by giving someone a note for something that the moderator personally doesn't like, something that is not and has never been against the rules.

[Shot From Guns]

To be clear, my mod note was in response to A Clockwork Melon's post, not anything that Shot From Guns has said. But its the latter who decided to pick up this torch and run with it.

That should be obvious from my OP and the discussion in this thread. And yes, I did decide to "pick up this torch and run with it" (:rolleyes: thank you ever so for the dismissive language), because as a member of this board, it behooves me to understand what the rules are.

ETA: And if you were deliberately constructing that last sentence to avoid using pronouns, ACM is a he, and I'm a she.

[Shot From Guns]

Here's a great example (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572700) of how I thought this thread was going to go.

1.) Vinyl Turnip asked why Guinastasia got a note from Miller for using a phrase VT didn't think was prohibited, and asked if the restriction was being widened.

2.) Miller confirmed that that the phrase was indeed allowed, apologized, and retracted the note.


Compare that to what happened here. ACM said something that was not against the board's rules. Spectre gave him a note (i.e., an official injunction not to do it again, albeit without immediate consequences for ACM) and a reasoning in the thread that doesn't make much sense, given the board's current rules. I opened a thread here to get some clarification. At that point, I was expecting either (a) a new rule to be clarified and posted or (b) the note to be retracted. But instead, we get this bizarre song and dance, where Spectre (after avoiding the thread for a week) gives more inexplicable reasoning for his action (still nothing that's a board rule, nor that I'd expect you'd want to make a board rule), and a couple of admins show up to tell me that I shouldn't care because it's just a note and it wasn't directed at me.

[Irishman]

C K Dexter Haven said:
I don't understand your use of "apply universally." They apply universally in the sense that ANY individual receiving such a note or warning should take heed. You ignore them at your peril. However, "friendly reminders" or "notes" are not "Rule of Law" -- they are early alerts that you MAY be headed for an infraction if you continue along that line. They are situational,and apply to to one individual in one individual circumstance.

They are reminders that X is off limits, and they apply universally in that if the next poster does the same action that this poster did, she will also likely be given a reminder that X is off limits. I was going to try to come up with a good example, but Shot For Guns did such an excellent job with the clown in the car example, I couldn't possibly say it more clearly or more humorously.

In this case, the existing rule is that racist threads are not allowed. The threat to open such a thread (whether a joke is irrelevant) was deemed to warrant a reminder. Not all mods would have done so, but some mods would have. Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. HAD such a thread been opened, all mods would have reacted in the same way: that's a rules violation.

But the Mod Note was not about opening a racist thread. There is nothing in that note about "racist threads are not allowed". The specific note is for using inflammatory language and how nothing in the thread prior created context for using inflammatory wording. But it was inflammatory wording specifically to make the point that posting an inflammatory thread topic and then declaring only supporters should respond would be preposterous. Now if Spectre had said "Mod Note: I will remind you that racist threads are not allowed here on SDMB, do not start this thread" you would have a point. It would also be silly because it was a hypothetical not actual proposal, but at least you would have a valid point. There's a rule that racist thread titles are not allowed. But that is not what happened, so it is puzzling to see this as a justification for the mod note that was given, i.e. hypothetical examples are apparently not allowed now because they might be taken out of context on a Google search and thereby encourage miscreants to think this board is racist, or some such drivel.


Shot From Guns said:
C K Dexter Haven said:
Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I'll ignore this barely disguised insult hurled at my direction, partially because I literally am unable to respond in kind (since we're in ATMB and all, remember?),

I will point out that Dex is referring a famous quote; I doubt an insult was intended, though I can see how some might be perceived.

and respond to the actual content. Absolute consistency in the enforcement of rules is essential for any community to function. If the members of the community have no idea from one day to the next, or from one enforcement officer to the next, what is allowed and what is not, there is no order. There is fear and frustration. Which is not to say that circumstances cannot be taken into account, but in general, everyone should be following the same set of rules, and exceptions should be made on the side of leniency

Agreed. FYI the original quote was about "foolish consistency", i.e. consistency for consistency's sake in the face of actual reasons to deviate.

Shot From Guns said:
and I'm a she.

Noted for future reference (but probably will be forgotten).

I opened a thread here to get some clarification. At that point, I was expecting either (a) a new rule to be clarified and posted or (b) the note to be retracted.

I wouldn't even go so far as to expect the Note retracted, merely an acknowledgement of an error in application. "Oh, I misread that, nevermind."

and a couple of admins show up to tell me that I shouldn't care because it's just a note and it wasn't directed at me.

Yeah, it's a puzzling Note that leaves future possible posting situations less clear, and it doesn't matter because it didn't name you specifically?

[Shot From Guns]

I would also like to take this opportunity to explicitly state that in general, I believe Spectre is a good mod and that the moderation of this board is well conducted. However, in this one particular instance, there is a mod's ruling that I would like clarification on, because I fail to understand how it applies under the current rules.

I think this thread also demonstrates an unfortunate tendency among some of the SDMB staff to treat every question as an attack and react accordingly. Now, certainly, it is your site and you can make up whatever rules you desire, up to and including "the rules are whatever I decide they are at this moment." However, if you wish to keep this community operational, it's in your best interests to have published rules that are enforced consistently. And that means that if a member of your community has a question about how the rules are being applied, that it's a good idea to (a) explain how a Note or Warning reflects an existing rule, (b) explain how a Note or Warning establishes a new rule, or (c) acknowledge that the Note or Warning was given in error and does not establish a new precedent.

And I know I've mentioned this before, but I'm getting a "you don't know what you're talking about, little girl" vibe from some of the posts here, so at the risk of sounding like a pompous ass: I have been in your shoes. I used to moderate a very large community--larger than this one, if I'm not mistaken, unless we've hit the 500k mark and I didn't notice. So please give me credit that I have some experience with these things and I'm not just some nitpicking armchair quarterback who has no clue how things work in practice.

ETA:

I wouldn't even go so far as to expect the Note retracted, merely an acknowledgement of an error in application. "Oh, I misread that, nevermind."

That falls under the heading of what I'd call a retraction--anything so that we know that the note was reconsidered and doesn't apply. I'm not looking for an engraved public apology and 90 days of sackcloth and ashes, if that's the impression anyone was getting.

[Mbossa]

So, to improve upon your analogy... I am driving down the highway, and I see an alert sign flash for the car next to me: WARNING--YOU ARE DRIVING WITH A CLOWN IN THE PASSENGER SEAT. There's not a clown in my passenger seat, but I may have reason to transport a clown in the future. (Possibly to drown it in the river.) So I have reason to ascertain whether or not I am allowed to transport clowns--and if clown transportation is allowed, I have to wonder why someone else was cautioned for doing it.


That's quite possibly the best analogy I've ever seen for anything.

[Shot From Guns]

That's quite possibly the best analogy I've ever seen for anything.

Thank you. At this rate, I might have to buy myself a custom title just so I can be Clown Transporter.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.I'll ignore this barely disguised insult hurled at my direction, partially because I literally am unable to respond in kind (since we're in ATMB and all, remember?), and respond to the actual content. Absolute consistency in the enforcement of rules is essential for any community to function. ...I'm sorry for being unclear: no insult was intended. [Philosophical tangent]My comment was directed at exactly your next sentence, that "absolute consistency" in rules enforcement is essential. I believe that "absolute consistency" in rules enforcement is NOT POSSIBLE. It may be a desirable goal, but each situation, each individual case is DIFFERENT. Every case has its own extenuating circumstances; what went before is not identical. "Absolute consistency" is not possible in (say) US law courts, where there are libraries of volumes of laws and cases. How could it be possible on a message board? [/tangent]

I think the driving with a clown analogy is irrelevant, not to say ridiculous. And I can think of lots of situations where driving with a clown in the passenger seat is indeed illegal. Say, if the clown were shooting an Uzi out the window at passers-by. Nonetheless, the lawyer would probably argue that riding with a clown [ material deleted ] is not illegal. In this case, there was no clown. A person made a comment (with significant racist undertone) about starting a racist thread; the mod reminded him not to say such things. "Don't be a jerk" is not a new rule. Don't start racist threads or make racist comments is not a new rule.

[you with the face]

Remember that everything you type here is searchable by Google, and if you google "Why black people suck", that thread comes up. Do you really want people to find us that way? If you don't believe that race is a sensitive topic, just look at the other ATMB thread Why is this thread in GD (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572720), which is about this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=503736) thread, since moved to IMHO.

The thread about black women's looks do not justify your response to ACM's post. And truth be told, there was nothing inherently wrong about that thread. The problem with it was that it was treated like a Great Debate rather than an exchange of personally biased opinions. A "Would you hit that?" discussion does not belong in GD, even if there are a handful of posts that look kinda sorta like they might fit in GD if you squint hard enough (and I'm sure tom is pissed I'm still talking about it, but hey, Spectre brought it up).

ACM's was only using a hypothetical about black people to make a point. That's it. Although it was not the most original rhetorical device in the land, he wasn't slamming black people nor validating such conduct under the guise of an intellectual discussion.

If you're trying to be sensitive to polarizing race issues, I appreciate that, though.

[Fenris]

Remember that everything you type here is searchable by Google, and if you google "Why black people suck", that thread comes up. Do you really want people to find us that way?

While we're using this standard, let's talk about other threads that are searchable by google:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=406736
"Why hasn't someone tried to assassinate Bush" But there it is, right on Google (fourth hit for key words "why hasn't bush assassinated"). NSA and Secret Service probably loved checking out the thread. Do you really want people to find us that way?

Or

"fried sperm" brings up this thread. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=198659. (Weirdly it was like the 5th hit...four sites are more bizarre than us). Do you really want people to find us that way?

C'mon guys--this has never been a rule or even a guideline and the "Don't be a jerk" thing doesn't even come close to applying. It's a perfectly acceptable hypothetical--he wasn't trolling, he wasn't being a jerk and it's an unenforceably vague standard: "Don't use hypotheticals that we might not like"? What?

[Rand Rover]

Yeah, I'm sticking to my original theory, which (as I posted in the thread in question) is that Spectre got whooshed. Everything after the initial whoosh was just his effort to hide the fact that he got whooshed.

Also, this:


In this case, the existing rule is that racist threads are not allowed. The threat to open such a thread (whether a joke is irrelevant) was deemed to warrant a reminder. Not all mods would have done so, but some mods would have. Absolute consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. HAD such a thread been opened, all mods would have reacted in the same way: that's a rules violation.

is just complete poppycock and balderdash, for reasons that are absolutely self-evident (including that ACM was not actually proposing to start a racist thread).

Let's just write this one off to "mods are weird" and move on with our lives.

[samclem]

Let's just write this one off to "mods are weird" and move on with our lives.
From your lips to ..........

[Giraffe]

...the mods' ears?

[samclem]

Let's just write this one off to "mods are weird" and move on with our lives.
From your lips to ..........

...the mods' ears?
If it were a major(read=warning], I would agree with you. As is is, I, as a mod, don't see it as a big deal. I understand the concern of posters. I really do. But, this isn't an earth-shaking deal. It's a minor kerfuffle.

Surely, there have be be better hills to die on. We, as mods/Admins, make this kind of decision every week. We really do.

Sometimes, you just keep on with life. If it were a major life-changing thing, I'd be with you, toe to toe.

[Mbossa]

So basically, we should just completely ignore that particular mod note and get on with our lives?

[Giraffe]

If it were a major(read=warning], I would agree with you. As is is, I, as a mod, don't see it as a big deal. I understand the concern of posters. I really do. But, this isn't an earth-shaking deal. It's a minor kerfuffle.

Surely, there have be be better hills to die on. We, as mods/Admins, make this kind of decision every week. We really do.

Sometimes, you just keep on with life. If it were a major life-changing thing, I'd be with you, toe to toe.

Oh, I have no stake in this particular issue. I just happened to notice that mod rhymes with God, thus opening the door for an uproarious pun.

No need to thank me.

[AClockworkMelon]

Why ignore it when it would be so simple for it to be retracted? It's not just the posters who are dieing on this hill, it's the mods, too.

[C K Dexter Haven]

So basically, we should just completely ignore that particular mod note and get on with our lives?Completely ignore? Not, not "completely." It would be ill-advised for someoone start a thread on the racist topic mentioned.

Different mods have different backgrounds and personalities, and different items that cause them to issue "friendly reminders" or "notes" to cool things down or to move tangents back to main topic, etc. This was one of many situations where different mods might have reacted in different ways. The desire for mods-as-robots, to administer everything with absolute consistency based on some sort of pre-programmed notion of what words or phrases are acceptable and which are insults (for instance) would be far worse (IMHO) than the occasional disagreement amongst mods as to what merits a "friendly reminder." Example: I personally have a cousin who is severely autistic, and the term "retard" is a bee in my metaphorical bonnet. Spectre of Pithecanthropus is sensitive to racist comments, and stepped in to try and tone it down in the forum he moderates.

No rule was broken. No warning was issued. No new rule was made.

I think the staff adequately understands your position on the issue, and we hope that you understand ours. S

Speaking as poster, not admin: Can we drop it now?

[mhendo]

Completely ignore? Not, not "completely." It would be ill-advised for someoone start a thread on the racist topic mentioned.
And yet no-one involved ever had the slightest intention of actually doing that. You do understand that, don't you? It hasn't been completely lost on you in all your tortuous rationalizations?Example: I personally have a cousin who is severely autistic, and the term "retard" is a bee in my metaphorical bonnet.When was the last time you cautioned someone against using the word when no rules were being broken? Spectre of Pithecanthropus is sensitive to racist comments, and stepped in to try and tone it down in the forum he moderates.It was not a racist comment. It was a hypothetical thread topic employed to make a point.

It's like the difference between calling a black person a nigger, on the one hand, and discussing Mark Twain's use of the word nigger in Huckleberry Finn, on the other. Using the word in the first instance is racist; using it in the second is not.

Again, the fact that you and Spectre fail to understand this type of distinction is amazing to me.

[Shot From Guns]

I think the driving with a clown analogy is irrelevant, not to say ridiculous.

Every other post on the subject in this thread, and more than one PM in my inbox, says otherwise. So, why do you think everyone else got it and you didn't? Could it be related to the reason that the only people in this thread who don't get why this note is wrong are SDMB staff?

Seriously. Read back through this thread. The fact that everyone in this thread who is not a moderator or an admin thinks that this Note was completely inexplicable should be telling you something.

A person made a comment (with significant racist undertone) about starting a racist thread; the mod reminded him not to say such things. "Don't be a jerk" is not a new rule. Don't start racist threads or make racist comments is not a new rule.

Go back and read again. A person suggested a hypothetical racist thread topic specifically because the topic would be abhorrent. The entire scenario falls apart if the person doesn't think that the topic is wrong and bad and disgusting. There are no racist undertones. Zip. Zero. Zilch. In fact, the hypothetical posted is by its very nature ESPOUSING THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the proposed thread.

Yeah, I'm sticking to my original theory, which (as I posted in the thread in question) is that Spectre got whooshed. Everything after the initial whoosh was just his effort to hide the fact that he got whooshed.

Quite. I just wish he'd figure out that backscrambling in an attempt to save face results in a loss of respect.

If it were a major(read=warning], I would agree with you. As is is, I, as a mod, don't see it as a big deal. I understand the concern of posters. I really do. But, this isn't an earth-shaking deal. It's a minor kerfuffle.

It is a major deal, because the note, as written, establishes a new precedent, a new rule. Well, two potential new rules, depending on which explanation of Spectre's you believe.

1.) We shouldn't use objectionable hypotheticals, even when the point of the hypotheticals is that they're objectionable.
2.) We shouldn't post anything that can be taken out of context in a Google search, no matter how obvious the meaning is in context.

Those are both HUGE changes. Huge. #1 would mean that, say, everybody who compares the new immigration law in Arizona to Nazi Germany is at risk of being banned; #2 would mean that most people in this thread, including a lot of staff, would be at that same risk.

Completely ignore? Not, not "completely." It would be ill-advised for someoone start a thread on the racist topic mentioned.

But the note had nothing to do with that whatsoever. Spectre himself never once cited anyone starting that thread as a point of concern. Here, I'll quote the original note for you again:

"AClockWorkMelon, you should know better than to use such obviously inflammatory language, even if if it isn't your intent to inflame. If it is a joke I'm still not seeing how anything that's gone on before it in the thread could possibly have created a context in which this is acceptable."

ACM was cautioned specifically for the hypothetical he chose. A hypothetical which was chosen because it was wrong and disgusting, which would force BigT to reconsider his assertion that people who start threads on controversial topics should be able to insist that only people who agree with the premise of the thread should be allowed to post.

The desire for mods-as-robots, to administer everything with absolute consistency based on some sort of pre-programmed notion of what words or phrases are acceptable and which are insults (for instance) would be far worse (IMHO) than the occasional disagreement amongst mods as to what merits a "friendly reminder."

I don't want mods to be robots. I do want them to consider their actions carefully in the context of the positions they hold and their implications for the members of this community. And when it's pointed out to them that they may have missed the point, I want them to be mature and admit that they've screwed up instead of grasping at straws in a desperate attempt not to be wrong.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus is sensitive to racist comments, and stepped in to try and tone it down in the forum he moderates.

There were no racist comments. If I say "thinking Black people suck is a deeply stupid position that no sensible person would agree with," is that a racist comment? Of course it's not. And that's EXACTLY WHAT ACM SAID, albeit phrased as a hypothetical. He was given a moderator Note that told him that saying that a lot of people would disagree with the idea that Black people suck was inflammatory. You see how backwards that is?

No rule was broken. No warning was issued. No new rule was made.

If no rule was broken and no new rule was made, why was ACM given a note to stop what he was doing? Unless the mod in question was overstepping his authority, in which case all he needs to do is say, "I misunderstood--ignore what I said."

I think the staff adequately understands your position on the issue, and we hope that you understand ours. S

Speaking as poster, not admin: Can we drop it now?

No, I don't think you do understand. If there was no rule broken and no new rule made, ACM should not have gotten a Note from Spectre with his mod hat on. This topic will not be through until:

1.) It is explained how ACM broke an existing rule (he was not using "inflammatory language" unless taken completely out of context);
2.) A new rule is clarified and posted, to be enforced going forward; or
3.) Someone on the SDMB staff says that the original note was in error and we can safely ignore it.

[Munch]

4.) Someone explains to me why I can't transport clowns.

[Irishman]

Shot From Guns said:
That falls under the heading of what I'd call a retraction--anything so that we know that the note was reconsidered and doesn't apply. I'm not looking for an engraved public apology and 90 days of sackcloth and ashes, if that's the impression anyone was getting.

I went back and forth about a dozen times whether to include that line, and basically left it in over grayness of what constitutes a retraction and because something seemed clumsy without it there.

C K Dexter Haven said:
I think the driving with a clown analogy is irrelevant, not to say ridiculous.

The driving with a clown analogy is perfect. If you think it is irrelevant, that suggests you are not understanding the point that Shot From Guns and the rest of us are making, the clarification we are seeking.

ACM made a hypothetical thread title that would be inflammatory specifically to make a point (BigT was arguing that if the OP says "only people who agree should post" that we should be constrained to comply; the inflammatory title was to show BigT a thread he would feel morally compelled to post in opposition to even if the OP tried to limit posting to only those who agree. The point was to show BigT how his proposed rule would trap him and why that rule is a dud. It worked.)

Spectre posted a Mod Note that the suggestion of that thread title was an inflammatory remark, and that it was not warranted in the thread. He did not say anything about actually starting a thread with that title - he was condemning the statement coming up in that thread itself. His complaint was the words "black people suck" should not be said because they are inflammatory. He later tried to justify it based upon someone potentially google searching "black people suck", finding that thread, and thus that person deciding merely from reading the google search results that the SDMB was a hotbed of racist supporters (or something).

Mods have been trying to argue the flexibility of mods to make a judgement call based upon the individual context rather than have hard and fast rules for every possible variation. Fine: then look at the specific case we are citing, and see that the specific case does not need a Mod Note, because ACM did nothing near violating board rules. All he did was use the words "black people suck". Note that me repeating those words at no time indicates that I support that position. Note that ACM's specific use of those words at no time advocated that position. In the context of his post, the only sensible understanding would be to conclude he is in dire opposition to that position.

He got a Mod Note not to post an inflammatory remark, but the only people who would be inflamed by ACM's post would be people who advocate that black people suck.

And I can think of lots of situations where driving with a clown in the passenger seat is indeed illegal. Say, if the clown were shooting an Uzi out the window at passers-by. Nonetheless, the lawyer would probably argue that riding with a clown [ material deleted ] is not illegal.

Oh please. Now that is a preposterous analogy. It is not illegal to have a clown in the passenger seat. It is illegal to have anyone (including non-clowns) shooting an uzi out the window. The illegal act is the uzi shooting, not the being dressed as a clown. The clownness is completely incidental and unrelated to the illegality.


In this case, there was no clown. A person made a comment (with significant racist undertone) about starting a racist thread; the mod reminded him not to say such things. "Don't be a jerk" is not a new rule. Don't start racist threads or make racist comments is not a new rule.

Read again more closely. ACM did not actually propose starting a racist thread. Spectre did not remind him that starting such a thread would be illegal.

About the closest you could get was interpreting Spectre's remark to mean "Racism is a sensitive and potentially inflammatory topic. Perhaps you should consider more carefully your hypothetical topics in the future."

And if that's the end of the mod note, and if the response is "Well, I considered it carefully and felt racism (or some inflammatory topic) was important to the point I was making", and the go forward is that the next time someone needs to make a hypothetical thread topic to make a point and uses some variation on a racist remark as a rhetorical tool, and the mods ignore it, then we're fine. But the question is can we make a racist phrased remark as a rhetorical tool or summary of some position, or will that lead to eventual Warnings for being a jerk? Not advocating the position, merely phrasing something like "The KKK thinks black people suck".

C K Dexter Haven said:
Mbossa said:
So basically, we should just completely ignore that particular mod note and get on with our lives?
Completely ignore? Not, not "completely." It would be ill-advised for someoone start a thread on the racist topic mentioned.

Read the note again. It says nothing about starting a thread with that title or topic. All it says is using those words in that thread was inflammatory.

No rule was broken. No warning was issued. No new rule was made.

So going by your apparent take on the situation, if we ALL agree to interpret Spectre of Pithecanthropus's remark to mean "don't start any threads with inflammatory titles like the one you hypothetically suggested", and we all agree that going forward nobody is proposing to start a thread titled like that, everybody is cool and the issue is over?

Munch said:
4.) Someone explains to me why I can't transport clowns.

That falls under the rule of dangerous weapons that are banned in 13 states. Clowns can drive one to madness. ;)

[Shot From Guns]

I went back and forth about a dozen times whether to include that line, and basically left it in over grayness of what constitutes a retraction and because something seemed clumsy without it there.

Well, if nothing else, it solved the very useful purpose of getting me to clarify what I meant.

Clowns can drive one to madness.

No, the clown is passenging, not driving.

[zweisamkeit]

No, I don't think you do understand. If there was no rule broken and no new rule made, ACM should not have gotten a Note from Spectre with his mod hat on. This topic will not be through until:

1.) It is explained how ACM broke an existing rule (he was not using "inflammatory language" unless taken completely out of context);
2.) A new rule is clarified and posted, to be enforced going forward; or
3.) Someone on the SDMB staff says that the original note was in error and we can safely ignore it.

Seriously, I can't believe that the admins/mods are really not understanding the point; I'd rather hope they're just trolling you now. The hypothetical was so freaking obvious, but apparently it's like trying to explain quantum physics to a two year old. The next time someone mentions this place being one of the smartest places on the web, I know what thread to link to to refute that.

[Shot From Guns]

Still politely and patiently waiting for a response here. If the delay is because you're discussing this amongst yourselves, an update to that effect would be appreciated.

Or did you misspeak when you said (emphasis added):

Speaking as poster, not admin: Can we drop it now?

[Shot From Guns]

Still waiting. Over 3,000 views on this thread, by the way, and still not one poster has stepped up to defend the staff point of view here.

[zweisamkeit]

Still waiting. Over 3,000 views on this thread, by the way, and still not one poster has stepped up to defend the staff point of view here.

I'm sure that a mod or admin will be in shortly, perhaps with a rolleyes emoticon, to tell you that obviously the matter was discussed and that you're intentionally trying to stir the pot here.

[Shot From Guns]

Well, to be fair, I am trying to stir the pot. But in an "I'm making a fuss because I think it's important because I like this board a lot" kind of way. So I'm stirring the pot because it's been sitting too long and stuff is starting to burn at the edges, and we don't want any nasty little overcooked crusty bits.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Dude. I think it's cashed.

[Shot From Guns]

Look, I passed it along after my turn. Not my fault the staff decided to Bogart the damn thing.

[AClockworkMelon]

I know that this was in the BBQ Pit and different rules apply there, but here's a recent quote from a moderator:

What's trollish about it?If someone came in here and calmly announced they were a baby rapist and wanted to have a reasoned discussion about raping babies, would that be trolling?

He's using hyperbole in the exact same way that I did yet nobody seems to be afraid of how he's making the SDMB look. If someone were to perform a questionable search this is what they'd see (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22reasoned+discussion+about+raping+babies%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5a5aa1809b9f07d2). Not to mention that the thread in which that quote takes place has the exact premise as the one I was using as a hypothetical and it's remained open long enough for mods to come in and comment more than once.

I'm just sort of puzzled that the mods would rather say "let's just forget about it" than "OK, note rescinded". Is pride at stake or something?

[samclem]

I know that this was in the BBQ Pit and different rules apply there, but here's a recent quote from a moderator:

If someone came in here and calmly announced they were a baby rapist and wanted to have a reasoned discussion about raping babies, would that be trolling?
Look again. He's a Moperator. Unless I'm missing the point of your post. Maybe you have pyslexia? :)

[AClockworkMelon]

Oops. Pretend he's a mod anyway! :P

[Shot From Guns]

I'm just sort of puzzled that the mods would rather say "let's just forget about it" than "OK, note rescinded". Is pride at stake or something?

At this point, they're not even saying "let's forget about it." They appear to have simply shoved this thread into an oubliette and are ignoring it completely.

Or were, until samclem was nice enough to point out that you were wrong about that post coming from a mod. Which demonstrates that at least one person on the staff is still following the discussion, making the vast silence from everyone else a bit more odd.

[Spatial Rift 47]

I'll pick up the torch as well. The staff response to this has made no sense whatsoever, and I would like it to make sense.

[Munch]

oubliette
Reported.

[Cheshire Human]

oubliette
Reported.

Reported for what? She spelled it correctly, and used it in the grammatically correct manner. :confused:

[Contrapuntal]

Reported for what? She spelled it correctly, and used it in the grammatically correct manner. :confused:I'm gonna go with "That's a joke, son."

[Munch]

Reported for what? She spelled it correctly, and used it in the grammatically correct manner. :confused:
If we're going to start throwing fancy words like "oubliette" around, what's next? Madness - that's what's next.

[Cheshire Human]

Reported for what? She spelled it correctly, and used it in the grammatically correct manner. :confused:I'm gonna go with "That's a joke, son."

;) I know, so was mine.... Do I hear the sound of a strong wind?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Moderator Note
Someone upthread said he supposed we were all busy chewing on this issue. Well, we haven't been doing that all this time, but we have discussed it. I won't say how the decision was reached or whether it was unanimous, but in the end the consensus was that most moderators would not have made the same decision that I did. My intention wasn’t to criticize anyone, but to respond to what I thought was a potentially unacceptably racist avenue that I didn’t think anyone should go down. If I had this to do it over again, I either wouldn’t say anything as a moderator, or if I did I would put in a disclaimer to prevent anyone being singled out.

As for the original thread, I don't think it would be advisable to edit out my original post there, because it would almost certainly lead to confusion, but what I will do is put a link to this post in my mod note over in the other thread.

I’m sorry this has been such an issue. Of all the people who have been voicing their concerns here, and particularly ACM, I can't think of a single one who doesn't add value to this community, and it wasn't my intention to suggest otherwise.

[AClockworkMelon]

Woo! (http://i330.photobucket.com/albums/l438/AClockworkMelon/mission-accomplished.jpg)

I knew my new bribe membership would grease the wheels around here. :)

Edit: And just so you know, I don't think any of us were upset by the note or anything like that. We just didn't agree with it. I didn't take it personally at all.

[Irishman]

Thank you, Spectre, for your gracious response.

[Munch]

Well done, Spectre. This is a very good step in the right direction for mod/member relations around here.

[Shot From Guns]

Thank you, Spectre, and all the other mods and admins who took the time to publicly comment on and/or privately discuss this concern. The willingness of the SDMB staff to reconsider decisions is one of the things that make this community awesome.

FWIW, I do appreciate that if you were going to have an overboard/knee-jerk response to anything, it would be in an attempt to keep racism off the board.

[Contrapuntal]

Good job, Spectre.

[gurujulp]

Thanks to All for carrying it forward, and thanks to Spectre, for coming back...