Clarification, Tom?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Tomndebb says here that more than two requests for a cite constitutes harassment of another poster.

I always thought that, absent personal abuse (which isn't present here, though I haven't read the entire thread carefully), that persistently repeating a request for a cite was polite, civil good form here on the SD, no matter how often repeated. If there's a new rule about this, I'd sure like to hear it articulated.

[Cicero]

Without commenting on this modding, at times I think it is necessary to pursue a somewhat contentious claim.

If a poster said the moon is green and a cite is asked for, some posters have a habit of ignoring the question as they can't support the claim.

So, IMHO, asking for a cite more than twice may not be harassment.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Used to be you'd have to think twice before spouting BS because you knew you'd get some well-deserved flack for it. So there are no repercussions for making baseless claims in GD now?

[Farmer Jane]

What I don't understand is how someone can keep spewing the same BS over and over again without providing a cite and not be called a troll. My post is my cite can't fly here.

[aldiboronti]

In my opinion once a poster has ignored two requests for a cite to back up his assertions it's pretty clear that he won't or more probably can't respond however many times you rinse and repeat. Simply draw attention to the fact and move on, it will already be quite evident to all that his argument is a busted flush.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

In my opinion once a poster has ignored two requests for a cite to back up his assertions it's pretty clear that he won't or more probably can't respond however many times you rinse and repeat. Simply draw attention to the fact and move on, it will already be quite evident to all that his argument is a busted flush.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. I'm not saying repeatedly asking for a cite works either, but I think if you don't have that possibility it may encourage posters to just ignore such requests.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Tomndebb says here that more than two requests for a cite constitutes harassment of another poster.

Three requests. But what's one request +/- among friends?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

My post is my cite can't fly here.

Where do you think it comes from?

I have to agree with tomndebb here, although I understand the frustration. If someone makes a claim and can't or won't produce a cite, asking over and over and over doesn't accomplish anything other than derailing the thread. Ask, say, two times and let the failure to produce a cite speak for itself or say "I see you still can't come up with that cite" and let it go.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Is this a rule? You should post it as a GD rule if it is.

My opinion is that it's among your stupidest rules, but you should clarify it if it is a rule.

[Marley23]

There is no rule against asking the same question a particular number of times. There is a rule against harrassment.

[fubbleskag]

Originally Posted by Marley23

There is no rule against asking the same question a particular number of times. There is a rule against harrassment.

bravo.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Marley23

There is no rule against asking the same question a particular number of times. There is a rule against harrassment.

This is like "There is no speed limit. There is a rule against pissing off a cop, especially if he's behind in his quota for tickets."

[Marley23]

I can't stop you if you want to reinterpret this in the most negative light, but if that's the case there's also not much point in discussing the issue with you. There is no new rule here, and I think tomndebb's moderation was entirely sensible. Ibn Warraq asked for a cite several times and greenslime1951 refused to provide one. What was the point of making the request a fourth, eighth, and tenth time? It had already been established that no cite was forthcoming, so tomndebb told the posters to move on. All he did here was point out the obvious: posters don't have to respond to questions and asking the same thing over and over is pointless and serves only to hijack the thread, but pointing out that poster has not substantiated his argument is fair game.

[Baal Houtham]

I just read the thread and thought Tomndebb handled it well. He told Ibn Warraq to knock off the repetitive (and fruitless) demands for a retraction; Mr. Warraq said okay and then provided a devastating, informative rebuttal of Greenslime's careless contentions. It made the thread ever so much better.

And the OP needs to abandon his obsession with having all possible SDMB rules violations written out in exacting, unambiguous language.

[Czarcasm]

Is it o.k. to repeat the request if the person in question repeats or reiterates the claim? if a poster has a habit of making the same baseless claim over and over again, is asking for a cite and pointing out that the poster has previously ignore requests for cites allowed?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It simple seems reasonable to set a number on how many times you may ask for a cite before being accused of harassment, or else to state forthrightly that you can ask for a unlimited number of cites without being accused of harassment. If someone does something other than ask for a cite, then specify what you may do and may not do, to be considered harassing. If I'm extremely polite, and I phrase it "Please, if it's not troubling you too much, I have asked for a cite, and haven't gotten one, from you [x] times now, and I'd appreciate your supplying me with one--I don't want to assume you simply don't have one, but I'm afraid that is the conclusion I will eventually reach, as well as a lower view of your integrity, if I do not get the cite I asked for. I thank you in advance. Peace out," or some such, can I avoid charges of harassment indefinitely? Or is three and I'm harassing?

[Marley23]

In general, yes, all of that is fine. tomndebb made this point in the post quoted in the OP:

Originally Posted by tomndebb

No one is compelled to respond to another poster's questions. greenslime is correct that if you have asked a question three times with no answer, the person questioned is likely not going to do so at subsequent requests.

Persistent badgering for an answer is harrassment and it will stop.

On the other hand, it is also true that a poster who makes an assertion that he or she refuses to support may be simply ducking the fact that the idea has no support and other posters are free to point out that fact.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Marley23

In general, yes, all of that is fine. tomndebb made this point in the post quoted in the OP:

Thank you. Clear enough for me.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Marley23

In general, yes, all of that is fine. tomndebb made this point in the post quoted in the OP:

Better, but I'd still like to know what part of the post that Tom felt was harassing. It seems like a plain-vanilla repeated request for a cite to me. Maybe he should have made it plain that he was posting outside of his capacity as a Mod? Just "purely in my capacity as a poster here, I've found that three or more requests for a cite don't help you get what you want--it's kinda a waste of our energy to keep reading these futile requests" sort of thing?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Better, but I'd still like to know what part of the post that Tom felt was harassing. It seems like a plain-vanilla repeated request for a cite to me.

The issue was the repeated question, not the wording or some part of the post:

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Persistent badgering for an answer is harrassment and it will stop.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Maybe he should have made it plain that he was posting outside of his capacity as a Mod?

He was moderating the thread.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The issue was the repeated question, not the wording or some part of the post

Seems contradictory (and arbitrary) to me--the number has nothing to do with harassment, AND the person was warned about harassive behavior purely about the number of times he iterated the request for a cite.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Seems contradictory (and arbitrary) to me

I'm positively stunned that that's how you feel about it.

the number has nothing to do with harassment

I never made that claim. I denied your request that we make up a specific number to quantify the point at which a request becomes harrassment (so you could thne claim that point was arbitrary).

AND the person was warned about harassive behavior

It was a mod note, not a warning.

[Farmer Jane]

What if Poster A says that Poster B said something but won't cite what Poster B supposedly said? Isn't that trolling? How many times can we call out Poster A on that? It's just straight up lying.

[Measure for Measure]

I'd like to thank ppr for not hijacking my thread on best practices for dealing with obstinate posters.


I don't have a problem with tomndeb keeping the thread in question on track. No warnings nor notes were in the linked post. For myself, I find repetition to be a useful technique. Unless otherwise instructed by a moderator, either specifically to me or in an ATMB thread, I anticipate that I will someday again post, "For the third time, [question]." As I understand it, that is consistent with the spirit and mission of this board.

With caveats, that is. For example, if the recalcitrant poster explicitly refuses my request, then I would probably shift gears and tone. And I doubt whether I would reach round 6: that's likely to be silly.

A lot of this stuff is contextual. There are ways to add softeners so as to attempt to engage the poster, rather than just berating them.


We fighters of ignorance face challenging times. Certain radio and television stations possess an ethic whereby it is acceptable to manufacture claims posing as facts on the fly: you can just make shit up. The idea that some opinions are simply better supported -that is, superior- to others is something their audience can't wrap their head around. It's a toxic practice, which lends to bad cognitive habits within their audience. Capable and confident men and women form well grounded opinions of their world: they prefer knowledge over reassurance. But not all of us are strong. Those advancing the board's mission must from time to time address those of weaker disposition in a constructive manner. This reality motivated my thread.


ETA: Farmer Jane. I really don't think it's lying in this case. Mostly it's overly strong attachment to received opinion, IMHO.

ETA2: Marley: "It was a mod note, not a warning." Urk. I thought it was a mod instruction and neither a mod note nor a warning. Is my terminology confused?

[Duckster]

• So Poster A makes a claim. Poster B now has a two-cite limit, and anything beyond that is harassment from Poster B? Is that correct?
• Shall it be assumed that when Poster C, Poster D, etc., reach their two-cite limit concerning Poster A's claim in the same thread, they, too, are subject to the same harassment rule?
• Will a mod step in and admonish the several posters while Poster A remains silent and does not offer a cite?
• What if Poster A makes repeated claims in various threads and remains silent when asked for a cite? Should there be a limit as to the number of unsubstantiated claims before a mod admonishes Poster A?

Wouldn't it make more sense to quit making rule after rule after rule and apply a bit of common sense on a case-by-case approach? I know our volunteer mods have a tough job to do, but come on. Seems to me the standard "don't be a jerk" rule covers a lot of ground here without having to increase the bureaucracy.

[Measure for Measure]

"Wouldn't it make more sense to quit making rule after rule after rule and apply a bit of common sense on a case-by-case approach? "

Um yes, which is what they're doing here. There's no rule against making 3 requests, at least not yet. Nor do I anticipate that happening. You're just not suppose to cross the line into harassment.

I am not a mod.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

"Wouldn't it make more sense to quit making rule after rule after rule and apply a bit of common sense on a case-by-case approach? "

Um yes, which is what they're doing here. There's no rule against making 3 requests, at least not yet. Nor do I anticipate that happening. You're just not suppose to cross the line into harassment.

Thank you.
That is the point.

Various posters who prefer to know exactly how far they can push the boundaries before they are called on it will be less pleased. Since we really do not want to establish rules for every conceivable infraction, those posters will simply have to suffer their frustration.

There is a long tradition of ruling harrassment out of bounds--it is a position taken by the staff back when there was a Straight Dope Message Board on AOL, so it has nothing to do with inventing rules. How to recognize and Moderate harrassment is a judgment call and that is why I have a coffee mug around the house, somewhere.
I am not going to set a limit for the number of times one may repeat a request for a citation or a reference. I am going to look at a thread and note the number of times such a request has been repeated over a particular period of time and the context in which the request is phrased and if, in my jackbooted judgment, it appears that such requests have become harrassing, I will direct the posters making the request to desist--and I still will not post some sort of "official" limit on the number of requests that can be posted or the number of posts or days in which such requests may occur.

If I tell a poster that the line has been crossed, then the poster need only stop posting those requests and the matter is at an end. I cannot imagine handing out a Warning simply because I thought a citation request had been posted too many times. Of course, once I post a Mod note on the topic, ignoring it will earn a poster a Warning for failure to follow staff instructions, but at that point it has moved into a different realm.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by Duckster

• So Poster A makes a claim. Poster B now has a two-cite limit, and anything beyond that is harassment from Poster B? Is that correct?
• Shall it be assumed that when Poster C, Poster D, etc., reach their two-cite limit concerning Poster A's claim in the same thread, they, too, are subject to the same harassment rule?
• Will a mod step in and admonish the several posters while Poster A remains silent and does not offer a cite?
• What if Poster A makes repeated claims in various threads and remains silent when asked for a cite? Should there be a limit as to the number of unsubstantiated claims before a mod admonishes Poster A?

Wouldn't it make more sense to quit making rule after rule after rule and apply a bit of common sense on a case-by-case approach? I know our volunteer mods have a tough job to do, but come on. Seems to me the standard "don't be a jerk" rule covers a lot of ground here without having to increase the bureaucracy.

Well, when someone gets piled on by the Cite Train, hopefully the teeming millions will understand they were in the stupid.

[GIGObuster]

I can report by personal experience that some posters really do not like the answers and they get hung up on demanding that one replies to specific nonsense like: "sure you explained how that engine works and cited all those experts and patents and prices they won for the engine being a new technology, but what about this web article that kinda says it was not? Why you do not reply to that? Huh? Why you do not answer?"... And he just repeats it again and again.

Sometimes one does not reply because there is no need to. With enough evidence and cites it is clear for every observer what most experts do think on the matter so it is clear to all that the request is just sour grapes/harasment.

[GIGObuster]

And just right now another perfect example, in the Noted Climate Change Skeptic Reverses Stance thread the opponent first repeats several times that I reply to his misunderstanding on the BEST research and then repeating tree times a question that only shows that he hates what polling and surveys are showing.

[Measure for Measure]

Ok Gigo, but AFAICT you addressed the question a couple of times in that thread, noting that the concern was irrelevant. That's very different from ignoring it altogether because it makes you uncomfortable.

[Ibn Warraq]

FWIW, I was the one mod noted and while I was initially annoyed and confused at Tom's mod noting of me, and made my annoyance made(without incidentally any repercussions) and Tom made some points that others have ignored.

Tom made it clear that his concern was not that I had asked three times, but specifically that I noted this was the third time I'd asked without Greenslime being willing to answer. I won't put words in his mouth, but I think for him he felt I stepped over the line not in asking a third time after Greenslime refused to answer twice before, but because I said "this is the third time I've asked"(or words to that effect, I don't feel like reviewing the whole thread again.

I won't put words in his mouth, but think he would not have objected if I'd merely asked a third time rather than noting "this is the third time I've asked" and while he used the term "harassment" I think his concern was more that he didn't want the thread to be derailed by my demanding that greenslime provide evidence for that statements he'd made and greenslime refusing to answer because quite frankly, he couldn't provide any cites because the statements he made about the number of Arab countries that were "theocracies" and claims that Israel had "repeatedly offered citizenship to Palestinians in the Occupied territories were demonstrably false that he had either made in either in error or in hopes that no one would know better.

Also, for the record, I reacted the way I did because frankly greenslime's comments at the very least bordered on bigotry and I do personally find it insulting when someone refuses to stand behind their claim and while I certainly am forbidden from accusing greenslime of trolling outside of the pit, I think I can say he was trying to rile people liek me up and that reacting the way I initially did gave him what he wanted.

Furthermore, after following Tom's request, I think I can say that the posts I made addressing greenslime's arguments(or at least what passed for arguments) were vastly more effective as Baal earlier noted(thanks for the compliment BTW).

In short, while I initially objected to Tom's note, in retrospect I do think it was the best for the thread, the board in general and even for myself and had he not done so it's possible the thread would have lasted quite a bit longer with greenslime repeatedly making borderline bigoted posts trying to get my goat and my allowing him to do so.

Sometimes, one can be a little to close to the argument, which was the case for me, and having someone who doesn't have the emotional investment saying, "ok, you've made your point, move on", is for the best.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Ok Gigo, but AFAICT you addressed the question a couple of times in that thread, noting that the concern was irrelevant. That's very different from ignoring it altogether because it makes you uncomfortable.

Ok you have a point there, I posted a question to jshore and ignored him now, but just now he just grabbed the reply I made to jshore that does not deal with his beef and the opponent forced it into demanding a reply of the same adnauseam point again. I will not bother with a reply there but sure I wish the mods would come with a ruling there.

[GIGObuster]

Darn it, just to make things clear the opponent and jshore are two different posters. I replied to jshore and the opponent quoted my reply to jshore and the opponent (not jshore) is continuing to accuse me that I'm not replying to him.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I can't stop you if you want to reinterpret this in the most negative light, but if that's the case there's also not much point in discussing the issue with you. There is no new rule here, and I think tomndebb's moderation was entirely sensible. Ibn Warraq asked for a cite several times and greenslime1951 refused to provide one. What was the point of making the request a fourth, eighth, and tenth time? It had already been established that no cite was forthcoming, so tomndebb told the posters to move on. All he did here was point out the obvious: posters don't have to respond to questions and asking the same thing over and over is pointless and serves only to hijack the thread, but pointing out that poster has not substantiated his argument is fair game.

Wait... is it a Moderators job to "move" a discussion in a "forward" direction with their gentle guiding hands?

If the posters of a thread want to chase their tails, let them. We're supposed to be smart, here. IMO, they'll either figure it out for themselves, or they'll get bored and move on to other threads.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by mlees

Wait... is it a Moderators job to "move" a discussion in a "forward" direction with their gentle guiding hands?

If the posters of a thread want to chase their tails, let them. We're supposed to be smart, here. IMO, they'll either figure it out for themselves, or they'll get bored and move on to other threads.

Ya don't read much in GD, do ya?

There are numerous occasions when a couple of posters will get into a pissing contest that then fills up a page or more of a thread, effectively killing it. More often than not, if they go too long, they begin hurling epithets at each other, meaning a Mod has to wade into the mess and break up a fight. Urging posters to drop silly back-and-forth volleys on meaningless space-wasting posts allows other posters more opportunity to enjoy the thread. Urging posters to refrain from increasing the level of near-insult rejoinders encourages them to back off before they incur a Warning--or, at least, it lets them know they have drawn Mod attention so that they might consider their future posts more carefully.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Ya don't read much in GD, do ya?

Not as much any more, because of the very activities you mention, primarily in politics based discussions.

Long explanation: for some reason, when I read Marley's post yesterday, I read too much into it. I read that posters comments will be judged on their merits, and the threads guided "back on track" based on what the moderator feels is the right track, as opposed to what the posters want to discuss.

Short story: I need more coffee in the morning.