Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:15 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,373

Warning for using a phrase that the OP used without receiving a warning?


In post#28 of this thread, Esteemed Moderator Colibri hands out two official warnings.

The second of these applies to poster Taesahnim, for using the same "pseudo-hypothetical" phrase as appears in the thread's OP.

This seems unjust: perhaps both the OP and Taesahnim deserve warnings; perhaps neither. But they should receive equal treatment.
  #2  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:28 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,785
This seems to me to be like baseball. When the first pitcher intentionally hits a batter, both sides get a warning. Net effect - the first guy gets a freebie and afterwards no one does.

The real mod error was upon reading the OP that they didn't move it to GD. I mean how is TonySinclair not setting it up with phrases like "Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles or honor." to start a fight?
  #3  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:40 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,911
TonySinclair started the thread based on a "hypothetical" that was clearly not a purely hypothetical question, and was in fact strongly based on current events. The current events that the question is based on is a topic best suited for other forums, but the specific question asked was about the law. As long as the topic is restricted only to questions about the law itself, that's perfectly fine for GQ. I left a mod note in the thread instructing everyone to stick to the legal question and to take comments about the current events that inspired it elsewhere.

The warnings that Colibri gave were not for using the word "hypothetical". They were for basically ignoring the instructions I gave. The strikeout was also clearly used as a political jab, which is not permitted in GQ.

Using the word "hypothetical" does not get you off of the hook when the rest of the post makes it clear that you aren't talking about a purely hypothetical situation. For the OP, they didn't actually break the rules of GQ, but to keep it within the bounds of GQ, further clarification (my mod node) was necessary.

The other two uses of the word "hypothetical" were used to intentionally slip political comments into a GQ thread, which is not allowed, and were in specific violation of the moderator instructions I gave upthread.

So neither the OP nor the two posters that followed were given a pass for using the word "hypothetical". They were all treated the same, as far as that goes. The OP didn't get a warning because they didn't use their "hypothetical" to violate moderator instructions and GQ rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
The real mod error was upon reading the OP that they didn't move it to GD. I mean how is TonySinclair not setting it up with phrases like "Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles or honor." to start a fight?
TonySinclair definitely brought some non-GQ wording into the thread, but the question asked was about the law itself, which is a GQ topic. Anyone who wishes to discuss the GD aspects of the same topic is welcome to start a new thread in GD, and feel free to link back to the GQ thread if desired. Since a factual question was asked though, I prefer to let that question actually be answered instead of just moving the entire thread to GD and losing the actual question that was asked in the greater overall topic.

If TonySinclair had worded the question properly as a GQ topic then my mod note would not have been necessary.
  #4  
Old 12-20-2019, 12:41 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
In post#28 of this thread, Esteemed Moderator Colibri hands out two official warnings.

The second of these applies to poster Taesahnim, for using the same "pseudo-hypothetical" phrase as appears in the thread's OP.

This seems unjust: perhaps both the OP and Taesahnim deserve warnings; perhaps neither. But they should receive equal treatment.
I (and I think engineer_comp_geek) tend to give notes for a first instance of political commentary in GQ, unless the commentary is particularly severe, or the poster has a history of such comments and previous notes, or there are previous instructions or moderator notes or warnings in the same thread.

In this case, Taesahnim blatantly repeated the same kind commentary that engineer_comp_geek had specifically given instructions against previously. They not only posted a potshot, they violated moderator instructions.

In RioRico's case, he already had two previous warnings for political shots in GQ within the past couple of months, and is not going to be given any more slack at all.
  #5  
Old 12-20-2019, 01:05 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,478
Why didn't you just move it out of GQ? Posing the OP as a hypothetical makes it impossible to give specific answers without expanding on the hypothetical. And as a result I don't think the instructions were clear enough to rule out Taesahnim's modded post.
  #6  
Old 12-20-2019, 01:30 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Why didn't you just move it out of GQ? Posing the OP as a hypothetical makes it impossible to give specific answers without expanding on the hypothetical.
The OP was asking a question about the law, which is a GQ question. e_c_g's instructions restricted the scope of the question to that aspect alone. We sometimes do that when an OP has both GQ and non-GQ elements.

Quote:
And as a result I don't think the instructions were clear enough to rule out Taesahnim's modded post.
I think they were absolutely clear enough to rule out that post, in particular repeating the completely unnecessary crack about "a person who is utterly without principles or honor." If a moderator has posted instructions to restrict responses to factual ones about the law, it's best to do so.
  #7  
Old 12-20-2019, 02:49 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
This seems to me to be like baseball. When the first pitcher intentionally hits a batter, both sides get a warning. Net effect - the first guy gets a freebie and afterwards no one does.
I agree. TonySinclair used a phrase. The moderator told people not to use the phrase. And then Taesahnim used it.

Taesahnim didn't get a warning for the phrase itself. He got a warning for using the phrase after the moderator had told people not to use it.
  #8  
Old 12-20-2019, 03:13 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,026
This is one where ECG and Colibri were (and are here) pretty clear and to the point. We can think what we like of the first post and its nature but its clear that answers needed to be about the law involved and most of the responses are along that trail. The ones who wandered away --- get noted and/or warned. And lets face it -- that first note from ECG was especially clear and to the point. As they say at this time of year -- the ruling on the field stands.
  #9  
Old 12-20-2019, 11:53 PM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
TonySinclair definitely brought some non-GQ wording into the thread, but the question asked was about the law itself, which is a GQ topic.
From your note in thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
A little too coincidental for me to believe that.

In any event, the OP asks about the law, not about the specific situation that inspired the question. Since this is in GQ, please restrict responses to factual answers regarding the law, as has been done so far. What might be done in reality as a matter of politics and interpersonal interactions is a topic for another forum.
Although you do note that you don't believe him, the crack about "Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles or honor." perhaps could have deserved as specific mention.
  #10  
Old 12-21-2019, 12:44 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,421
Personally, I think that thread should have been closed right away, because it was clearly not a hypothetical. Shut it down as inappropriate to GQ, with invitation to start a new thread in GD, or just punt it to GD or Elections right away. Then this situation wouldn’t have arisen.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #11  
Old 12-21-2019, 03:08 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Then this situation wouldn’t have arisen.
Hypothetically, maybe.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #12  
Old 12-21-2019, 03:45 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Personally, I think that thread should have been closed right away, because it was clearly not a hypothetical. Shut it down as inappropriate to GQ, with invitation to start a new thread in GD, or just punt it to GD or Elections right away. Then this situation wouldn’t have arisen.
You appear to have missed this part of the OP (color added):

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
This is a hypothetical question, not intended to refer to any real person, living or dead. I just want to know the law.
While the question is clearly not a hypothetical, the actual question being asked is a question about the law. The question is not about the situation that spawned it, only about the law that is applicable to it.

Moving the thread to GD or Elections completely ignores the actual question being asked.
  #13  
Old 12-21-2019, 05:10 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,421
Oh, I read that.

I also read “Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles and honour.”

Sure, purely hypothetical. Has no relevance at all to the current political situation. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. That was not needed to ask the question of law.

As soon as I read it, I assumed that because of the way it was framed by the OP, that there would be political shots taken, and there would be warnings.

I wish I could predict the stock market that well.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #14  
Old 12-21-2019, 06:13 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bye NYC hello Chicagoland
Posts: 19,567
Hence the mod note, that when ignored, resulted in the warning.
  #15  
Old 12-21-2019, 06:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Oh, I read that.

I also read “Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles and honour.”

Sure, purely hypothetical. Has no relevance at all to the current political situation. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. That was not needed to ask the question of law.

As soon as I read it, I assumed that because of the way it was framed by the OP, that there would be political shots taken, and there would be warnings.

I wish I could predict the stock market that well.
It may have not been purely hypothetical but that doesn't matter . The question was about the actual law, even if the question had been blatantly framed as about the current situation. (in fact, it was ridiculous that it wasn't just honestly stated that way. You're allowed to ask real life question in GQ, so WTF?)

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-21-2019 at 06:23 PM.
  #16  
Old 12-21-2019, 08:19 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,688
So you can poison the well in a General Questions OP, but it's alright so long as you ask people to take really small sips?
  #17  
Old 12-21-2019, 09:29 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
You appear to have missed this part of the OP (color added):



While the question is clearly not a hypothetical, the actual question being asked is a question about the law. The question is not about the situation that spawned it, only about the law that is applicable to it.

Moving the thread to GD or Elections completely ignores the actual question being asked.
Why is that a problem when, as you admit, they didn't ask a question in a manner appropriate to GQ? Why should they get a valid GQ answer if they can't follow the rules and actually post a GQ question?

I also note that you admit they were being disingenuous in their question in pretending they weren't being political. Why isn't that a valid reason to close the thread entirely? The OP is trying to sneak his political opinion into his GQ question.

Plus, as Nothern Piper said, it was inevitable that a politically loaded question like that would get political responses. And the mods have stated that their goal is to avoid giving Warnings if possible. Surely it would make more sense then to move it to a forum where such was allowed.

Finally, I think putting so much emphasis on a single part of the question instead of the whole thing as a whole is a bad idea. You can easily slip a factual question at the end of any post--that shouldn't make it a GQ question.

In short, I don't think all of the aspects of this post were considered in its moderation. I believe a politically loaded question should be moved, and that disingenuous questions should at least be closed. And if you can't ask a GQ question, you aren't entitled to get a GQ answer.
  #18  
Old 12-22-2019, 11:50 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
So you can poison the well in a General Questions OP, but it's alright so long as you ask people to take really small sips?
It's alright if you ask a clear legal question. You see, little political digs aren't poisoning the well because the discussion isn't about the politics. I'm fine with mods noting it's not appropriate but letting the GQ question be answered.
  #19  
Old 12-22-2019, 02:40 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's alright if you ask a clear legal question. You see, little political digs aren't poisoning the well because the discussion isn't about the politics. I'm fine with mods noting it's not appropriate but letting the GQ question be answered.
But did the mods even note it was not appropriate? I know others have been noted and warned before for sliding political barbs into GQ responses. Did the OP get off free from that?

Last edited by Saint Cad; 12-22-2019 at 02:40 PM.
  #20  
Old 12-22-2019, 02:47 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
The strikeout was also clearly used as a political jab, which is not permitted in GQ.
Then why did you allow TonySinclair a political jab in the OP without so much as a note?
  #21  
Old 12-22-2019, 06:35 PM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Then why did you allow TonySinclair a political jab in the OP without so much as a note?
I would really like this answered.

I’ve always considered it bad parenting to let one child bother the other and then only punish the one who retaliated.

Obviously there is a difference in that the warnings were issued for ignoring mod instructions, but I really don’t understand why the OP wasn’t given a note, if not simply closed and told to rewrite it.
  #22  
Old 12-23-2019, 12:17 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,421
Especially since in post 8 of the original thread, engineer_comp_geek accuses the OP of bad faith in his framing of the question. I’ve seen other threads like that closed down quickly, with instructions to either open a new GC thread that is restricted to the question, or open a new thread in GD or Elections where that sort of political framing is permissible.

If the mods believe the OP is deliberately not complying with the rules of GQ, why does the OP get a pass?

This isn’t one of those iffy threads where the mod says “this OP is close to the line - everyone keep it in GQ please. “. This is one where the mod says he doesn’t believe the OP’s protestations about it being purely hypothetical, yet gives the OP a pass for breaking the rules in bad faith.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #23  
Old 12-24-2019, 05:00 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
This isn’t one of those iffy threads where the mod says “this OP is close to the line - everyone keep it in GQ please. “. This is one where the mod says he doesn’t believe the OP’s protestations about it being purely hypothetical, yet gives the OP a pass for breaking the rules in bad faith.
Especially since it's clearly a political jab.
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 01:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017