Marley--disagree with your modding

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The sort of colorful language you warn people about here is one of the things I most enjoy about the Elections forum specifically and the SD generally. You're taking the fun out of reading here when you restrict the vigor with which people can present their political opinions. Warning posters about using hyperbole? Heaven forfend.

[BigT]

Have to agree. There was nothing against the rules here. Remember, the Election forum has the same rules as GD--and I've seen a lot worse in GD.

[Oakminster]

I think it was a good call. Those comments were completely over the top and do not contribute to reasoned discourse. If they were allowed to stand un-modded, the other side is tempted to respond in kind, and then the entire thread gets ruined with a nasty fight best conducted elsewhere, if at all. As it happened, no warnings were issued. Two posters were told to knock it off or start a pit thread.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I think it was a good call. Those comments were completely over the top and do not contribute to reasoned discourse. If they were allowed to stand un-modded, the other side is tempted to respond in kind, and then the entire thread gets ruined with a nasty fight best conducted elsewhere, if at all. As it happened, no warnings were issued. Two posters were told to knock it off or start a pit thread.

In the interest of fairness, I'll give you a chance to state upfront your personal bias in this matter.

[What the .... ?!?!]

I'm not a big fan of Mr Marley ...... a statement that I'm sure he'd wear as a badge of honor. His Mexican Hat Dance (God I hope that's not racist) in GD is amusing at best..... a joke to some. There's a current thread re Tea Party/Occupy in wish he rushed to be the first poster with a not very serious post.......... that's some serious shit for a Mod I'd think.

Perhaps GD should have moderators that are less inclined to participate themselves?

..... and while I'm at it, is there any effort to put moderators in Elections that span the political spectrum?

[MsWhatsit]

Marley is Mexican?

[TubaDiva]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

The sort of colorful language you warn people about here is one of the things I most enjoy about the Elections forum specifically and the SD generally. You're taking the fun out of reading here when you restrict the vigor with which people can present their political opinions. Warning posters about using hyperbole? Heaven forfend.

That exchange is something that could very easily be found in the Pit -- and that's the appropriate place for it, not in Elections.

If you want to take someone to task for their political views or if you want to vent about figures in public office/running for office/involved in the political process, the Pit is the place to put those kinds of postings. Not in Elections.

Marley made the right call.

There is nothing more tiresome than the endless yammering of people who do not agree on political subjects and wish to bitchslap others as they express themselves. If that's your thing, hooray for you but the Elections forum is not set up for that. Please read the forum description again:

For discussion of elections and electoral politics, including strategy and tactics, political parties, individual races, political news, and politicians and public figures.

If you wish to find fault with someone's political views, take it to the Pit.

[silenus]

It's a fair cop. I blame Society.

As one of the people who got modded, I have to state that I see where Marley was coming from. Not that I don't also think he's a jackbooted Fascist, mind you. But he had a point in reining in the hyperbole. It's not like we got a Warning placed in our Permanent Record, or had our sins written down in the Book of Life. It was a minor Moderator bitch-slap. Big whoop.

[Larry Borgia]

Completely agree with the moderation. There's already a forum where you can call your political opponents "worse than baby-rapers." We don't need two. As Silenus notes, it was a mod instruction. No one got a warning.

[Marley23]

The main post at issue was this one:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Based on how the Republican Party have comported themselves in the last 3-4 years, Obama has freebies to go as far as he wants with wild claims, hypocricy, and downright filthy play. Shit, he could even rape a few 9 year-old girls if he wanted and he'd still have the moral high ground on the rabble of derelects who have sought only to block and never to perform.

I don't think that's merely colorful language or exaggeration intended to illustrate a point. It's just disgusting, and I don't see it as having a place in any kind of halfway serious discussion. I don't think the only difference between GD and Elections and the Pit is that you can add "And you're stupid" to the end of that post. There can be plenty of sarcasm and harsh criticism in GD and Elections, but there has to be a limit to the amount of sheer invective you can dump on someone else. That's especially true when the invective is barely related to the thread topic. I would also expect a post like that to get an angry response from almost any conservative and many liberals and become a distraction and a topic of discussion in itself. We've had good debates in the Pit, but the comment is more in line with the kind of venting you get in a lot of Pit threads than something I expect to see in a debate forum.

To their credit, Inigo Montoya and silenus understood where I was coming from with that mod note and I think the thread has gotten back on track.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by silenus

It's a fair cop. I blame Society.

We'll arrest them too.

A dial-it-down is almost always good modding because it is almost always justified. It was here.

[Irishman]

But Marley, I command you to disagree with your modding. It's right there in the title, an imperative. You can't just dismiss that!

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

If you wish to find fault with someone's political views, take it to the Pit.

I have no opinion about the original issue, but that statement makes no sense at all to me. How can you have an interesting "discussion of elections and electoral politics," without occasionally finding fault with someone's political views?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I have no opinion about the original issue, but that statement makes no sense at all to me. How can you have an interesting "discussion of elections and electoral politics," without occasionally finding fault with someone's political views?

Well, this is kinda my entire point. If (or I should say when) someone is totally full of shit, are you supposed to ignore it? "Go open up a Pit thread" pretty much applies to every Elections forum thread ever started.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Well, this is kinda my entire point. If (or I should say when) someone is totally full of shit, are you supposed to ignore it? "Go open up a Pit thread" pretty much applies to every Elections forum thread ever started.

It is possible to argue without the level of venom displayed in this instance. It was completely unnecessary and way over the top.

[Shodan]

I don't necessarily disagree with the moderation, but it seems a little arbitrary to pick this particular piece out for censure. Because I am sure most of us could think of posters who come up with invective almost equally bad aimed at Republicans, Christians, and anti-abortionists on a fairly regular basis.

I don't see how "Republicans are worse than baby-rapers" is all that much worse than "Republicans want to use AIDS to kill black people" or "anti-abortionists want women to suffer" or any of the rest of it.

If this is the start of a "kinder, gentler" SDMB, fine, but good luck phrasing the rules, and even better luck enforcing them. If it isn't, picking this out and leaving the rest of it unremarked seems a little unfair.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I don't see how "Republicans are worse than baby-rapers" is all that much worse than "Republicans want to use AIDS to kill black people" or "anti-abortionists want women to suffer" or any of the rest of it.

I don't recall seeing either one of those phrases in the Elections forum-cite, please?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

It is possible to argue without the level of venom displayed in this instance. It was completely unnecessary and way over the top.

Says the guy whose views were being castigated.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I don't recall seeing either one of those phrases in the Elections forum-cite, please?

I've seen 'Republicans [or conservatives] want women to suffer,' in GD, which I also moderate and the same rules apply. I'm not sure about the AIDS one. The AIDS thing is an insane conspiracy theory and 'Republicans want women to suffer' is very extreme, but it's a comment based on specific policies and it isn't overtly obscene. There are situation in which I would tell someone to dial it back on either of those types of comments. I don't think either is directly comparable to the statement being discussed here even though I understand why people would object to them.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I've seen 'Republicans [or conservatives] want women to suffer,' in GD, which I also moderate and the same rules apply. I'm not sure about the AIDS one. The AIDS thing is an insane conspiracy theory and 'Republicans want women to suffer' is very extreme, but it's a comment based on specific policies and it isn't overtly obscene. There are situation in which I would tell someone to dial it back on either of those types of comments. I don't think either is directly comparable to the statement being discussed here even though I understand why people would object to them.

Waitaminnit-you tell the Democrats to dial it back too? Whatever happened the left-wing liberal atheist board I used to help moderate, dude?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Waitaminnit-you tell the Democrats to dial it back too? Whatever happened the left-wing liberal atheist board I used to help moderate, dude?

That's how I got into this mess. And ix-nay on the iberal atheist board-lay.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I've seen 'Republicans [or conservatives] want women to suffer,' in GD, which I also moderate and the same rules apply. I'm not sure about the AIDS one. The AIDS thing is an insane conspiracy theory and 'Republicans want women to suffer' is very extreme, but it's a comment based on specific policies and it isn't overtly obscene. There are situation in which I would tell someone to dial it back on either of those types of comments. I don't think either is directly comparable to the statement being discussed here even though I understand why people would object to them.

There are certain posters in GD who will routinely say things like Conservatives/Libertarians just want people to starve to death or turned into slaves, and I've never seen them admonished for it. Maybe I've missed it.

Not saying I'm in favor of this type of mod'ing, but my impression is that it is very capricious.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Not saying I'm in favor of this type of mod'ing, but my impression is that it is very capricious.

You misspelled something. That last bit should be "....that it is a very, very positive step."

[TubaDiva]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I have no opinion about the original issue, but that statement makes no sense at all to me. How can you have an interesting "discussion of elections and electoral politics," without occasionally finding fault with someone's political views?

You can discuss the point -- but you have to be civil.

You can't use a point of discussion as a jump off point to bash a political party you dislike or someone you have an issue with. That goes in the Pit.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The AIDS thing is an insane conspiracy theory and 'Republicans want women to suffer' is very extreme, but it's a comment based on specific policies and it isn't overtly obscene.

The assertion that Republicans were worse than child molestors was also based (more or less) on a specific policy - their alleged obstructionism.

And I suppose it depends on what you find "obscene".

I don't think either is directly comparable to the statement being discussed here even though I understand why people would object to them.

Obviously it would be a judgment call, but I don't see any difference in principle between saying "Republicans are worse than child molestors because they are blocking Obama's agenda" and saying "Republicans want women to die because they oppose abortion". Both accusations are bizarre, both are based on objections to Republican policies.

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The assertion that Republicans were worse than child molestors was also based (more or less) on a specific policy - their alleged obstructionism.

More or less, yes - but it's a (bizarre) moral judgment, not a consequence of the supposed policy.

And I suppose it depends on what you find "obscene".

I'd say I am comfortable judging the example in this thread to be more obscene.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Says the guy whose views were being castigated.

Have you ever seen me employ similar levels of vile and disgusting rhetoric towards liberals outside of the Pit? (Hint: the answer is no.) And yet, I am able to fully participate in political debates on this forum, and communicate my position quite clearly. Frankly, if the situation here were reversed, and I was the offending party, I strongly suspect you would be leading the charge in calling for my head.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

You can't use a point of discussion as a jump off point to bash a political party you dislike...

Did you just make this rule up?

[TubaDiva]

You can be as judgmental as you like ... in the Pit.

But we do want to keep to some level of civility in Elections. Trash talk is detrimental.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

You can be as judgmental as you like ... in the Pit.

But we do want to keep to some level of civility in Elections. Trash talk is detrimental.

But at what point does criticism become trash talk?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the incident leading to this thread was, in fact, "trash talking." It's still not clear to me how you're drawing the line here. Nor is it clear, from your comment, whether you draw a line between "trash talking" the party itself, and "trash talking" all the people who support the party.

And does this apply only to parties? What about broader belief systems like "liberal" and conservative"? How critical can one be? And what actually constitutes incivility in discussions like this? Does it require swearing or allusions to child abuse? Is it different if you say "some [members of group] are [epithet]" rather than simply "[members of group] are [epithet]"?

What really amazed me, in that thread, was that Marley included silenus in his admonition. Here's what silenus said that caused Marley to include his comment as an example of "over the top, vile commentary."

Originally Posted by silenus

And Oak? Just about anything is better than pursuing the conservative agenda.

WTF? I see that silenus, with his habitual good humor, is rather unfussed about thie issue, but if that comment is now considered out of bounds for non-Pit discussions, you better get out a fucking large ban hammer. Der Trihs would be gone in a matter of moments, as would a few other leftists and liberals, and there are also quite a few conservatives who would have trouble passing muster.

Starving Artist has made a veritable career out of broad-brush assertions about how awful liberals are in GD and Elections. Here's a small sample that took me about two minutes to gather:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Hah! In point of fact, liberals are about the most intolerant people out there. Do anything less than follow in total lockstep with whatever they think or to whatever degree they think or favor it, and they want to SQUASH you, whether by judical fiat, legislative action or angry societal intimidation.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things "better" in this country over the last forty years than ever have as a result of conservative beliefs, which are generally in direct opposition to each of these.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

That will never happen! Never! Liberals will never, ever, ever admit they were wrong about anything, or that any bad things have happened because of what they've done.

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Each one of these characteristics is typical of adolescence, and each one is typical of liberalism. Certainly you don't find them much in conservative circles. And just like you'd expect from turning the rudder of society over to a bunch of willful, hedonistic, fault-finding, idealistic, know-it-all adolescents, some things will get marginally better but most will get fucked up beyond all repair. And in my opinion that is exactly what has happened to this country since the days of the counter-culture revolution, and it's the reason I blame liberals and liberalism for everything that has gone wrong since.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Starving Artist has made a veritable career out of broad-brush assertions about how awful liberals are in GD and Elections. Here's a small sample that took me about two minutes to gather:

And in none of those quotes did he assert that liberals are worse than baby rapers. There is plenty of room for debate without going there.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

And in none of those quotes did he assert that liberals are worse than baby rapers. There is plenty of room for debate without going there.

Right, but my argument was about more than that. I guess i thought someone as smart as you might have grasped that from what i wrote.

As i specifically noted in my previous post (did you miss it, or ignore it?), silenus's very tame post was specifically included by Marley under the banner of "over the top, vile commentary" when he issued his admonition.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Overlooked or ignored ......... ?

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Perhaps GD should have moderators that are less inclined to participate themselves?

..... and while I'm at it, is there any effort to put moderators in Elections that span the political spectrum?

I suppose it could go in a new thread....... but if it was a tangent you were keen to address I'll bet you could justify doing so.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Right, but my argument was about more than that. I guess i thought someone as smart as you might have grasped that from what i wrote.

As i specifically noted in my previous post (did you miss it, or ignore it?), silenus's very tame post was specifically included by Marley under the banner of "over the top, vile commentary" when he issued his admonition.

I think one might be able to make an argument that silenus' post was included since he jumped on the derailment bandwagon. The earlier post was the point of departure, and Marley wanted to stop the whole bit. And, since no warning was issued, it's realy no big deal.

But I agree with the larger point you are making, as I said in my earlier post. This new mod rule seems to have come into being like Athena, bursting out of Zeus' brow. And if it's going to be applied, I'd like to see it applied consistently.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Perhaps GD should have moderators that are less inclined to participate themselves?

The administration has previously stated that they have no intent to make any policy preventing moderators from participating in the threads they moderate. If people must give up participation in order to moderate, there will be far fewer willing to be moderators.

..... and while I'm at it, is there any effort to put moderators in Elections that span the political spectrum?

I'm not aware there currently are any moderators that span the political spectrum. They had one, once, but he left when he decided the moderators were as a whole too liberal, thereby ensuring that outcome.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

Marley is Mexican?

Dammit, *I* thought he was a Golden Retriever.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

And in none of those quotes did he assert that liberals are worse than baby rapers. There is plenty of room for debate without going there.

Tell me how you compare raping babies, on a moral scale, with committing genocide:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things "better" in this country over the last forty years

Originally Posted by John Mace

if it's going to be applied, I'd like to see it applied consistently

I'd like my pony first, please.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Tell me how you compare raping babies, on a moral scale, with committing genocide:

Since there has be no cite of a conservative accusing a liberal of genocide, I decline to dignify that with a substantive response.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

OK, you tell me what Starving Artist was doing, in your own words, then.

And, pray, make them improbable.

[Oakminster]

Nah....I'm pretty much done with this conversation. Think I'll go see The Avengers with my wife instead.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I'll take that as an admission that Starving Artist was directing accusations of genocide at liberals which was just jim-dandy with you. Enjoy the movie.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Nah....I'm pretty much done with this conversation. Think I'll go see The Avengers with my wife instead.

You haven't taken up any of the numerous offers that new postsers have given us to watch it online? It's so nice of peopel to join up and give us those precious links!

As for Starving Artist's posts, he didn't outright accuse liberals of genocide, but pretty close. He said millions had been killed or had their lives ruined. I'd call that weasel wording to get the zinger in (millions killed) and still have an out if called on it. Now, millions killed isn't always genocide, but it's still killing a lot of people.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I'll take that as an admission that Starving Artist was directing accusations of genocide at liberals which was just jim-dandy with you. Enjoy the movie.

I was going to take it as an admission that he wanted to go see a movie with his wife, but what do I know?

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I'll take that as an admission that Starving Artist was directing accusations of genocide at liberals which was just jim-dandy with you. Enjoy the movie.

Oh for heaven's sake, this isn't that difficult. I'm no fan of Starving Artist, but it's child's play to see how his words don't accuse liberals of genocide.

"Party X introduced policies which, while well intentioned, inadvertently led to the deaths of millions."

[LouisB]

I thought the word "vile" was a touch much. I saw a little anger and I saw some hyperbole but I didn't see anything vile since i am sure no one was advocating raping babies. I think calling the poster down was adequate.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

Oh for heaven's sake, this isn't that difficult. I'm no fan of Starving Artist, but it's child's play to see how his words don't accuse liberals of genocide.

"Party X introduced policies which, while well intentioned, inadvertently led to the deaths of millions."

Where did Starving Artist say liberals were "well-intentioned" or that their policies "inadvertently" led to genocide? You can insert those terms if you're determined to sugarcoat what he did say, but he did say exactly what he said. And got away scottfree with putting it exactly as he put it.

[magellan01]

I actually like this moderation. It used a light hand and will make the discussions more substantive.

It also has a HUGE upside. Either it will lead to Der Trihs being banned very soon or we'll have a hellava show watching the mods excuse his nearly constant bile. Either way, it's a win.

Of course, the powers that be could decide that there are different rules concerning tone for each forum independently. And then there could be a chart indicating such. And then there could be a reminder window with the chart pop up every time you hit "submit". Or perhaps, each post could be submitted for approval before being posted.

Bu that nonsense aside, it's either bye-bye to Der Trihs or it's Mod pretzel-tying time.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Where did Starving Artist say liberals were "well-intentioned" or that their policies "inadvertently" led to genocide? You can insert those terms if you're determined to sugarcoat what he did say, but he did say exactly what he said. And got away scottfree with putting it exactly as he put it.

Did SA mean "millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals' actions" or "millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals' policies"? There is a difference -- the latter is nowhere near comparable to Obama himself raping little girls -- and it looks to me like the latter was intended. YMOV.

[mhendo]

Let me be quite clear: when i listed those quotes from Starving Artist i was NOT asserting that he had accused liberals of genocide. I disagree with the argument you're making here, pseudotriton ruber ruber.

I was simply noting that these types of broad, moderately offensive, and unsupportable generalizations about particular political positions have a long history on this board, and that if the mods are going to start punishing them, they'll need a pretty big ban hammer.

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Dammit, *I* thought he was a Golden Retriever.

They have Golden Retrievers in Mexico.