Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2016, 10:42 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
Chronos banned me from the Passengers thread. (Spoilers)

So we've got a thread about how people shouldn't see Passengers because it glorifies rape culture because one of the plot points involves a character who relieved his extreme isolation by waking up someone else from stasis and had (voluntary) sex with her. The tone of the thread in most of the first few posts was along the lines of "oh, I was interested, but boo patriarchy! boo rape glorification! I definitely won't see it for myself!"

This attitude, quite frankly, is alarming to me. Sci-fi is traditionally a medium that throws people into extreme or foreign situations and examines an idea from there. "If you were stranded on a space ship, alone, for 90 years, what would you do? Would you wake someone else up to keep your sanity? How would you handle it if you did? Would you keep it from them? What are the moral implications of this?" is a perfectly interesting sci-fi idea. But if we're increasingly influenced by people who are professionally offended and dedicated to finding the machinations of the patriarchy, we're going to suppress challenging art.

And yes, I haven't seen it. I don't know how it treats the issue other than that people who have seen it say that it's addressed as a plot issue. But neither have all the people who decided that it was a horrible rape-glorifying propoganda film. And I'm not the one trying to shun it - I was the one suggesting people have an open mind and come to their own conclusions about it. Others in the thread suggest that the movie doesn't even know it's presenting challenging ideas, but someone who has seen it indicates that it certainly does.

Now, Chronos himself or herself might've posted the most insulting, exaggerated thing in the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Not moderating]
Ugh, I just read that review, and anyone who would actually want to see that, I sure as heck wouldn't want to be in a dark theater with.
I suppose it depends on how strongly you interpret his or her condemnation, but to me it suggests that he thinks people who would be willing to see a popular sci-fi movie are creepy or dangerous. Based off one clearly biased, agenda-driven internet review. That seems a bit much to me.

My posts are all on page 2. And then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]

SenorBeef, if you can't engage in a polite Cafe Society discussion without completely flipping out, then stay out of the discussion. Given your activity so far, I don't believe that you'll be able to change to a polite tone in this discussion, so I'm instructing you not to post any more in this thread. If you have something more to say about the participants in this discussion, take it to the Pit.

Everyone else, I'm instructing you all to stop engaging with SenorBeef's posts in this thread. Again, if you find yourself with unresolved issues, take it to the Pit.
Yes, I'm posting this in ATMB. Since my issue with this is with him acting as a moderator, that's the appropriate place, rather than the Pit, right?

Telling people they're "flipping out" is a really easy way to try to take the upper hand in a discussion without actually having to specifically say where they're going wrong or, in this case, what rule they've violated. I should've been told what personal insults I gave or what other board rule I violated. Simply saying I'm "flipping out" is pretty unsatisfying.

It's also rather silly. I'm posting on a message board, in text, with messages that take several minutes to write, over a period of several hours or days. It's pretty unlikely I'm sitting here "flipping out", writing everything up in some sort of rage. Furthermore, every point I made was supported with further explanation. I wasn't just randomly shouting explitives or rolling my face on the keyboard or whatever "flipping out" is supposed to entail.

It seems to me that if I violated a specific rule, like insults, that should've been noted. If my tone was over the line, the usual way of handling these things is to tell all parties involved to cool off (and Derleth was certainly taking a hostile tone with me), not to go right to banning someone from a thread right off the bat. As far as I know, I don't have some sort of record as a perpetual shit-stirrer or someone who goes into certain sorts of threads and causes trouble regularly, so I don't think this is based off a certain pattern.

Given that Chronos was one of the people who decided to shun the movie based off this review, and what seems like an unusual procedural not-warning-but-still-thread-banned moderation may have been him using his mod status to push out someone whose views on the subject he didn't like.

And if anything, I would suggest his or her own implication that anyone who would see the movie is someone you'd be scared or disgusted to be in a theather with is a stronger generalized insult than anything I said.

Yes, I know the result of this thread is "the moderators discussed it and we've decided that the moderation in this instance was super duper correct" because that's the only result that ever happens. United front over all else. But here's my token protest anyway.

Last edited by Bone; 12-27-2016 at 11:26 AM. Reason: added spoiler notice in title
  #2  
Old 12-27-2016, 10:50 AM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,900
I grant that Chronos's non-moderating post was hyperbolic. I also agree that some of the other posts in that thread were ultra-sensitive but these are opinions and that's what the thread is about, opinions.

Chronos's moderating post however was spot on. You were getting far too heated over a movie and I think he did you a favor by banning you from the thread.
  #3  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:03 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
On the contrary, the most hostile post would've been the first one, where I used some caps and sarcastically paraphrased the shunning positions. My posts afterwards were to flesh out my arguments about the nature of challenging work and trying to shun things that even touch certain subjects. My later posts were less combative so I don't think it's fair to characterize me as spinning out of control and needing to silence me before it crossed the line. That wasn't the trajectory.
  #4  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:20 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,191
You were going after other posters in a pretty jerkish fashion, SB. Personal attacks. Now, those other posters were responding with personal attacks against you, too, so I can see where it was appropriate for a moderator to step in and take steps to calm things down. Personally, I would have just told everyone, especially you, to "calm things down" before banning someone from a thread. But that's just me.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-27-2016 at 11:20 AM.
  #5  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:34 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 20,448
Looks like two of us added 'Spoilers' to the thread title. Damn you, Bone!

Anyway, I'm not a CS moderator, but here's a tip: not every instance where you think something's going all PC - a position I may or may not disagree with - is a good instance to bitch about it in public. A new thread, a restatement of principles, something.

What you really were up to is hijacking a CS thread into Great Debates. Wonderful, good art - even bad art, hopefully - can lead to real debate. But insisting the debate takes place then and there is poor form. Chronos was right in asking you to give it a rest.

As for your 'specific rule' complaint? That's why we have the 'don't be a jerk' bit as rule number one.
  #6  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:40 AM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
You were going after other posters in a pretty jerkish fashion, SB. Personal attacks. Now, those other posters were responding with personal attacks against you, too, so I can see where it was appropriate for a moderator to step in and take steps to calm things down. Personally, I would have just told everyone, especially you, to "calm things down" before banning someone from a thread. But that's just me.
I don't agree with this. Looked like other posters were going after Senor Beef, to me. I don't understand this "banning" at all. Why not just ask everyone to calm down? There was a lot of heat in that thread and not all from one source.
  #7  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:48 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
What you really were up to is hijacking a CS thread into Great Debates. Wonderful, good art - even bad art, hopefully - can lead to real debate. But insisting the debate takes place then and there is poor form. Chronos was right in asking you to give it a rest.


I'm not sure I understand. The OP of that thread and most of the first few responses were urging people not to see the movie based on an assumption that because the movie portrays sex and deception that it must glorify rape. (It's also very strange to me that consexual sex without all of the information is somehow worse than condemning someone to live their entire life in essentially an isolated prison).

How would I present the idea that people should see for themselves before judging it and that because the movie contains a plot point that deals with an issue doesn't mean it's thoughtless or glorifying without "insisting the debate takes place then and there"? What more appropriate place is there to debate the merits of shunning a movie because it contains a certain sort of plotline than in the very thread that's attempting to shun the movie? Am I supposed to start a seperate "You should consider seeing Passengers if you were otherwise interested rather than shun it due to the assumption that it glorifies rape" thread rather than respond in that thread?

I was expecting something like "you used too many caps" or "you were too mocking when you paraphrased the positions of other people in this thread" as the explanation, not what you suggest which is more along the lines of "you shouldn't disagree with the OP in a cafe society thread about a movie"

I'm not trying to be disrespectful in saying this - I appreciate your attempt to explain this as an outside source - I just don't feel like your explanation resonates with me nor with the general purpose of this board and that forum.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 12-27-2016 at 11:50 AM.
  #8  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:50 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
I don't agree with this. Looked like other posters were going after Senor Beef, to me. I don't understand this "banning" at all. Why not just ask everyone to calm down? There was a lot of heat in that thread and not all from one source.
You don't agree with what? Here is what I was talking about wrt SB:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB
It's clear you can't actually respond to the substance of my post...
That's an attack the poster, not the post comment.
  #9  
Old 12-27-2016, 11:53 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
That's an attack? I raised a lot of points, which he then ignored and just repeated the "you're actually the one who needs the safe space!" line of argument. If you try to engage someone in debate with arguments and specific points, and they just sweep it all aside to repeat their insult at you, it would seem to me that pointing out that they're not actually responding to your argument is appropriate (and an attack on their posts towards you, not the poster). It's not like I said "you're too dumb to be able to argue with me!" but rather that his posts were clearly not actually responding to and had no intention to respond to what I said.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 12-27-2016 at 11:54 AM.
  #10  
Old 12-27-2016, 12:18 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
That's an attack the poster, not the post comment.
Then why didn't Derleth get modded when he attacked Senor Beef?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Here we see SenorBeef being triggered by opinions contrary to his, even if those opinions are illusory and founded on a misunderstanding of what everyone else is saying.

Here we see SenorBeef accurately, if unintentionally, self-describing.
That he admits to later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
No, what I did was make fun of someone erecting a mighty strawman and then proceeding to lose to it, faux "offense" covering for real outrage.
And attacks the poster again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
The only one who needs a "safe space" is you. You're the only one who's apparently triggered by a nuanced position which doesn't reduce to a bumper-sticker slogan.

I have no dog in this fight but at least be consistent.
  #11  
Old 12-27-2016, 12:18 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 9,825
Chronos did what members have been asking for since I've been here. He stopped something that might have had an undesirable ending. I think using this option is far better than a stack of warnings flying around a thread.
  #12  
Old 12-27-2016, 12:20 PM
billfish678 billfish678 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,587
I was expecting some epic train wreck of thread. IMO at best it was some creaking train wheels for a pretty darn small number of posts.

A calm down or two note to everyone IMO would have been more than enough.
  #13  
Old 12-27-2016, 12:50 PM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,921
I think Senor Beef's points in the other thread were valid, interesting and worthy of debate. No one addressed the moral issues he raised: Wasn't the "kidnapping", with or without any sex, worse than the "rape"? What would have been the reaction with genders reversed?

Yes, Mr. Beef discussed his issues with much excitement and drama, and took the responses personally. But I can relate to such emotional demeanor!
  #14  
Old 12-27-2016, 01:08 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I think Senor Beef's points in the other thread were valid, interesting and worthy of debate.
Then he should have started such a debate in GD, as Jonathan Chance commented above.
  #15  
Old 12-27-2016, 01:14 PM
bucketybuck bucketybuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,008
I think the Mod did SenorBeef a favour in that thread.
  #16  
Old 12-27-2016, 03:49 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Then why didn't Derleth get modded when he attacked Senor Beef?
.
You'll have to ask a moderate that question. I noted in my first post that I thought other posters were "doing it, too". I also said I thought the mod instruction should have been directed at the others. However, I was responding to someone who seemed to think that SB was not doing it.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-27-2016 at 03:50 PM.
  #17  
Old 12-27-2016, 04:18 PM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Anyway, I'm not a CS moderator, but here's a tip: not every instance where you think something's going all PC - a position I may or may not disagree with - is a good instance to bitch about it in public. A new thread, a restatement of principles, something.

What you really were up to is hijacking a CS thread into Great Debates.
No, he wasn't. This is a topic which has always been the subject of CS threads - just search for "Hays Code" and you'll see the proof of that.
  #18  
Old 12-27-2016, 04:23 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,978
So SenorBeef was getting too intense for the forum. Fine. That's something that has been moderated before.

But read the rest of his OP. He has a good question. Why did Chronos jump right to banning him from the thread, rather than first just telling everyone to calm down? Why didn't he do a topic ban, telling everyone to open a new thread in GD if they wanted to discuss the PC topic?

After that, then I'd support a thread ban instead of going straight to a Warning. But not before at least trying the normal techniques that have worked more often than not.

Given how this is normally handled, and the nature of assuming that SenorBeef could not restrain himself if told to do so, I fully understand the OP feeling singled out. Especially considering that Chronos had been one of the posters that SenorBeef was trying to rebut.

Derleth was no less out of line for that forum. He even admitted he was making fun of SenorBeef. This should have been a "Derleth, SenorBeef: take this PC topic to a thread in GD or the Pit if you must. Everyone else, I'm declaring that subject offtopic for this thread." Or a better worded version of the same.

Last edited by BigT; 12-27-2016 at 04:27 PM.
  #19  
Old 12-27-2016, 05:03 PM
Penfeather Penfeather is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
So SenorBeef was getting too intense for the forum. Fine. That's something that has been moderated before.

But read the rest of his OP. He has a good question. Why did Chronos jump right to banning him from the thread, rather than first just telling everyone to calm down? Why didn't he do a topic ban, telling everyone to open a new thread in GD if they wanted to discuss the PC topic?

After that, then I'd support a thread ban instead of going straight to a Warning. But not before at least trying the normal techniques that have worked more often than not.

Given how this is normally handled, and the nature of assuming that SenorBeef could not restrain himself if told to do so, I fully understand the OP feeling singled out. Especially considering that Chronos had been one of the posters that SenorBeef was trying to rebut.

Derleth was no less out of line for that forum. He even admitted he was making fun of SenorBeef. This should have been a "Derleth, SenorBeef: take this PC topic to a thread in GD or the Pit if you must. Everyone else, I'm declaring that subject offtopic for this thread." Or a better worded version of the same.
Thanks for clearing that up.
  #20  
Old 12-27-2016, 05:37 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 12,891
I'm really getting tired of the newish Mr. Rogers-Board atmosphere here. Look, the vast majority of people here are grownups and won't wither and die if someone casts a harsh word in their direction (the few notable wimps who can't take some heated debate can find some other board where all the corners are rounded and they're wrapped in bubble-pack).

Can we please consider rolling back these stupid sissified rules and allow some heated debate without the mods getting the vapors?

And especially can we stop the stupid preemptive mod-notes/warnings? Future-crime is a stupid idea in a movie, it's even more stupid in terms of moderation. Someone's right up against the rules, mod-note them and if they cross the line, warn 'em. Stop "protecting" people.

Last edited by Fenris; 12-27-2016 at 05:38 PM.
  #21  
Old 12-27-2016, 06:41 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,145
I'll admit that my first post in that thread presented a rather strong opinion. Anyone is, of course, free to disagree with that opinion, and I can myself think of a number of different ways one might disagree. And in fact, there are posters in that thread who are disagreeing, without getting into any trouble over it. The difference is that they're disagreeing politely.

After SenorBeef's entry into the thread, it was no longer polite. If I had gotten to the thread earlier, a simple "cool it" might have sufficed. As it was, though, the thread was on the verge of needing to be closed, with the back-and-forth with SenorBeef dominating the discussion.

And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too. But it was clear that, first of all, those other posters had been able to contribute appropriately without SenorBeef's presence, second, that SenorBeef's post had started the incivility, and third, that SenorBeef's incivility was not prompted by the opposition to him from other posters, since it had started in his first post. Because of this, I deemed it necessary to exclude SenorBeef from the thread, but did not deem it similarly necessary to so exclude any other posters.

Could I have refrained from excluding SenorBeef from the thread? Yes, I could have. I considered the probability high, however, that he would simply continue in the same tone as he had been using, a situation which in turn I considered highly likely to pollute the thread beyond redemption. Given the choice between definitely excluding one person from the thread, and a high probability of having to close the thread and so exclude everyone, I chose the former.
  #22  
Old 12-27-2016, 07:03 PM
Fenris Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 12,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Could I have refrained from excluding SenorBeef from the thread? Yes, I could have. I considered the probability high, however, that he would simply continue in the same tone as he had been using, a situation which in turn I considered highly likely to pollute the thread beyond redemption. Given the choice between definitely excluding one person from the thread, and a high probability of having to close the thread and so exclude everyone, I chose the former.
You know that there's a third option, right? One that should be used a lot more often: mod-note then Warn or just straight-out Warn.
  #23  
Old 12-27-2016, 08:05 PM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
I'm really getting tired of the newish Mr. Rogers-Board atmosphere here. Look, the vast majority of people here are grownups and won't wither and die if someone casts a harsh word in their direction (the few notable wimps who can't take some heated debate can find some other board where all the corners are rounded and they're wrapped in bubble-pack).

Can we please consider rolling back these stupid sissified rules and allow some heated debate without the mods getting the vapors?

And especially can we stop the stupid preemptive mod-notes/warnings? Future-crime is a stupid idea in a movie, it's even more stupid in terms of moderation. Someone's right up against the rules, mod-note them and if they cross the line, warn 'em. Stop "protecting" people.
Yes. Yes. And Yes again. Let's not get so damned polite that we all fall asleep.
  #24  
Old 12-27-2016, 08:38 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'll admit that my first post in that thread presented a rather strong opinion. Anyone is, of course, free to disagree with that opinion, and I can myself think of a number of different ways one might disagree. And in fact, there are posters in that thread who are disagreeing, without getting into any trouble over it. The difference is that they're disagreeing politely.

After SenorBeef's entry into the thread, it was no longer polite. If I had gotten to the thread earlier, a simple "cool it" might have sufficed. As it was, though, the thread was on the verge of needing to be closed, with the back-and-forth with SenorBeef dominating the discussion.

And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too. But it was clear that, first of all, those other posters had been able to contribute appropriately without SenorBeef's presence, second, that SenorBeef's post had started the incivility, and third, that SenorBeef's incivility was not prompted by the opposition to him from other posters, since it had started in his first post. Because of this, I deemed it necessary to exclude SenorBeef from the thread, but did not deem it similarly necessary to so exclude any other posters.

Could I have refrained from excluding SenorBeef from the thread? Yes, I could have. I considered the probability high, however, that he would simply continue in the same tone as he had been using, a situation which in turn I considered highly likely to pollute the thread beyond redemption. Given the choice between definitely excluding one person from the thread, and a high probability of having to close the thread and so exclude everyone, I chose the former.
Maybe a little modesty is in order next time, and consider that predictive powers aren't that good. "TWEET", if you must, to cool things down, but give the posters a chance. Jumping straight to "you're banned from this thread" seems needlessly aggressive. It's just a MB on the internet. Nothing "needs to be closed". What is the absolute worst that would have happened if SB had been allowed to continue to post after being told to calm down? We're not talking Zombie Apocalypse here.

Last edited by John Mace; 12-27-2016 at 08:38 PM.
  #25  
Old 12-28-2016, 12:54 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'll admit that my first post in that thread presented a rather strong opinion. Anyone is, of course, free to disagree with that opinion, and I can myself think of a number of different ways one might disagree.
You came into a thread that discusses a movie and then implied anyone who would want to see that movie is dangerous or creepy and not someone you'd want to be near. Do you think that creates a welcoming environment for civil discussion? Or was the thread not meant to be a discussion at all? Was it supposed to be an MPSIMS hugfest for people who all agreed that the movie was a propoganda tool for Big Rape Culture and anyone else should just stay out?

Quote:
After SenorBeef's entry into the thread, it was no longer polite. If I had gotten to the thread earlier, a simple "cool it" might have sufficed. As it was, though, the thread was on the verge of needing to be closed, with the back-and-forth with SenorBeef dominating the discussion.
I think you're exaggerating pretty strongly just how bad the thread was. I don't think many people would say "oh man, that thread is just going completely off the rails and needs to be shut down" - I don't think it was anywhere near that level.

I think it's the fact that you were one of the people I was challenging and disagreeing with influenced how much you decided that I was disruptive to the thread. I think you might've taken a different approach if you were a disinterested third party rather than a participant who disagreed with me. Do you feel like your personal position and participation in the thread influenced your actions as a moderator?

Quote:
And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too.
You're trying to make it sound like you're being fair, that everyone who was being impolite got the same level of punishment, but that's certainly not true. "SenorBeef is banned from posting to this thread, and everyone else is instructed to ignore him too!" is not exactly equal condemnation.

Quote:
Could I have refrained from excluding SenorBeef from the thread? Yes, I could have. I considered the probability high, however, that he would simply continue in the same tone as he had been using, a situation which in turn I considered highly likely to pollute the thread beyond redemption. Given the choice between definitely excluding one person from the thread, and a high probability of having to close the thread and so exclude everyone, I chose the former.
Could you give me specifics as to the problem with my behavior? In my series of post, was my behavior getting better, worse, or staying the same? It seems to me that if you could object to anything in particular in terms of "don't be a jerk", it was the way I wrote my first post - very combative and paraphrased some of the people in the thread in a mocking way. After that first post, I was more focused on addressing specific issues related to the movie. Sure, I addressed and dismissed Derleth's attacks on me, but I did so without attacking him or her directly and simply detailed why I thought his attacks on me were incorrect. I was more polite to him than he was to me.

Your narrative suggests that I was becoming more beligerant and a bigger threat to the thread, but actually reading my tone and contribution to the thread suggests to me that maybe I was borderline too rude in my first post but became increasingly on topic debating the issues presented in the movie. If that's the case - if I started out a bit rough but then got better - then it seems like the "running off the tracks" narrative is false and that a little nudge or even just letting it go would've had adequate results rather than something as strong as a thread ban, since I was already heading in the right direction.

If that isn't the case - and you feel like my behavior was unacceptable throughout all my posts, or that it was getting worse at the end, could you give me specific reasons why you think that?
  #26  
Old 12-28-2016, 01:53 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I think you're exaggerating pretty strongly just how bad the thread was.
...this was your first post in that thread:

Quote:
Oh no, science fiction portrays a murky ethical issue regarding an extreme, unusual situation. RAPE CULTURE! RAPE CULTURE EVERYWHERE! I'm just going to assume that this movie glorifies rape and celebrates the partriachy's constant rape! I must shield my eyes from this atrocity! No need to see it to see if it actually portrays it that way, someone else giving a very slanted and inaccurate take gave me the rape culture warning!

SAFE SPACE! SAFE SPACE! FICTION SHOULDN'T CHALLENGE PEOPLE! ANYTHING THAT SHOWS PEOPLE DOING BAD THINGS MUST BE GLORIFYING THOSE BAD THINGS!

I can't wait until art is incredibly boring and unchallenging and stripped of anything that might possibly offend people whose main hobby is to find something to be offended by.
You didn't make any commentary on the movie (that you haven't seen). It was a very direct and a very caustic attack on the people in that thread who you disagreed with.

There were plenty of people in that thread who were in agreement with you. None of those people came out "full guns blazing" attacking the people who had different opinions. Art and science fiction should be challenging and not boring and not stripped of anything that might offend people. The critics argue that this movie is bad precisely because it doesn't challenge and because it is boring and because it attempted to be "inoffensive". They claim it turns what could have been a fascinating science-fiction premise into a boring by-the-numbers-hollywood-romance with shades of rape culture.

Do you disagree with their assessment? Then Cafe Society is the right place to do it: as long as you are polite. Do you want to debate the premise of "rape culture?" Then you go do it in Great Debates. Do you want to rant against people (like me) who think that rape culture is a problem and that movies like this shouldn't propagate it, then the appropriate place to do that is in the Pit. Because by posting your rant in Cafe Society people like me (who follow both the written and the "unwritten" rules of the boards) are unable to respond in kind. I would love to respond to your rant. So please: feel free to open up a thread in the pit and I will respond to you in the appropriate forum.

These aren't new rules. This is how its always been.
  #27  
Old 12-28-2016, 02:25 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,646
Personally, I'd rather see people who are likely to hijack a thread and make it into their own personal all-about-me fest be told to cut out once they've had a chance to make their statement, and anything more will just be redundant. I remember when Diogenes the Cynic was on the site, he was usually a great poster. But then if ever it came to one or two particular topics, he'd derail every single thread that came along, and deny anyone else from discussing it who didn't agree with it. To me, it makes more sense to get those posters to avoid those topics, rather than letting them rack up points on the warning track and, eventually, get banned.
  #28  
Old 12-29-2016, 01:03 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
How am I like Diogenes? I don't have this as a pet issue, I don't have a history of posting about that topic, and I certainly wasn't trying to crowd out anyone from that thread - I was discussing the topic and responding to people.
  #29  
Old 12-29-2016, 06:44 AM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
How am I like Diogenes? I don't have this as a pet issue, I don't have a history of posting about that topic, and I certainly wasn't trying to crowd out anyone from that thread - I was discussing the topic and responding to people.
It was just feedback on the style of moderation. No real relationship to you or the thread in question.
  #30  
Old 12-29-2016, 04:05 PM
TBG TBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,592
"You didn't make any commentary on the movie (that you haven't seen)."

He was making commentary on the (drummed up, in his opinion) controversy that the thread was created to discuss.

"It was a very direct and a very caustic attack on the people in that thread who you disagreed with."

No, it was an "attack on" the segment of society that lives to be outraged whenever fiction presents things that "trigger" them. Was his expression a little over the top? Perhaps, but sometimes you have to go a little over the top to be heard over all the outrage.

Even if it attacked any particular individual it would be not a member posting there. It would be the writer of the article that was linked to in the first post.
  #31  
Old 12-29-2016, 04:39 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
I'm really getting tired of the newish Mr. Rogers-Board atmosphere here. Look, the vast majority of people here are grownups and won't wither and die if someone casts a harsh word in their direction (the few notable wimps who can't take some heated debate can find some other board where all the corners are rounded and they're wrapped in bubble-pack).

Can we please consider rolling back these stupid sissified rules and allow some heated debate without the mods getting the vapors?

And especially can we stop the stupid preemptive mod-notes/warnings? Future-crime is a stupid idea in a movie, it's even more stupid in terms of moderation. Someone's right up against the rules, mod-note them and if they cross the line, warn 'em. Stop "protecting" people.
This. So much this. Well said Fenris.
  #32  
Old 12-29-2016, 04:47 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBG View Post
He was making commentary on the (drummed up, in his opinion) controversy that the thread was created to discuss.
...by attacking the people that held that opinion.

Quote:
No, it was an "attack on" the segment of society that lives to be outraged whenever fiction presents things that "trigger" them.
I'm neither outraged nor am I triggered. Those are strawman attacks and they are lame attacks and they are boring attacks. I personally believe that Hollywood has a problem with women and that this movie is just yet another example of that. Expressing that opinion doesn't give you licence to call me "outraged" and "triggered". Attack the argument: not the arguerer. And I'd be happy to discuss this further with you if you were to open up a thread in cafe society.

Quote:
Was his expression a little over the top? Perhaps, but sometimes you have to go a little over the top to be heard over all the outrage.
But when there is no outrage (and there was no outrage in that thread) then why do you need to go over the top? Were the other people in that thread that agreed with SenorBeef unable to express their opinion?

Quote:
Even if it attacked any particular individual it would be not a member posting there. It would be the writer of the article that was linked to in the first post.
Or people like me who agree with the writer. If SenorBeef wants to attack the writer then he is welcome to attack the writer. But if he is going to barge into a thread and attack the people that agree with the writer then he is attacking me. And if he wants to do that then he can take it to the pit so I can respond in kind.
  #33  
Old 12-29-2016, 04:59 PM
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 10,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
But if he is going to barge into a thread and attack the people that agree with the writer then he is attacking me.
But it is allowed to attack a group of people even if there are posters in the thread who a part of that group.
  #34  
Old 12-29-2016, 05:10 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
But it is allowed to attack a group of people even if there are posters in the thread who a part of that group.
...well he is allowed to do whatever the moderators say he can and can't do. Yeah the rules say you can attack a group even if there are posters in the thread who are a part of that group. But the ultimate rule here is "Don't be a jerk." And if an attack on a group crosses that line into "being a jerk" then the moderators can/have/and do act appropriately.
  #35  
Old 12-29-2016, 05:18 PM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
Except we didn't exactly have a disinterested, neutral moderator. We had a guy who was in the group that I was challenging, whose actions were sufficiently far outside the realm of normal moderating procedure that it seems likely that his personal participation is what dictated his moderator response.

Which is a really bad precedent, although I don't think anyone will care. "I better be careful when taking the opposite position as Chronos in this thread lest I be banned" is chilling to discussion.
  #36  
Old 12-29-2016, 05:26 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Except we didn't exactly have a disinterested, neutral moderator. We had a guy who was in the group that I was challenging, whose actions were sufficiently far outside the realm of normal moderating procedure that it seems likely that his personal participation is what dictated his moderator response.
...you didn't challenge anyone from the group at all. You just launched a rant full of strawmen. I don't see "rape culture everywhere." I don't demand "safe spaces." I love my science fiction to be challenging and I don't look to be offended. Yet I see this movie as problematic. But rather than addressing those things that I see as problematic, you just launched into a rant. You didn't challenge anyone. You just made us "roll our eyes."

Quote:
Which is a really bad precedent, although I don't think anyone will care. "I better be careful when taking the opposite position as Chronos in this thread lest I be banned" is chilling to discussion.
Nobody else in that thread got banned from that thread. And plenty of people took the opposite position to Chronos. Why do you think that they didn't get banned from the discussion, but you did? Can you identify anything that you may have done differently to the people that didn't get banned from the discussion?
  #37  
Old 12-30-2016, 11:57 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
After SenorBeef's entry into the thread, it was no longer polite. If I had gotten to the thread earlier, a simple "cool it" might have sufficed. As it was, though, the thread was on the verge of needing to be closed, with the back-and-forth with SenorBeef dominating the discussion.

And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too.
Maybe but you are still neglecting a huge point in that while reprimanding Senor Beef you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules. Where was HIS individual moderation? You're "Don't feed the troll" directive still condones Derleth for attacking Senor Beef.

Just answer this, should Derleth had gotten modded on what he said?
  #38  
Old 12-31-2016, 04:26 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Maybe but you are still neglecting a huge point in that while reprimanding Senor Beef you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules.
..."worse" is subjective. Snark has been allowed in all of the forums for as long as I've been here: and I've said snarkier things than Derleth did in that thread without warning. Which particular post of Derleth did you feel was a violation of board rules?
  #39  
Old 12-31-2016, 09:58 AM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."worse" is subjective. Snark has been allowed in all of the forums for as long as I've been here: and I've said snarkier things than Derleth did in that thread without warning. Which particular post of Derleth did you feel was a violation of board rules?
That's moving the goalposts. Nothing SenorBeef said was against the rules either. The point is that both were heated in their conversation.

That thread consists of SenorBeef posting his diatribe. Everyone else responds to it civilly. But Derleth deliberately provokes him. Then SenorBeef responds back in kind, and they have a back and forth.

Despite the fact that the whole thing was caused by two people, Chronos only picks out one of them, and punishes the one without punishing the guy who was deliberately egging him on.

Furthermore, he deviates from usual procedure, which would just be to tell them to calm down or say the topic should be moved to a different thread. He instead pulls out a rarely used punishment, claiming that he somehow knows that SenorBeef wouldn't listen if he doled out a lesser punishment.

It doesn't help that Chronos had already attacked anyone who might want to see the movie. He said he wouldn't want to be in a dark room with them. That's saying he's afraid anyone who likes the movie might do something bad to him.

So, in moderating the two of them, he only punishes the one who was on the side he had previously vehemently disagreed with. Or, conversely, he gives a pass to the guy deliberately provoking him. Derleth even admits he's just making fun of him.

Last edited by BigT; 12-31-2016 at 10:00 AM.
  #40  
Old 12-31-2016, 04:52 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That's moving the goalposts. Nothing SenorBeef said was against the rules either. The point is that both were heated in their conversation.
...I'm not moving any goalposts. I directly addressed Saint Cad's post. Saint Cad stated that "you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules". What rules did Derleth violate?
  #41  
Old 12-31-2016, 06:04 PM
voltaire voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,718
IMO, the best thing to do here would be to rescind the thread ban and let it suffice as a Timeout/Note with the understanding that warnings are on the line if anyone is out of line. What's the worst that could happen?

Last edited by voltaire; 12-31-2016 at 06:06 PM.
  #42  
Old 12-31-2016, 06:09 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I'm not moving any goalposts. I directly addressed Saint Cad's post. Saint Cad stated that "you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules". What rules did Derleth violate?
Attack the poster, not the post. Derleth even admits he did this ... then did it again.
  #43  
Old 12-31-2016, 07:25 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Attack the poster, not the post. Derleth even admits he did this ... then did it again.
...again: can you point out the specific violation(s), and why, in your opinion, it was "worse?"
  #44  
Old 12-31-2016, 08:09 PM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you didn't challenge anyone from the group at all. You just launched a rant full of strawmen. I don't see "rape culture everywhere." I don't demand "safe spaces." I love my science fiction to be challenging and I don't look to be offended. Yet I see this movie as problematic. But rather than addressing those things that I see as problematic, you just launched into a rant. You didn't challenge anyone. You just made us "roll our eyes."
Of course I challenged people. I challenged the premise that even if a movie involves something oogy on some level that it therefore must be advocating for it. I challenged people to actually see a work and judge for themselves rather than listen to an agenda-driven article declaring why it's forbidden to see. I challenged people to think about how they'd feel differently if the genders were reversed, even though the story and deception and "rape" would be the same. I challenged people as to why they feel like voluntary but not fully informed sex was somehow a worse crime than condemning someone to spend their entire life in a space prison. I challenged people on the rather extreme biases, agendas, and pet issues that made them react in such an extreme way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I'm not moving any goalposts. I directly addressed Saint Cad's post. Saint Cad stated that "you let Derleth get away with a lot worse violations of board rules". What rules did Derleth violate?
I didn't violate any rules. I don't think Derleth did anything worthy of moderating either. But if I'm going to get moderated then certainly he's as guilty or more than me or whatever criteria you're using.

I argued against the general premise of the thread. I argued against the guy who created the article in the OP that lead to the creation of the thread. I argued generally against the posters who posted in support of it. But I didn't call out anyone or attack anyone personally. And I easily could've, started with Chronos' "dark theater" post.

Whereas Derleth was certainly attacking me personally, pretty clearly trying to troll me, and in general very clearly being jerky towards me. And in fact I didn't return the favor - I explained why his accusations fell flat, tried to engage with him, realized that he had no interested in engaging in the actual points I was making, and continued to make my case rather than attack him personally.

I don't think anyone did anything thread-ban worthy or warn-worthy in that thread. However, if we are going to have moderator action, I do think Derleth more clearly violated general board policy than I did, since my posts were attacking the premise of the thread and an article linked to support the thread. Whereas he was clearly just trying to troll me personally.

So the fact that I got an unusually harsh punishment and he got nothing at all very much stands out to clearly show Chronos' bias on the issue. Chronos characterizing this as "And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too." in this thread is pretty weak, given that his instructions were basically "SenorBeef, shut up. Everyone ignore SenorBeef. See, that was balanced - both sides were moderated"
  #45  
Old 12-31-2016, 09:14 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Of course I challenged people. I challenged the premise that even if a movie involves something oogy on some level that it therefore must be advocating for it. I challenged people to actually see a work and judge for themselves rather than listen to an agenda-driven article declaring why it's forbidden to see. I challenged people to think about how they'd feel differently if the genders were reversed, even though the story and deception and "rape" would be the same. I challenged people as to why they feel like voluntary but not fully informed sex was somehow a worse crime than condemning someone to spend their entire life in a space prison. I challenged people on the rather extreme biases, agendas, and pet issues that made them react in such an extreme way.
...but you didn't make these challenges. You ranted about "RAPE CULTURE!" And claimed that people like me want boring and unchallenging art (which is completely untrue). You didn't critique the article and challenge us to form our own opinions. Asking us to "reverse the genders" isn't a challenge: because my feelings wouldn't have changed at all. Rape by deception is an actual crime: spending a life time alone is not a crime, and to claim that the two are comparable is not a challenge at all, its just very silly. You think that I have extreme biases, agendas and pet issues where I do not. And I haven't reacted in an extreme way.

You didn't challenge anyone in that thread. You ignored the substance of what people said in that thread, you ignored the substance of what was written in the article, you created a strawman instead and attacked that strawman.

And I'd be happy to discuss this further with you in a relevant forum.

Quote:
I didn't violate any rules.
I think we are all in agreement here.

Quote:
I don't think Derleth did anything worthy of moderating either.
And most, but not all, are in agreement here.

Quote:
But if I'm going to get moderated then certainly he's as guilty or more than me or whatever criteria you're using.
The criteria was that you got involved in a a cafe society thread and "flipped out", to quote Chronos. If we were to apply that criteria to Derleth: it is clear that he did not "flip out" in the same way you did, therefore if we were to apply the same criteria Derleth would be found "not guilty."

Quote:
I argued against the general premise of the thread.
This is the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MostlyClueless View Post
All right. Saw some trailers, and really liked the look of things. Pushes most of my buttons. Scifi? Yup. Cool design and style? Yup. Mystery? Ticked that box.

So the reason why I'm not going to see it is a spoiler, and it's explained in more detail here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/201...omance-creepy/

So yeah. Glad I'm not going to spend money on that bullshit.
What part of your rant addressed what was said in the OP?

Quote:
I argued against the guy who created the article in the OP that lead to the creation of the thread.
If you had actually read the article in the OP you would have seen that it was written by a Rebecca Hawkes: who is not a guy. If you had read the article in the OP you would have seen that the word "rape" and "rape culture" were not used at all: and that your attacks on that "guy" and the article were completely off-base.

Here are some more articles from Rebecca Hawkes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/rebecca-hawkes/

She doesn't appear to fit the mould of someone who has "rather extreme biases, agendas, and pet issues that made them react in such an extreme way."

Quote:
I argued generally against the posters who posted in support of it. But I didn't call out anyone or attack anyone personally. And I easily could've, started with Chronos' "dark theater" post.
You didn't make an argument. You just ranted.

Quote:
Whereas Derleth was certainly attacking me personally, pretty clearly trying to troll me, and in general very clearly being jerky towards me.
In your opinion.

Quote:
And in fact I didn't return the favor - I explained why his accusations fell flat, tried to engage with him, realized that he had no interested in engaging in the actual points I was making, and continued to make my case rather than attack him personally.
You didn't try and engage at all. You just ranted.

Engagement requires you to listen and acknowledge Derleth's point. And that point was "We're fine with films tackling difficult concepts. However, we're not OK with films skating over the difficulty with nary an acknowledgement and assuming the audience will be fine with a sympathetic protagonist doing horrible things with selfish justifications."

Quote:
I don't think anyone did anything thread-ban worthy or warn-worthy in that thread.
Well that is pretty obvious. You did start a thread to protest your banning.

Quote:
However, if we are going to have moderator action, I do think Derleth more clearly violated general board policy than I did, since my posts were attacking the premise of the thread and an article linked to support the thread. Whereas he was clearly just trying to troll me personally.
I disagree. There is a line between "snark" and "troll." I don't believe he/she crossed it.

Quote:
So the fact that I got an unusually harsh punishment and he got nothing at all very much stands out to clearly show Chronos' bias on the issue.
No it doesn't. You got "punished" for doing something that Derleth didn't do. Its that simple. And I don't think you were "punished." You were simply stopped from derailing the thread.

Quote:
Chronos characterizing this as "And yes, other posters did contribute to that as well, hence why I gave moderator instructions to them, too." in this thread is pretty weak, given that his instructions were basically "SenorBeef, shut up. Everyone ignore SenorBeef. See, that was balanced - both sides were moderated"
I go back to the question I asked you earlier.

"Nobody else in that thread got banned from that thread. And plenty of people took the opposite position to Chronos. Why do you think that they didn't get banned from the discussion, but you did? Can you identify anything that you may have done differently to the people that didn't get banned from the discussion?"
  #46  
Old 12-31-2016, 09:31 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...again: can you point out the specific violation(s), and why, in your opinion, it was "worse?"
I already did.
Post #10
  #47  
Old 12-31-2016, 11:30 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I already did.
Post #10
...and which one was an "attack" that you considered rose to the level of violating the rules?

If SenorBeef is prepared to call a wide range of posters "people whose main hobby is to find something to be offended by" then he should be prepared to have that label applied to himself. Post 10 omits context: and context is required if you want to make a fair evaluation of Derleth's posts. Having gone and looked at them in context I don't see anything that rose to the level of a violation IMHO.
  #48  
Old 01-01-2017, 05:32 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,252
If you honestly can't see how the quotes I put up in post #10 attack the poster (Senor Beef) then I can't help you.
  #49  
Old 01-01-2017, 09:19 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
If you honestly can't see how the quotes I put up in post #10 attack the poster (Senor Beef) then I can't help you.
...you haven't convinced me it there was a violation of the rules. And apparently you haven't convinced the mods either.
  #50  
Old 01-02-2017, 02:04 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you haven't convinced me it there was a violation of the rules. And apparently you haven't convinced the mods either.
That's fine. Just know that if I ever get modded for
Telling someone they need a safe space
Saying someone's opinions are illusory and founded on a misunderstanding of what everyone else is saying.
Or admit I'm making fun of someone erecting a mighty strawman and accusing them of faux outrage.
Then I'm going to bring up this thread and ask why the disparate modding of posters.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017