Marley--disagree with your modding

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

There is a difference

Not so much of one that SA would be able to slide, IMO. He's either stating outright that liberals have deliberately supported genocidal policies, or that they have supported policies that have resulted in genocide--not all that much difference, either way, since liberals in his views are still okay with the policies they supported and don't mind the genocidal results. You say could the same, pretty much, about the Nazis, and it doesn't begin to excuse it or mitigate it.

[Larry Borgia]

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.

I never said he said that. I was making a plausible interpretation of his post. If anyone else takes issue with it I'll try to explain myself to them, but you seem like you just want to be petulant, so I don't see any benefit to me engaging with you anymore in this thread.

mhendo, I get where you're coming from. The problem is the mods in GD and Elections have an impossible task. Contentious political debate is always going to have some broad assertions and exaggerations. The mods have to make constant judgement calls as to which to allow and which not to. Allow none and you stifle debate. Allow all and debate gets suffocated by bile. So they have to make constant judgement calls. There's no clear line and anyone will always be able to say "Hey, why did you allow this and not that?" And there won't always be a good answer.

That said the examples in the OP, especially Inigo Montoya's post, were clearly over the line. Inigo even acknowledges this. And he didn't get a warning for breaking a rule, he just got a note asking him to reign it in.

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

Originally Posted by Irishman

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.

That's a great rationalization ....especially since they wouldn't have to go so far as "preventing" engagement. They could however, look for someone less inclined to participate ......... maybe even one that epitomizes the GD decorum when the Mod hat is off.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

I never said he said that. I was making a plausible interpretation of his post. If anyone else takes issue with it I'll try to explain myself to them, but you seem like you just want to be petulant, so I don't see any benefit to me engaging with you anymore in this thread.

Would someone other than me please engage Larry Borgia on his b.s. here? Seems to me he's got no response, but is taking the tack of claiming to be offended by my tone, which (he seems to think) will exempt him from elaborating on his claim, which seems to me entirely nonsensical.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things "better"...

<snip>

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...

Emphasis added.

I think either of those bits could reasonably be interpreted as "well intentioned" and that therefore, the policies led to "inadvertent" consequences.

So, yeah, I agree with Larry. That is to say, it is one, reasonable interpretation even if it isn't the only reasonable interpretation.

[Marley23]

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

They could however, look for someone less inclined to participate

Since this is a volunteer gig, generally people want to moderate the forums that interest them as posters. To a lesser extent it would probably be hard to maintain any kind of consistent tone in moderation if the forum mods were not also participants. It might be reasonable to ask people to read a forum all day and not participate (or rarely participate) if this were a paid full-time job. Since it isn't, the mods' interests play a role in their assignments. That might not be ideal because it can create some complications, but in a system like this one, it makes sense.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Emphasis added.

I think either of those bits could reasonably be interpreted as "well intentioned" and that therefore, the policies led to "inadvertent" consequences.

So, yeah, I agree with Larry. That is to say, it is one, reasonable interpretation even if it isn't the only reasonable interpretation.

And how do you interpret "willful" and "hedonistic'? Remember, SA isn't listing a bunch of possibilities, he's listing a bunch of cumulative traits all of which apply to his thesis. You can't just handwave away the adjectives that refute the case you're trying to make, and point to the ones that might conceivably be tortured into supporting your argument.

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

Originally Posted by Marley23

Since this is a volunteer gig, generally people want to moderate the forums that interest them as posters. To a lesser extent it would probably be hard to maintain any kind of consistent tone in moderation if the forum mods were not also participants. It might be reasonable to ask people to read a forum all day and not participate (or rarely participate) if this were a paid full-time job. Since it isn't, the mods' interests play a role in their assignments. That might not be ideal because it can create some complications, but in a system like this one, it makes sense.

Sheesh.... I had no idea you read the forum all day. I figured you primarily searched on Posters and Subjects you suspected might provide fodder.

How about my suggestion that Mods serve as shining examples of the proper decorum?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The suggestion that Mods recuse themselves is one I've been making for several years now, with almost no effect. I'm not suggesting that Mods cannot participate in threads as posters, merely that they recognize when they are getting exorcised or personally and emotionally involved in a thread such that their objectivity might come into question, at which point, they can choose to ask some other Mod to take over modding that thread, and they can go nuts as a poster, or else that they will stop posting in it. (Probably the former is to be preferred, since as Mods they can still affect the thread in the direction they want it to go as posters.) This describes a very small proportion of the threads here--most of the time, Mods have no animosity or passion (or the thread is not one that encourages such inflamed feelings), but I have to believe after the futile discussions that Mods are encouraged to think of "abusing their privileged position on occasion" as just one of the perks of an overworked, underpaid job and constitutes a form of payment. "Yeah, it's a lot of work, but sometimes we'll let you act like a total prick and get away with it."

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

And how do you interpret "willful" and "hedonistic'? Remember, SA isn't listing a bunch of possibilities, he's listing a bunch of cumulative traits all of which apply to his thesis. You can't just handwave away the adjectives that refute the case you're trying to make, and point to the ones that might conceivably be tortured into supporting your argument.

Here's his list of adjectives:

Originally Posted by SA

willful, hedonistic, fault-finding, idealistic, know-it-all adolescents

will·ful
adjective
1.deliberate, voluntary, or intentional: The coroner ruled the death willful murder.
2.unreasonably stubborn or headstrong; self-willed.

#1 makes no sense in context, so I assume #2, and that doesn't contradict what I posted earlier.

he·don·ist
noun
1. a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification.

That is, they are so self-absorbed that they are unaware of the negative impact their ideas have on society.

But the key point is, he's comparing liberals to adolescents. That is, folks who are unschooled in the ways of the world. Idealistic and self-absorbed.

And that's as far as I'm going to take this. SA is not a poster I'm in the habit of paying attention to, and I have no interest in parsing his posts any further. Feel free to have the final say, and we'll let those reading this determine who they think has the better argument.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here's his list of adjectives:



will·ful
adjective
1.deliberate, voluntary, or intentional: The coroner ruled the death willful murder.
2.unreasonably stubborn or headstrong; self-willed.

#1 makes no sense in context, so I assume #2, and that doesn't contradict what I posted earlier.

No, "deliberate" makes perfect sense in context. These are people, according to SA, who have destroyed people's lives on purpose, knowing full well (or not caring) what destruction they were causing.

[Irishman]

The noun in that sentence was what? Oh, adolescents. They were deliberate adolescents.

Um, I'm not getting "intentionally killing people" from that.

Quite apart from your abuse of the word genocide.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Quite apart from your abuse of the word genocide.

Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things "better" = "genocide", or am I abusing the term in some way I do not see? If you kill millions of people, that's genocide to me, and that's exactly what he was accusing lib erals of doing.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

No, "deliberate" makes perfect sense in context. These are people, according to SA, who have destroyed people's lives on purpose, knowing full well (or not caring) what destruction they were causing.

Let's see which makes more sense:

They are a bunch of headstrong adolescents. Ding!

They are a bunch of deliberate adolescents. Bzzzt!

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of English professor or something?

[Measure for Measure]

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.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Says the guy whose views were being castigated.

A wise man once said, "It is possible to argue without the level of venom displayed in this instance. It was completely unnecessary and way over the top." I agree.

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

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

The only problem being is that while an admonishment to dial it down is taken with a nod by normal people, some snowflakes seem to think it impinges on their personal freedoms. And we can't have that.

Originally Posted by magellan01

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

I don't think so. The objectionable hyperbole in the referenced post was incidental to the main point. Der Trihs's hysterical apocalypticism OTOH, is intrinsic to his POV. So it's harder to censor the man in that case without censoring the idea, such as it is. And if Der's given a small, specific order, there's a decent chance that he would comply: he shows a surprising amount of discipline for someone who posts such unhinged stuff. He's perfectly agreeable at times.

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

The suggestion that Mods recuse themselves is one I've been making for several years now, with almost no effect.

I raise a glass to those who have ignored this recommendation.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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.

Well, it looks like there is more broad application of this rule than I thought, at least now.

Link.

[Marley23]

Much as I appreciate the Athena analogy, I don't think we're treading on any new ground here. We're trying to keep the discussions on topic rather than have them get derailed by partisan broadsides. The debates here are supposed to be fun and supposed to be as open as possible, but practically any debate can get wrecked right away by that kind of thing, so we're trying to keep it from getting out of hand.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Much as I appreciate the Athena analogy, I don't think we're treading on any new ground here. We're trying to keep the discussions on topic rather than have them get derailed by partisan broadsides. The debates here are supposed to be fun and supposed to be as open as possible, but practically any debate can get wrecked right away by that kind of thing, so we're trying to keep it from getting out of hand.

I think it's a great idea. I just hadn't notice much of an effort to do this in the past. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but if you guys do more smackdowns of threadshitting like that from both sides, so much the better.

It really gets tiresome to have every damn political thread in GD turned into a contest of who can bash the other side the most.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think it's a great idea. I just hadn't notice much of an effort to do this in the past. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but if you guys do more smackdowns of threadshitting like that from both sides, so much the better.

It really gets tiresome to have every damn political thread in GD turned into a contest of who can bash the other side the most.

Agreed--Tom's modding here is in exactly the same vein and (IMO) spot-on perfect.

For whatever it's worth, I like this trend in GD.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Agreed--Tom's modding here is in exactly the same vein and (IMO) spot-on perfect.

That's what I linked to in post #66.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things "better" = "genocide", or am I abusing the term in some way I do not see? If you kill millions of people, that's genocide to me, and that's exactly what he was accusing lib erals of doing.

Genocide is more than mass killing. Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. It is the selectivity of the group being targeted and the wholesale approach to wiping out that group that defines genocide.

Killing millions of people is a bad thing, but unless it is systemically aimed at a specific group, it isn't genocide.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

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

How is it that the three page GD thread on Obama's new gay marriage position isn't in Elections? You know the one Marley, you were again the first one to respond to it.

[Marley23]

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

How is it that the three page GD thread on Obama's new gay marriage position isn't in Elections? You know the one Marley, you were again the first one to respond to it.

Requests for thread moves should be made by the 'report this post' button.

[John Mace]

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

How is it that the three page GD thread on Obama's new gay marriage position isn't in Elections? You know the one Marley, you were again the first one to respond to it.

Reported.

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

Originally Posted by Marley23

Requests for thread moves should be made by the 'report this post' button.

I don't really care what forum it's in. I wanted the reasoning so I can do my best to follow the rules ....that's why I asked "why".