Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:02 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,140
All of this discussion about the minutiae of what is permitted and not, with a magnifying glass, is missing the point. Everyone knows what is "in the spirit of the thread" and what is not. The people who are posting in favor of gun control know, deep down, that they're going against the spirit of the thread.
  #52  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:06 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Czarcasm created a "Positive Gun Control News" thread. Are you arguing that people who think that the defeat of gun control laws should be able to post those things as "positive" in that thread?
I'm saying it is a poor policy to allow people to create threads on controversial topics, but exclude contrary views. Would you protect a thread called Positive Pornography that promoted the objectification of women from threadshitting by those who find it objectionable?
  #53  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:07 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Like every other post in every other thread all reports on posts will be looked at in context without a bright line. As E_C_G pointed out almost all of Fear Itself’s posts in that thread going back four years could be considered threadshits and moderated if we were to moderate like that. He has received no warnings in that thread.
To be clear: I don't want a bright line, just some clarity and consistency of approach.

And I have no intention of combing through that thread in future hoping to catch someone out for mentioning gun control (because even I am not that much of a petty asshole) and I hope certain other board members will exercise similar forbearance, but nonetheless the principle stands.
  #54  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:09 PM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 4,926
It was clearly threadshitting, and a fine example of it. Don't be so disingenuous.
  #55  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:10 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Czarcasm created a "Positive Gun Control News" thread. Are you arguing that people who think that the defeat of gun control laws should be able to post those things as "positive" in that thread?
Of course not, it should be a safe space where nobody says anything untoward about gun control laws.
  #56  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:10 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I'm saying it is a poor policy to allow people to create threads on controversial topics, but exclude contrary views. Would you protect a thread called Positive Pornography that promoted the objectification of women from threadshitting by those who find it objectionable?
Good question. Are there limits to what topics can be given this type of thread?
  #57  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:11 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So Bone threadshit his own thread right in the OP? That's got to be a record.
Ideally the thread would have chugged along by itself without a problem. A handful of posters who are unhappy that someone is wrong on the internet have over the years threadshit in an attempt to derail the thread. This required mods to step in. Unfortunately the thread has had to be shaped by moderation over the years because of posters who could not stay within the rules. I donít know if four years ago Bone wanted to also discuss laws that were positive to gun owners. I would think that if it turned into a GD topic and brought to my attention I would have moderated it. But thatís irrelevant four years later. The thread has been moderated and the moderators instructions are what you have to follow or stay out of the thread.
  #58  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:24 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I'm saying it is a poor policy to allow people to create threads on controversial topics, but exclude contrary views. Would you protect a thread called Positive Pornography that promoted the objectification of women from threadshitting by those who find it objectionable?
Do you think that, if someone posts a thread about their upcoming marriage to their same-sex partner, it should be allowed for someone in that thread to start lecturing about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or do you think that view should be restricted for the purposes of that specific thread?
  #59  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:25 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
It's gratifying to know that you are also still amused by seeing that phrase.
  #60  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:30 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Do you think that, if someone posts a thread about their upcoming marriage to their same-sex partner, it should be allowed for someone in that thread to start lecturing about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or do you think that view should be restricted for the purposes of that specific thread?
That's quite different. The topic is about the event. Homosexuality is incident.

How would you moderate Positive White Supremacy News?
  #61  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:34 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Do you think that, if someone posts a thread about their upcoming marriage to their same-sex partner, it should be allowed for someone in that thread to start lecturing about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or do you think that view should be restricted for the purposes of that specific thread?
The Positive Gun News thread isn't about a poster's experience, tho. It's a general thread. If someone started a thread a few years ago about how much they were looking forward to same-sex marriages occurring in the US, why wouldn't someone be able to post that they were not looking forward to them?

If I start a thread about how much I'm looking forward to marijuana being legal for recreational use in all the US someday soon, would someone be threadshitting for saying they were not looking forward to it and here's 15 reasons why?
  #62  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:45 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's quite different. The topic is about the event. Homosexuality is incident.
I'm not seeing how its different. A thread about a same-sex marriage is about the "event" of the marriage in precisely the same way that a thread about someone using a gun to fend off a robber is about the "event" of protecting yourself with a gun. The politics around the legality of SSM or private gun ownership seem equally incidental in either case.

Quote:
How would you moderate Positive White Supremacy News?
I have a lot of trouble imagining how a thread like that could work without violating board rules against either hate speech, or trolling.
  #63  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:47 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's quite different. The topic is about the event. Homosexuality is incident.

How would you moderate Positive White Supremacy News?
Bringing pornography and white supremacy into it is just distracting from the conversation.

How about answering the question I posted above? Czarcasm created a "Positive Gun Control News" thread. Do you think that someone should be allowed to post about the defeat of gun control laws as a "positive" in that thread?
  #64  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:52 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Do you think that, if someone posts a thread about their upcoming marriage to their same-sex partner, it should be allowed for someone in that thread to start lecturing about the sinfulness of homosexuality?
I dunno, how many teenagers can we expect to wind up dead during the wedding? If it's greater than zero, such as we had in the very first post of the positive gun news thread, then perhaps tempering the happy news is in order.
  #65  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
It was clearly threadshitting, and a fine example of it. Don't be so disingenuous.
This is my view. And all the likes for scumpup's post on page 1

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-04-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #66  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:53 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I'm not seeing how its different. A thread about a same-sex marriage is about the "event" of the marriage in precisely the same way that a thread about someone using a gun to fend off a robber is about the "event" of protecting yourself with a gun.
That's not how you framed your example of a poster sharing his wedding, though. He didn't invite others to share their same sex marriage experiences.
Quote:
I have a lot of trouble imagining how a thread like that could work without violating board rules against either hate speech, or trolling.
Fair enough, though I think there's a fair amount of whose ox is being gored in play there. Positive Gun News could just as easily be labelled as trolling, given the leaning of the board.
  #67  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:56 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Positive Gun News could just as easily be labelled as trolling, given the leaning of the board.
Then you're basically saying, if the vast majority of Dopers support X, then for someone to start a thread praising Y is trolling. Pretty soon only pro-X views would be permitted.
  #68  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,236
That sounds like an average day on the Dope: You have something positive to say about President Trump / conservatives / Republicans? Then you must be trolling (in the minds of certain posters).
  #69  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:03 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Bringing pornography and white supremacy into it is just distracting from the conversation.
Meaning this policy is for Guns only, and don't you dare try to apply it to other controversial topics. Got it.
Quote:
How about answering the question I posted above? Czarcasm created a "Positive Gun Control News" thread. Do you think that someone should be allowed to post about the defeat of gun control laws as a "positive" in that thread?
If all things are equal, "Positive" is a relative term, not determined by the NRA. So, yes. It is up to each poster to determine what is "Positive". I don't think controversial topics should be protected from contrary comments, on either side of the debate.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 09-04-2019 at 01:03 PM.
  #70  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:06 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Then you're basically saying, if the vast majority of Dopers support X, then for someone to start a thread praising Y is trolling. Pretty soon only pro-X views would be permitted.
I agree with you. I don't think controversial topics should be moderated against discussion of both sides of the issue.
  #71  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:10 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
That's not how you framed your example of a poster sharing his wedding, though. He didn't invite others to share their same sex marriage experiences.
I don't see how that's relevant to the comparison. I would think a "Tell me about your gay marraige" MPSIMS thread would be an equally inappropriate place to start a debate about the legality or morality of SSM.

Quote:
Fair enough, though I think there's a fair amount of whose ox is being gored in play there. Positive Gun News could just as easily be labelled as trolling, given the leaning of the board.
There is absolutely a lot of selective ox-goring going on here, no doubt about that.
  #72  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:20 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
There is absolutely a lot of selective ox-goring going on here, no doubt about that.
I support open discussion of both sides of controversial issues, not couching them in semantic armor to shield them from contrary opinions.

You?
  #73  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:34 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I support open discussion of both sides of controversial issues, not couching them in semantic armor to shield them from contrary opinions.

You?
I think the board is big enough to support threads that aren't debates, or that are interested in debating a subsection of an idea without having to relitigate the entire issue from first principles in every thread.
  #74  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:40 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I support open discussion of both sides of controversial issues, not couching them in semantic armor to shield them from contrary opinions.
As Miller said, this then makes it impossible to focus on only one aspect of a particular issue. You would have people dragging in all kinds of unwanted "we've already hashed this over a thousand times before" stuff into a thread.

It's like the threads about female circumcision/FGM where some people would insist on dragging in the issue of male circumcision - which is an entirely different matter - into the debate - and thus stalling everything up.
  #75  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:41 PM
Orwell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Keystone State
Posts: 2,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I support open discussion of both sides of controversial issues, not couching them in semantic armor to shield them from contrary opinions.

You?
Again, where is your "open discussion" of how a store chain prohibiting open carry is positive gun news?

What would be the reaction in a "Positive Automobile News" thread (populated with discussions about features, horsepower, speed limit increases, etc.) if someone showed up and posted a link to an article about banning parking in some city? More accurately, a post containing a link with no explanation whatsoever of how this is positive news for car owners? How would you expect those who own cars, use cars, and/or had a strong attachment to cars react?
  #76  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:44 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,821
Here is some helpful advice (from here)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm
Just because a minority can't(or doesn't want to) figure out the rules is no reason to change or dump them. They seem to work just fine for the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri
I would just advise anyone who feels they are personally too dense to figure out general social norms that don't seem to be a problem for 99.9% of posters to just stay well away from the subject. Sorry, but if you are claiming you just can't figure any of this out, just don't post about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris
Normal people, growing up, are socialized to know societal norms. If you are not one of these people, either learn, and learn fast or shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone
I stated with no ambiguity that there will not be a prescriptive ruleset. Our rules are descriptive for the most part. This isn't hide the ball - there is no ball. It's not like there is a secret set of rules that exist that we aren't sharing.

If the thrust is to ask for a set of delineated prescriptive rules - then the answer is no. That will not be forthcoming. We don't craft our rules that way and there is no intention or inclination to start now.
Hope this helps.

Regards,
Shodan
  #77  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:18 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson View Post
You know, this is pretty simple and anyone that maintains otherwise is being obtuse, intentionally or otherwise. That thread is for discussion of news articles about guns being used in a positive manner, period. If you don't think that is possible, don't open the thread. The moderation of the thread has been pretty consistent throughout.

Full disclosure: I am a (multiple) gun owner with a concealed carry license in my state. I don't generally carry, but do like the option to do so.

I think that the moderation has been consistent is what troubles some anti-gun folks. Back when folks would sometimes start a thread around someone using a firearm to protect themselves or others, or uses in sports, it was easy for some people to pile on and ridicule the whole thing basically closing any real discussion. Having a set thread allows the Mods to give a voice to those who do see a positive side to legal firearm ownership and that isn't a bad thing at all.

And I have a CWP, do usually carry. And other than when it comes to guns and religion I'm pretty much the definition of liberal. Don't know that it matters but I figured why not.
  #78  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:45 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orwell View Post
Again, where is your "open discussion" of how a store chain prohibiting open carry is positive gun news?
It's in the same place as where one discusses any sort of "reasonable" gun control, like how felons aren't allowed to buy guns. Would it be positive news or negative news for a court to uphold such a law?
  #79  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:52 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It's in the same place as where one discusses any sort of "reasonable" gun control, like how felons aren't allowed to buy guns. Would it be positive news or negative news for a court to uphold such a law?
I think this sort of argument (in the context of "Positive Gun News") is in bad faith, like pro-lifers arguing about how hospital-ambulatory requirement laws for abortion clinics are "positive" for abortion because they're going to make things safer for abortion patients.

Last edited by Velocity; 09-04-2019 at 02:53 PM.
  #80  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:22 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,231
The biggest problem with the thread, IMO, is the title and the way that it implies that "positive" is an absolute, not a personal judgement call. As it is a personal judgement call and not something objective, people who don't agree with that judgement call are not allowed to express their opinion about this thing that is clearly an opinion; IMO that is the major reason why the thread is so frustrating to so many: the thread considers the matter closed and not open to interpretation or discussion. Moderator actions seem to reinforce this.
  #81  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:27 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think this sort of argument (in the context of "Positive Gun News") is in bad faith, like pro-lifers arguing about how hospital-ambulatory requirement laws for abortion clinics are "positive" for abortion because they're going to make things safer for abortion patients.
It's more like pro-choicers being in favor of abortions being provided by an actual medical doctor.

That's a reasonable rule, reasonable people like reasonable rules.

Is the idea that felons can't buy guns a reasonable rule, or a bullshit rule?
  #82  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:33 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,231
To follow my previous post: It would be like someone starting a Positive Abortion News thread and then the thread only allowed to be about pro-life views. When anyone wants to challenge the opinion that this is "positive news", they get warned for threadshitting even tho the title of the thread itself is trolling.

ETA: Keep the thread but change the title to "Pro-Gun News" or something more accurately descriptive, IMO.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-04-2019 at 03:35 PM.
  #83  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:08 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
How should I know what could have received a warning? That's why I posted here! Apparently I am not allowed to judge for myself what constitutes Positive Gun News.
About fifty people have already said this, but you’re being deliberately obtuse. Stop feigning innocence and just cut that shit out. You’re not even remotely close to fooling anyone.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 09-04-2019 at 04:09 PM.
  #84  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:15 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
About fifty people have already said this, but youíre being deliberately obtuse. Stop feigning innocence and just cut that shit out. Youíre not even remotely close to fooling anyone.
You are threadshitting in my thread. Knock it off.
  #85  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:27 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
You are threadshitting in my thread. Knock it off.
No Iím not, and no I wonít.

As Shodan pointed out, if you really canít figure out whatís meant by ĎPositive Gun Newsí in the context of the never ending gun debates on this board, thatís your problem. No-one else seems to have had any trouble figuring it out, so if itís truly got you stumped then you should just stay out of it.

Of course, Iím giving you a little more credit than that, which is why I think youíre being deliberately obtuse. Itís annoying, and, as I said, youíre fooling absolutely no-one.
  #86  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:31 PM
Doctor Jackson's Avatar
Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Jawja
Posts: 10,524
I'm just chiming in one last time to say that I have no issue with the moderation of the Positive Gun News thread. In the same vein, I have no problem with the newly minted Positive Gun Control thread. I will probably read both. I am also mature enough to figure out what type comment would be a thread shit in either and will refrain from posting such. YMMV.
  #87  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:02 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,140
There has been a longstanding tongue-in-cheek joke about how gun control means "use both hands." If someone were to post that in a Positive Gun Control thread, they would rightfully be accused of sidetracking it.
  #88  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:04 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The biggest problem with the thread, IMO, is the title and the way that it implies that "positive" is an absolute, not a personal judgement call. As it is a personal judgement call and not something objective, people who don't agree with that judgement call are not allowed to express their opinion about this thing that is clearly an opinion; IMO that is the major reason why the thread is so frustrating to so many: the thread considers the matter closed and not open to interpretation or discussion. Moderator actions seem to reinforce this.
It's not only that. I posted a news item that seemed positive to me all around. It wasn't a "gun control" post, but a celebration of guns being used in a positive manner. And I STILL got a warning. There's no rhyme or reason to that thread, except to run your posts by Bone or another moderator before you can post them in that thread.
  #89  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
You are threadshitting in my thread. Knock it off.
There's a certain amount of irony inherent in this post.
  #90  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:25 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I agree with you. I don't think controversial topics should be moderated against discussion of both sides of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
I support open discussion of both sides of controversial issues, not couching them in semantic armor to shield them from contrary opinions.
You're free to discuss the pros and cons of gun control as much as you want. There are numerous existing threads on this topic but you can start a new one if you feel there is some aspect of the debate that isn't being covered.

But you can't go to a thread about "Anyone have a good recipe for salmon?" and start posting about gun control. It's not the topic of the thread.

And, as many people have pointed out to you, it's also not the topic of a thread about positive gun news.
  #91  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:35 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
It's not only that. I posted a news item that seemed positive to me all around. It wasn't a "gun control" post, but a celebration of guns being used in a positive manner. And I STILL got a warning. There's no rhyme or reason to that thread, except to run your posts by Bone or another moderator before you can post them in that thread.
For the curious, this was the post in question that earned manson that warning:

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
This is like a double positive gun news story:

Cops shoot homeowner

First, the homeowner shot an intruder that was naked and inexplicably trying to drown a kid in the bathtub. THEN, the cops shot the homeowner because he didn't put his gun down.

It's win/win! Intruder killed, and a gun owner who doesn't listen to police commands is killed. Awesome!
The warning, obviously, was for trolling. In the ATMB thread you started about it, manson, you got some good and still highly relevant advice from Colibri:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Y'know, when you're told something is trolling, it would be better not to start a thread in ATMB to troll some more. This is extremely poor judgement on your part.
  #92  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:26 PM
Scumpup is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
This thread reminds me of my college days when I used to Dungeon Master for a group of RPG enthusiasts. I had a coterie of neckbeards to deal with who would tediously ruleslawyer an entire evening away trying to get their way on something they had already been told not to do. All that is missing is the smell of BO and Doritos.
  #93  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:01 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
For the curious, this was the post in question that earned manson that warning:



The warning, obviously, was for trolling. In the ATMB thread you started about it, manson, you got some good and still highly relevant advice from Colibri:
If something is obvious, then it is easy to explain. I suggest doing so. A threat may silence someone, but it will not convince them.

manson has every right to disagree with any moderation on this board. He should be able to do so without any moderator threatening him, as what he is doing is not against the rules.

On the SDMB, posters are allowed to disagree with the mods. Threats are not called for when they do so.
  #94  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:20 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But you can't go to a thread about "Anyone have a good recipe for salmon?" and start posting about gun control. It's not the topic of the thread.

And, as many people have pointed out to you, it's also not the topic of a thread about positive gun news.
And as many other people have pointed out, this is not inherently true. If the post is about news that is related to guns and is positive, then it would go in a thread called "positive gun news."

What is unusual here is not that the mods are keeping the thread on topic. It is that the mods have decided that one side of a contentious issue gets to define what the topic means. Positive gun news inherently means what it means to gun control opponents, not what it means to gun control advocates.

The mods have decided that "positive gun news" has one and only one possible meaning, and will attack people as trolling or at least "disingenuous" if they disagree.

I argue that both "Bad guy killed by a gun" and "gun user stopped by someone not using a gun" both count as positive gun news.

Last edited by BigT; 09-04-2019 at 11:22 PM.
  #95  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:38 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,971
So what do you think the policy should be? Every poster should be allowed to define the topic of a thread as they wish? That seems likely to be abused by people who are obsessed by a particular topic and try to swing the conversation in every thread around to a discussion of the pet issue.

I think it's better to have a small group of people who are designated by the administration of this message board to monitor threads and make decisions about issues like what's on topic in a thread. Which is the system we have.
  #96  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:36 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The biggest problem with the thread, IMO, is the title and the way that it implies that "positive" is an absolute, not a personal judgement call. As it is a personal judgement call and not something objective, people who don't agree with that judgement call are not allowed to express their opinion about this thing that is clearly an opinion; IMO that is the major reason why the thread is so frustrating to so many: the thread considers the matter closed and not open to interpretation or discussion. Moderator actions seem to reinforce this.
It should just be renamed "The Pro-Gun Cheerleading Thread" and left at that.

Last edited by MrDibble; 09-05-2019 at 02:38 AM.
  #97  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:19 AM
bucketybuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,212
OP should receive a warning for arguing in bad faith, let me be the umpteenth person to use the word "disingenuous" in this thread.
  #98  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:21 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That thread is not for discussion in any way shape or form; it's for agreement.

ETA: And it's an embarrassment to the SDMB.
I don't know if I'd call it an embarrassment, but I will say this. I wish I could have the level of "safe space" protection for my recent thread about concentration camps. Instead, we had a level of trolling that leaves Fear Itself's statements about gun control in the dust (and yes, I did in fact report it, and I'm pretty sure I DM'd some mods about it too, nobody cared), and it continued until page 14 (with no warning issued). This despite the fact that I set out the parameters of the discussion in far greater detail than Bone did in his "positive gun news" thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Also, quick meta note.

I'd rather we not discuss whether or not we're actually running concentration camps at the borders. At least if you don't have at least some form of expertise (say, a historian, or a holocaust expert) to weigh in with. This thread is not about the "whether", it's about the "electoral impacts of", and while "this isn't a thing that will have an impact because it's not a thing" is a take one can have, I sincerely doubt that anyone involved is going to step the rhetoric down, especially as conditions in the camps continue to worsen and people keep on dying. Whether "concentration camp" is 100% accurate or not, now it's out in the mainstream, and it's very unlikely that that genie gets put back in the bottle.

(Besides, I tried to have that conversation before and it didn't go well. I do welcome anyone interested to make their own thread, and I'll gladly participate in it, but let's try to keep this thread on topics germane to elections, i.e. "what will this do to the polls".)
This went almost completely ignored. Which, at the time, I was disappointed about, but hey - it happens. Threads here aren't safe spaces, and telling people "please don't disagree in this thread about issue X" isn't something we generally do here.

Except now I see that we absolutely do that here. With certain subjects.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-05-2019 at 04:24 AM.
  #99  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:56 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I don't know if I'd call it an embarrassment, but I will say this. I wish I could have the level of "safe space" protection for my recent thread about concentration camps.
[...]
This went almost completely ignored. Which, at the time, I was disappointed about, but hey - it happens. Threads here aren't safe spaces, and telling people "please don't disagree in this thread about issue X" isn't something we generally do here.

Except now I see that we absolutely do that here. With certain subjects.
Is it significant that the thread in question was started by a Mod? "Some animals are more equal than others", kind of thing.
  #100  
Old 09-05-2019, 06:47 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There's a certain amount of irony inherent in this post.
Nothing gets by you.
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 08:59 AM.

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