Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:34 PM
Steve McQwark is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I have always said, and I'm pretty sure it's an idea that I came up with by myself, that if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow. The rhyme was inadvertent. And although I don't agree with every mod action taken, we're talking about a bunch of volunteers here for the luva Pete. In my time here the mod action with real consequences, bannination, really has to be earned.
Who's Pete? I thought they were all here for the love of Cecil.
  #52  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:36 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 14,781
For some reason the first thing that flashed through my brain was this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MNGq5_6lcE

And of course the obligatory Monty Python reference and a possible SDMB bingo game in the future.

As for the OP
a) I don't expect to be banned and I've survived more than one head-to-head with one Mod (acting as a poster) or another in debate without so much as a warning. I would like to think it was the pure brilliance of my posts but its probably because I practice some self-moderation in the hopes of making my, and their, life just a little easier.

b) That being said and all jokes aside, I do agree that something seems/feels different. Now that "Dad" has stepped aside and the inmates are indeed running the asylum -------- it is almost a high school clique kind of vibe. I don't know if it can be avoided or changed but while I don't have any fears because of it, I do have to admit (at least to myself) that it is there.
  #53  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:38 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 14,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McQwark View Post
Who's Pete? I thought they were all here for the love of Cecil.
My PE teacher was named Pete but I swear to God he never touched me. Neither has Cecil for that matter but I still keep coming back.
  #54  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:41 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
My PE teacher was named Pete but I swear to God he never touched me. Neither has Cecil for that matter but I still keep coming back.
"Can you show me on this doll where the bad Moderator touched you?"
  #55  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,804
Quote:
Quoth Bone:

You're welcome to discuss religion to your heart's content in GD - the appropriate place for witnessing. All manner of religious discussion occurs in GD on a regular basis, from the general to the very detailed. Can you be more specific as to why you think you are constrained from discussing religion?
For that matter, religious discussions are also allowed in other forums, so long as they don't include witnessing.
  #56  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:43 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Manson does have a pattern of the one line rapid fire question type posting
I object. Some of them are two lines!
  #57  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:44 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I object. Some of them are two lines!
And that wasn't even a question.
  #58  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:45 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Here's what I don't understand about it.

SamuelA said (paraphrasing) that he was not at all blaming the Jews for being exterminated in the Holocaust or for women getting assaulted by being in a man's room at night, but either of these groups could avoid the bad things by taking other actions.

He, and manson who came to his defense, both said that they were not trying to downplay the criminality of the Nazis, or the criminality of a man assaulting a woman. Okay. He simply said, basically, why wouldn't you take these steps if available.

Now, one may say that is shortsighted, ignorant, or it does not accurately reflect history, but how is it "racist and misogynistic"?

Then manson asked that same question and got warned just for asking the damn question and pointing out (a rather mundane and undisputed fact) that if women never left their houses they have a better chance of not getting assaulted. He again said that he did not believe that was appropriate to suggest that women never leave their houses, but that the fact was true.

So what was warnable about those things? Was it because it is unseemly to suggest that the Jews could have done something different in WWII or to even mention that women could do something about being assaulted?

FWIW, I think SamuelA's premise is all sorts of wrong, but being wrong isn't a warnable offense. Manson's warning was more directly abhorrent. He simply pointed out a truthful fact.

I guess I am just looking for an explanation of how that is racist or mysogynistic speech.
  #59  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
... It seems your main point is that posters are being constrained to hold certain views else they get banned, or choose to remain silent. If that's your position then I disagree. With certain limitations, virtually any topic can be discussed on the board in one of the forums. In my view, the biggest constraints that limit posters are in areas of illegal activity and hate speech. Beyond that, most topics are fair game as long as people remain civil about it.

Are there topics you want to engage in but feel constrained about?
I think SlackerInc has something of a point, even if he's not doing a stellar job of explaining it. For example, the United States women's national soccer team recently won the women's world cup. There has been some discussion in the media in recent days about the 'equal pay' argument they've made, comparing their compensation, and their success, to the men's team. I thought it would be an interesting discussion and briefly toyed with making a thread about it, but thought better of it. Even though I can remain civil and have no intention of using "slurs" to describe the female players, I suspect the arguments I'd advance in that thread would hurt some feels and, given the mods recent sensitivity to women's issues, I was wary of engaging in a discussion on the topic. There is something of a chilling effect that happens, even if virtually no one will lament that my speech has been chilled.
  #60  
Old 07-11-2019, 01:49 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Then manson asked that same question and got warned just for asking the damn question and pointing out (a rather mundane and undisputed fact) that if women never left their houses they have a better chance of not getting assaulted. He again said that he did not believe that was appropriate to suggest that women never leave their houses, but that the fact was true.
It's alright. I said my piece on board and via PM. The mods disagree, and weren't in a particularly listening mood, but as someone said, it's just a message board, and I wouldn't want their job.
  #61  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:05 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Mere Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
I chuckled.

(Not an official Mod endorsement)



Ok so you feel constrained. Any specific ways that you are actually constrained? The topic has not been banned. Is there no way that you could post about the topic without breaking the rules of the board?[/I]
Therein lie the "constraints" of which the OP is complaining. Bolding mine.
  #62  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:10 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
It's alright. I said my piece on board and via PM. The mods disagree, and weren't in a particularly listening mood, but as someone said, it's just a message board, and I wouldn't want their job.
Well, I'm not arguing for you, and I'm really not arguing. I'm trying to figure out what the rules are, and these threads never provide any answers other than: 1) I'm an idiot for even asking, 2) If we have to tell you, then I'm an idiot, 3) Don't be a jerk, and 4) We know it when we see it.

Much like the OP and the second poster in the thread, I am confused about the direction of the board. It is scattershot and changes by the day or by the moderator. I understand that this new "misogyny" kick has caused a lot of this confusion, but even given that, I don't understand how your comments were in any way a violation of any board rule. Not even close.

SamuelA was a bit different. The moderator correctly noted that his OP had changed a bit and suggested that the Jews should have attempted to assimilate in order to avoid extermination. It was pointed out in the thread how wrong he was, but the fact that this topic was warned discredit's Bone's assertion that we can debate any topic we want. I think SamuelA's position is incredibly wrong, but what is warnable about it?
  #63  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:11 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think SlackerInc has something of a point, even if he's not doing a stellar job of explaining it. For example, the United States women's national soccer team recently won the women's world cup. There has been some discussion in the media in recent days about the 'equal pay' argument they've made, comparing their compensation, and their success, to the men's team. I thought it would be an interesting discussion and briefly toyed with making a thread about it, but thought better of it. Even though I can remain civil and have no intention of using "slurs" to describe the female players, I suspect the arguments I'd advance in that thread would hurt some feels and, given the mods recent sensitivity to women's issues, I was wary of engaging in a discussion on the topic. There is something of a chilling effect that happens, even if virtually no one will lament that my speech has been chilled.
I am 100% confident I can open a thread in GD and lay out the (correct in my view) arguments that the Women's Soccer Team should not receive equal pay with no threat of mod intervention.

Why do you think we have different appraisals of that risk?
  #64  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:20 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,127
I've made a lot of mistakes in my relatively short time here, and I've posted several opinions that are not at all popular. To date, I've not received even a warning.

So I'm not seeing the impending disaster.

Posters make mistakes. Mods make mistakes. As long as we can work it out together, things'll be fine.
  #65  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:23 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Here's what I don't understand about it.

SamuelA said (paraphrasing) that he was not at all blaming the Jews for being exterminated in the Holocaust or for women getting assaulted by being in a man's room at night, but either of these groups could avoid the bad things by taking other actions.
Not exactly. When it had already been pointed out in more than one post in that thread why his "solution" was actually impossible in regard to Nazi Germany, not even hypothetically possible, he persisted in coming back to restate it. In conjunction with numerous similar acts of behavior (plenty of examples in the current BBQ Pit thread) he was Warned. That Warning pushed him over a line with similar Warnings that put him on a path to suspension.

It was his persistent counterfactual return to the same claim question in a trolling manner that got him Warned.
  #66  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:28 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Not exactly. When it had already been pointed out in more than one post in that thread why his "solution" was actually impossible in regard to Nazi Germany, not even hypothetically possible, he persisted in coming back to restate it. In conjunction with numerous similar acts of behavior (plenty of examples in the current BBQ Pit thread) he was Warned. That Warning pushed him over a line with similar Warnings that put him on a path to suspension.

It was his persistent counterfactual return to the same claim question in a trolling manner that got him Warned.
That's not what the warning says. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...1&postcount=60

It says that his comment about women was "beyond the pale" and that he was warned for trolling and being a jerk.

Nothing in the warning suggested what you just did, which is a very reasonable explanation.
  #67  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:30 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm trying to figure out what the rules are, and these threads never provide any answers other than: 1) I'm an idiot for even asking, 2) If we have to tell you, then I'm an idiot, 3) Don't be a jerk, and 4) We know it when we see it.
There's plenty of rules lawyering as it is. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if TPTB started being specific?
  #68  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:38 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, I'm not arguing for you, and I'm really not arguing. I'm trying to figure out what the rules are, and these threads never provide any answers other than: 1) I'm an idiot for even asking, 2) If we have to tell you, then I'm an idiot, 3) Don't be a jerk, and 4) We know it when we see it.

Much like the OP and the second poster in the thread, I am confused about the direction of the board. It is scattershot and changes by the day or by the moderator. I understand that this new "misogyny" kick has caused a lot of this confusion, but even given that, I don't understand how your comments were in any way a violation of any board rule. Not even close.

SamuelA was a bit different. The moderator correctly noted that his OP had changed a bit and suggested that the Jews should have attempted to assimilate in order to avoid extermination. It was pointed out in the thread how wrong he was, but the fact that this topic was warned discredit's Bone's assertion that we can debate any topic we want. I think SamuelA's position is incredibly wrong, but what is warnable about it?
Fair enough and I agree. There definitely seems to be a disconnect on the difference between stating what a person "could" do and what a person "should" do.
  #69  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:41 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
There's plenty of rules lawyering as it is. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if TPTB started being specific?
So clarity and transparency is counterproductive?
  #70  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
I am 100% confident I can open a thread in GD and lay out the (correct in my view) arguments that the Women's Soccer Team should not receive equal pay with no threat of mod intervention.
I'm pretty confident you're correct about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Why do you think we have different appraisals of that risk?
Moderators have noted in the past that part of their moderation depends on who is posting something. Identical posts from different posters may receive different moderator responses, such as no response in one case or a mod note in another. For example, I'm quite confident that if I were to post something about "libtards", I'd get a warning for it. But other posters do so freely, without any apparent fear of being warned, presumably because they're doing so insincerely. Along those same lines, I suspect that you and I could post identical arguments about the women's team's pay differential, and the responses you'd receive would be softer, and less vitriolic, than mine.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 07-11-2019 at 02:56 PM.
  #71  
Old 07-11-2019, 02:56 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It says that his comment about women was "beyond the pale" and that he was warned for trolling and being a jerk.

Nothing in the warning suggested what you just did, which is a very reasonable explanation.
We don't necessarily give extended dissertations on all the reasons for a particular warning. As tomndebb says, the fact that SamuelA kept returning to the same point after it had been explained to him why it was impossible multiple times was evidence of trolling and jerkishness. Chronos also explained when he closed the thread why SamuelA's continued arguing was inappropriate.
  #72  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:05 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,124
Clearly what we need is a new subforum, where posters accused by mods of being a jerk are afforded an opportunity to obtain counsel and argue before a panel of their peers as to what constitutes being a jerk. Such conclusions should of course be based on precedent, so we need to keep a better record of examples of jerkishness, and perhaps index these examples in a library of some sort that all can access.

The decision of these peers can then be appealed three times, ultimately bringing the matter to Ed Zotti if he so deigns. Of course he might remand the issue to the Privy Council of ATMB, which can then form a commission of inquiry comprised of the anonymous posters on Giraffe Boards as a neutral third party.

This inquiry shall last not more than 180 days, to be followed by a secondary review by the degenerates who only hang out in the Pit. Their recommendations will be put forth to the whole message board in IMHO for a public poll to decide the matter once and for all, before anyone's reputation is sullied by a mod note.

Or we can all try a little harder not to be jerks.
  #73  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:09 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
We don't necessarily give extended dissertations on all the reasons for a particular warning. As tomndebb says, the fact that SamuelA kept returning to the same point after it had been explained to him why it was impossible multiple times was evidence of trolling and jerkishness. Chronos also explained when he closed the thread why SamuelA's continued arguing was inappropriate.
I understand that you don't give dissertations. However, your warning contained nothing at all about what tomndebb said. You quoted only SamuelA's post about women and said it was "beyond the pale" and warned him for trolling and being a jerk. This was after another moderator had merely closed the thread for his non responsiveness to other posters and his suggestion that Jews "should" have tried to assimilate.

The implication was that the quoted post was trolling and being a jerk and that the final comment, standing alone, was beyond the pale. The other moderator closed the thread but you gave a warning for a different and unrelated reason. If I misunderstood the moderation, then I will retract my statements.

If, in a different thread, a poster took the position that yes, sexual assault is terrible, but women can take steps to prevent it by not dressing provocatively, drinking alcohol, and being in a man's house or apartment at 3am, would that be warnable on its own? Is that sentiment what you were referring to as being "beyond the pale"?

If so, then Bone's comment is incorrect. If not, then manson's warning should be rescinded.
  #74  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:14 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Along those same lines, I suspect that you and I could post identical arguments about the women's team's pay differential, and the responses you'd receive would be softer, and less vitriolic, than mine.
But also that's because he wouldn't use the word "libtard" in his argument.
  #75  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:16 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So clarity and transparency is counterproductive?
Have you not been paying attention? We already have posters dancing around trying to not cross a line; making an obvious line will encourage more such behavior and create more work for the Mods.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 07-11-2019 at 03:19 PM.
  #76  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
But also that's because he wouldn't use the word "libtard" in his argument.
Neither would I. Doing so would get me a warning, whereas I doubt it would get Richard Parker a warning. That's the point.
  #77  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Clearly what we need is a new subforum, where posters accused by mods of being a jerk are afforded an opportunity to obtain counsel and argue before a panel of their peers as to what constitutes being a jerk. Such conclusions should of course be based on precedent, so we need to keep a better record of examples of jerkishness, and perhaps index these examples in a library of some sort that all can access.

The decision of these peers can then be appealed three times, ultimately bringing the matter to Ed Zotti if he so deigns. Of course he might remand the issue to the Privy Council of ATMB, which can then form a commission of inquiry comprised of the anonymous posters on Giraffe Boards as a neutral third party.

This inquiry shall last not more than 180 days, to be followed by a secondary review by the degenerates who only hang out in the Pit. Their recommendations will be put forth to the whole message board in IMHO for a public poll to decide the matter once and for all, before anyone's reputation is sullied by a mod note.

Or we can all try a little harder not to be jerks.
I do give you several points for creativity, however, it misses the issue.

The problem with "don't be a jerk" is that one's jerkishness has gone far beyond a universal recognition of being a jerk and into a wholly subjective and subconsciously politically based determination of what being a jerk consists of. It really has come to mean nothing more than "upsets a moderator at this time."
  #78  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:34 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,575
Then don't upset any moderators.
  #79  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:38 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The problem with "don't be a jerk" is that one's jerkishness has gone far beyond a universal recognition of being a jerk and into a wholly subjective and subconsciously politically based determination of what being a jerk consists of. It really has come to mean nothing more than "upsets a moderator at this time."
Yet, in some entirely mysterious fashion, you've managed to avoid a warning for being a jerk without having any idea of how not to be one. 'Tis a puzzlement!
  #80  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:38 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I do give you several points for creativity, however, it misses the issue.

The problem with "don't be a jerk" is that one's jerkishness has gone far beyond a universal recognition of being a jerk and into a wholly subjective and subconsciously politically based determination of what being a jerk consists of. It really has come to mean nothing more than "upsets a moderator at this time."
Could you provide an objective definition of "being a jerk"? I don't mean a dictionary definition, though that might apply. Some sort of non-subjective way to determine if someone is being a jerk?

Last edited by raventhief; 07-11-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #81  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:47 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I do give you several points for creativity, however, it misses the issue.

The problem with "don't be a jerk" is that one's jerkishness has gone far beyond a universal recognition of being a jerk and into a wholly subjective and subconsciously politically based determination of what being a jerk consists of. It really has come to mean nothing more than "upsets a moderator at this time."
I disagree with you. Human beings as a rule have the infinite capacity to ignore their own jerkish-ness. If poster X does not understand that he is being a jerk, but is warned for that reason, in the majority of cases that warning was earned.

I don't think it is the responsibility of the moderators to teach posters how to behave towards each other with more civility than 12-year-olds on the playground. If one absolutely must be a jerk, there's a forum for that. Hie thee to the Pit. The fact that there are posters on this board who complain about not being able to say and behave any way they like, but they won't (virtually) step foot into the Pit because it's not couth enough amazes me no end.
  #82  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:04 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I don't think it is the responsibility of the moderators to teach posters how to behave towards each other with more civility than 12-year-olds on the playground. If one absolutely must be a jerk, there's a forum for that. Hie thee to the Pit. The fact that there are posters on this board who complain about not being able to say and behave any way they like, but they won't (virtually) step foot into the Pit because it's not couth enough amazes me no end.
IMHO, those who speak loudest about rules not being obvious are the same ones who would totally start dancing around a bright line.
  #83  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:35 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
In re recent warnings of Sammy and Manson:

We are not there yet, but if the moderation trajectory continues apace, within a few months or a year it will be a demerit in my eyes if you can post regularly on this board and not get banned, because you will either be a true believer in an almost Maoist politically correct agenda, or be living out your days in pathetically cowed prostration before said True Believers.
SlackerInc, keep an eye on me. I've been here from the beginning, and no one has ever accused me of being a "true believer in an almost Maoist politically correct agenda, or be living out your days in pathetically cowed prostration before said True Believers" I currently have no plans to leave this Board voluntarily, no matter how irritating I may or may not find the current political climate.

I guess that makes me the canary in the coal mine. When you no longer see Kent Clark post here, all is lost.
  #84  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think SlackerInc has something of a point, even if he's not doing a stellar job of explaining it.
There are black holes that have cast more light on this alleged dispute.
  #85  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,491
Kent, noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
For that matter, religious discussions are also allowed in other forums, so long as they don't include witnessing.

And if they include comments about Islam similar to those that create a Twitter firestorm when they come from OBE Richard Dawkins?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Ok so you feel constrained. Any specific ways that you are actually constrained? The topic has not been banned. Is there no way that you could post about the topic without breaking the rules of the board?

I feel quite confident that paraphrasing Pinker (without attribution) would incite many posters to report “misogyny” and more. If I quoted him, I might be on safer ground since he has been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize and is a Harvard professor and so on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
IMHO, those who speak loudest about rules not being obvious are the same ones who would totally start dancing around a bright line.

And this would be a problem why, exactly? That’s called “following the rules”.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-11-2019 at 04:53 PM.
  #86  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:31 PM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
(...) (a rather mundane and undisputed fact) (...)
Not mundane, not undisputed and sure as shit not a fact.

By far the most sexual violence is committed in the home of the victim.

(Why is this nonsense allowed here? Others got warned for.... exactly the same bullshit)
  #87  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:58 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Not mundane, not undisputed and sure as shit not a fact.

By far the most sexual violence is committed in the home of the victim.

(Why is this nonsense allowed here? Others got warned for.... exactly the same bullshit)
You have hit upon why the other thread got closed, then the second thread got a warning, and further discussion of this is supposed to go to a new thread in GD.
  #88  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:00 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

And this would be a problem why, exactly? That’s called “following the rules”.
I've always called it "I'm not touching you", but YMMV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post

The decision of these peers can then be appealed three times, ultimately bringing the matter to Ed Zotti if he so deigns. Of course he might remand the issue to the Privy Council of ATMB, which can then form a commission of inquiry comprised of the anonymous posters on Giraffe Boards as a neutral third party.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ed Zotti is no longer around, right? (Yes, I know the rest is a joke)

Last edited by Guinastasia; 07-11-2019 at 06:02 PM.
  #89  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:07 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ed Zotti is no longer around, right? (Yes, I know the rest is a joke)
Heís just taken on status as a really senior judge. Like, Thurgood Marshall-like seniority.
  #90  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:13 PM
TubaDiva's Avatar
TubaDiva is offline
Capo di tutti capi
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 11,086
Ed Zotti left the building, as it were, a little over a year ago. He is not currently involved in the day to day operations of The Straight Dope.

However, he is writing occasional articles for the Chicago Sun-Times (non-Straight Dope related) and I recommend you look them up and read them, especially residents of the greater Chicago area. They are all about where Chicago has been and where Chicago is going; Ed is very knowledgeable about this sort of thing. Well worth your time.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/5/...ion-population

Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
  #91  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:46 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
Not mundane, not undisputed and sure as shit not a fact.

By far the most sexual violence is committed in the home of the victim.

(Why is this nonsense allowed here? Others got warned for.... exactly the same bullshit)
The statement is not: Stay at home and you won't be raped.

The statement is: Stay at home and you have a smaller chance of being raped.

This latter statement is objectively factual. To be false, it would have to be true that no rapes occur outside the home. Do you, in fact, contend that to be true?

I am not taking any position on the moderation decisions, but I DO object to the claim that somehow it's not correct to assert that a woman who stays at home is less likely to be raped than one who goes out into public, especially to places which have historical connection to occurrence of rape. The fact that the statement is true does not equate to a statement that women shouldn't leave the home, and are inviting rape if they do (which would be an obnoxious premise).
  #92  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:53 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And if they include comments about Islam similar to those that create a Twitter firestorm when they come from OBE Richard Dawkins?
You mean comparing Islam as an ideology to cancer? Put it in the Pit, that's where rants go. You'll surely get jumped on, but I don't think you would get warned unless you started slinging racist slurs. Like saying Muslims are a cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
b) That being said and all jokes aside, I do agree that something seems/feels different. Now that "Dad" has stepped aside and the inmates are indeed running the asylum -------- it is almost a high school clique kind of vibe. I don't know if it can be avoided or changed but while I don't have any fears because of it, I do have to admit (at least to myself) that it is there.
Not disputing your perception at all, but honestly IMHO this place was MUCH more cliquey back in the pre-pay-to-post days of the early 2000s. This place was much more of a social hub for some before the rise of the social media giants like Facebook. Lots of regional meat-space parties, more social clustering of like-minded folks and lots of petty social drama as a result that played itself out in little personal feuds and spats.

What has changed is the degree of political homogenization in board membership. But social cliques per se seem less prominent to me.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 07-11-2019 at 06:58 PM.
  #93  
Old 07-11-2019, 07:05 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,242
Moderator Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The statement is not: Stay at home and you won't be raped.

The statement is: Stay at home and you have a smaller chance of being raped.

This latter statement is objectively factual. To be false, it would have to be true that no rapes occur outside the home. Do you, in fact, contend that to be true?

I am not taking any position on the moderation decisions, but I DO object to the claim that somehow it's not correct to assert that a woman who stays at home is less likely to be raped than one who goes out into public, especially to places which have historical connection to occurrence of rape. The fact that the statement is true does not equate to a statement that women shouldn't leave the home, and are inviting rape if they do (which would be an obnoxious premise).
If you want to relate this to a moderation decision that's fine, but if you only want to debate the topic itself, that is not appropriate for ATMB. Take it to GD if you want, but I want no more discussions about the rape topic in ATMB.

Any further discussions of the rape topic in ATMB without being explicitly related to moderation actions or rules will result in warnings.
  #94  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:16 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Heís just taken on status as a really senior judge. Like, Thurgood Marshall-like seniority.
OMG! Ed is DEAD????
  #95  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:05 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
OMG! Ed is DEAD????
No, he's living on a farm downstate where he can play with the other editors and chase squirrels.
  #96  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:29 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
I've always called it "I'm not touching you", but YMMV.


(Snipped)
You could also call it "being a jerk."
  #97  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:46 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 14,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post

Not disputing your perception at all, but honestly IMHO this place was MUCH more cliquey back in the pre-pay-to-post days of the early 2000s. This place was much more of a social hub for some before the rise of the social media giants like Facebook. Lots of regional meat-space parties, more social clustering of like-minded folks and lots of petty social drama as a result that played itself out in little personal feuds and spats.

What has changed is the degree of political homogenization in board membership. But social cliques per se seem less prominent to me.
Going back before membership what cliques you had seemed to me regional (the DC area and Eastern Ohio as examples) and mostly an outgrowth of the Dopefests. Some of that still continued after membership was established but maybe not as much as before. Plus we lost a lot of people like Norinew and when the gatherings became memorials --- it just wasn't the same.

But now there does seem to be something, as I said before, with some Mods getting seriously territorial and the Mods themselves almost being a clique of their own combined with a few of the retired ones as well. It doesn't make sense in a way; they strike me as pretty diverse in terms of view/politics/background but it still seems to be there. Sort of like among the motorcycle clubs; he may be an asshole and totally wrong but if he's got the patch I'm going to pile on with him if I agree or not. I see that in a sense among a couple of these latest threads.

It doesn't concern me much in the end; I am not prepared to call it a totally bad thing. But it is interesting to note. I'll include it in our next report to The Big Giant Head.
  #98  
Old 07-11-2019, 10:52 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
OMG! Ed is DEAD????
No thatís Zed. Zedís dead baby. Zedís dead.
  #99  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:20 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,335
I still read the initial post by SamuelA as a disingenuous way to try and inject a Nazi argument into GQ. The wording was already suspect, and the poster had a history of "stumbling on" bigoted crap (as noted in the Pit thread). The disingenuousness was only made clearer by the poster's subsequent responses. This was enough to at least close the thread. Their linking it with rape apologia arguments was enough to make it abundantly clear that they were pissing people off. Such a comparison would have no reason to exist in a thread that was asking a factual question. As such, the poster was warned for trolling.

manson's issue was more of refusing to listen to moderator instructions. He was told not to try and argue about rape-related stuff in ATMB, but he kept on doing so. Even after a thread was closed, he brought it back up again. So he got a Warning.

While I can maybe a small shift in priorities, I don't really see how either type of moderation was inconsistent with how the board has been moderated in the past. Someone has literally been banned for their continued Nazi arguments, and a poster has been banned for rape apologia. (This didn't quite go that far, so it got less punishment.)
  #100  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:47 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Note



If you want to relate this to a moderation decision that's fine, but if you only want to debate the topic itself, that is not appropriate for ATMB. Take it to GD if you want, but I want no more discussions about the rape topic in ATMB.

Any further discussions of the rape topic in ATMB without being explicitly related to moderation actions or rules will result in warnings.
Let's say that The Librarian is right and the argument is false. I'll follow your instructions and not debate it. But let's say it is false. Why should it be warnable to make an argument that turns out to be false?

And I understand why you don't want a debate about it, but the fact that there is a debate about it makes it debatable. And it makes your warning to manson, IMHO, a bullshit one.
Closed Thread

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 09:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017