Gaudere I do admire you. And I admire all the mods/administrators here. You guys have a difficult job and your unrewarded commitment to this board is to be lauded.
I was amused by your defence of the staff position on Collounsbury, and though I disagree , I’m impressed . Yes I was being sarcastic, but the intent was friendly sarcasm. By the way, getting a smilie from you has made my week. 
I’m going to take the advice of peepthis and pull out .
Ehehehe, you said “pull out.” Ehehehe…
Damn.
Personally, I don’t think the mods are giving him a free ride-I think it’s more like he’s on warning-he better toe the straight and narrow, if he wants to remain here.
Gaudere (or another mod):
Could you clarify (without necessarily referring specifically to Collounsbury):
Whether a distinction is made regarding personal attacks based on a judgement as to how worthy the attackee’s opinions and arguments are? (It would appear from Gaudere’s 9:59 PM EST post that no such distinction is drawn - I would agree with this, as noted earlier).
The extent to which enforcement of board rules is dependent on how valuable of a contributor the rules-violator is otherwise. (Tough call, IMHO).
The thing is, rude though he is, he really seems to confine himself to insulting the posts or the argument or the point of view, not the poster. Like the “drooling idiocy” remark, which was referring to december’s posts–if he’d said “oh, look it’s December the Drooling Idiot” I could have nailed him on it, easy.
While it would be nice if all posters were as polite as wring or december or, well, me ;), I don’t think we can mandate it. Look at how easily I came up with a bunch of long-time, generally respected posters who said essentially similar things as C. There are an awful lot of abrasive, argumentative, smart-ass posters in GD, and I don’t think we should toss them all, and I don’t think I should decide that Collunsbury can’t say remark X if I allow Scylla or Abe or Lib or whoever to do it.
We have our rules about direct insults, which Collunsbury has generally respected, as far as I know; I don’t recall ever warning him for a direct violation. He may, tomorrow or a month from now or a year from now, be banned under the “jerk” rule, but given my experience in a wide range of GD posters, past and present, with varying degrees of snottiness and rudeness, I’m not sure I can say that Collunsbury’s posts, at this time, are significantly worse than we have accepted from other posters who perhaps argued more popular positions, or argued with thicker-skinned posters, or were not considered worth the Pit thread. If I felt I could say that his posts were clearly worse than we have accepted from other posters, I would have banned him by now. Certainly I take C’s pit threads into account as showing that he is pissing off a number of posters, but I prefer to ban based on a fairly clear difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, not because Poster A has 15 people who think he is a jerk and Poster B only has two–otherwise it becomes too easy to oust someone who is unpopular because of their beliefs or who they are, rather than their behavior.
We attempt to make no distinction, which is why I remarked on similar unwarned comments said by other posters, or I ask if the comment would be acceptable in another context. Generally, if determining whether a warning should be issued, I pretend the offending poster is arguing the point against the worst instance of bigoted, stupid, hateful snotty poster we’ve ever had with the dumbest argument ever made. If the remark would be acceptable then, the remark is accetpable.
In terms of the “hard” rules, like “no insults in GD”, I don’t care if you’ve had 15 billion brilliant posts, you can’t call someone “fuckhead” in GD. Evaluation of “jerkishness” does often take into account a poster’s stay on the board, life circumstances, personal correspondence, our general impressions, any bribes paid ;), etc. I can’t give you a solid answer as to “extent” in that case. I think it is not that contribution “makes up” for rudeness, it is that total lack of useful/factual/accurate contribution (in GD/GQ/CCC/CSR) is seen as jerkish in and of itself. I am pretty sure we have banned people just for posting losts of OT nonsense in the fact and debate forums.
So where exactly does casting aspersions of racism in order to further your arguments fit into the scheme of things grienspace ? Is that, by convention, always taken to be one of your “non-serious” comments ? With a sweet deal like that, I can see how you might not need to name-call and swear as often as some of the less privileged posters. Maybe you could display your charitable nature to better advantage if you were to grant some of these poor, sad buffoons a little slack for their ignorant and abrasive mannerisms ?
But he admits to deliberately posting in such a manner as to rile other posters, FOR HIS OWN AMUSEMENT. Really, what does that sound like to you?
If it quacks like a duck, or lives under a bridge…
“He” being C of course
Thanks for the clarification 
I couldn’t care less if Coll is amused by his “rudeness” - if it’s within the bounds of board rules. It amuses me too, hugely.
Congrats to the mods and admins for what IMO is a sensible and fair position on the matter.
I kinda disagree. From the thread, it seemed to me like he was trying to argue (in a demeaning and rude way) that my opinion counted for less because I am an attorney.
In any event, if somebody makes the claim that my debating skills are poor (and does so in a rude, demeaning way), then it’s a personal attack, no?
I realize that I don’t make the rules here, but it seems to me that ad hominem arguments, if made in a rude way, are inappropriate.
I see there’s been some back and forth about the “drooling idiocy” issue.
Here are Collounsbury’s exact words:
(emphasis supplied)
This is clearly a personal attack. I don’t see how anyone can seriously deny it. If you take out the boldfaced words - “his usual” - then it’s not a personal attack.
The issue is not my (or anyone else’s) sensitivity. The question is whether or not Collounsbury is getting a “pass.”
It seems pretty obvious that there is a chasm of difference between “his usual drooling idiocy” and “that is an idiotic argument” (which is still pretty rude in itself, but whatever) After all, only I have never heard of an argument that “drooled”, only a person.
But ya know what, gang? If it really irritates the shit outta y’all, and you want Coll banned or to stop, turn in every line-crossing post you see, without fail. It’s pretty much guaranteed that the mods will get fed up with it, one way or another.
Is there any reason we shouldn’t all use Coll as a role model? Would it be okay if we all skirted as close to the edge of the rules as we can for our own amusement? If not, then why draw the line at that spot?
If referencing people’s usual drooling idiocy is not ad hominem enough; if using “fuck” fifteen times in one post is not excessive; if wholesale deliberate jerkdom and trolling is nothing more than an indication of a need to improve debating skills — then you might as well just merge Great Debates with the Pit.
I like that idea. Moved and seconded!
Either that, or do a major rules overhaul.
Frankly, I’ve always felt that GD is a disingenuous(sp) version of the Pit. At least in The Pit you can be blunt as opposed to the silly circumventions necessary in GD. If it were completely up to me (and of course, it isn’t…to which Dopers everywhere breathe a sigh of relief!) either GD would be forced to abide by formal debate rules (so no: you wouldn’t be able to say “That’s a fucking stupid argument”, even if it is one) or GD would just be abolished and merged with The Pit.
The current bizarre dividing line between acceptible and non-acceptible behavior is…well…silly.* I am almost never on the same side as Greenie (we’ve shredded each other several times in the Pit) but dammit, he’s right in this case and Gaudere’s wrong (you have no idea how much it galls me to say that. ) except in the sense of the weird rules of GD (by the current rules, she’s completely correct, though).
“Use your fucking eyes” is an insult in any context *except * under the weird rules of GD. No, I’m not gonna parse the sentence and discuss if someone’s eyes are being told that they’re fucking or not. It’s irrelveant. To most of the English speaking world “Use your fucking eyes” is deliberately insulting.
If you’re gonna have a forum called Great Debates then shouldn’t you have rules that insure that they are, in fact Debates? “Use your fucking eyes” is not a valid debate. And frankly, except in degree, it’s par for the course for GD.
Either just allow insults (in which case, merge it with The Pit) or go with formal debate rules. None of this completely (to me) unsatisfactory “Well, we’ll allow SOME insults, as long as you word them juuuuuuuuuuuuusst right.” nonsense.
IMO, GD is the least civil forum out there with the possible exception of The Pit. My impression is there’s regularly nasty behavior that would be mod-slap worthy in any other forum. But since, by the GD rules it’s allowed if it’s phrased in juuuust the right way, no mod-slap is given.
What’s the point of GD?
Fenris
*To those thinking “If you don’t like the rules there, don’t post there”…guess what…
PS: As an aside, this shouldn’t be taken as an attack on the GD mods. I think they do a great job within the framework of the rule. I just think a new set of rules would improve things tremendously.
I agree they do a great job. One of them (I can’t recall which right now) said once that the Pit is not necessarily just for ranting or complaining, that it could be used to have a passionate debate. I think that would be a good use for the Pit, and I think that’s where Coll ought to do like everyone else and post his learned disagreement in Great Debates, and then open a thread here if he feels the need to unleash his passion.
Fenris (and anyone else, of course), what would you think about GD being a more debate-oriented forum in that the following would occur:
A topic is begun, much as it is now. The OP makes an assertation, then backs it up as much as possible through cites and other references.
A poster who disagrees makes an opposite assertion, and backs it up similarly.
A moderator, rather than stepping in to quell meanness and what have you, acts as a moderator in a real debate - that is, asks specific questions of both sides, who would then answer accordingly, with cites as backups.
In other words, something like an actual debate instead of arguing, which, as you say, is Pitlike most of the time, anyway.
I just think we’d all learn so much more if these debates didn’t so often degenerate into “I’m right, you’re wrong” nonsense.
Sorry for the hijack, as you were . . .
Well, this is still ongoing?
A few points of disagreement.
Primo, idiot boy here accuses me of trolling:
It sounds like you have a hard on for another fucking, but as to the point, my understanding of trolling is if I post for the express and main purpose of causing trouble, riling other posters etc. that is trolling.
I, in my own view (and who knows me better than me?) don’t do that. As a by product of correcting errant idiocy and nonesense (such as your own milly me boy) I drive home hard. Simple as that. Trolling. No, I do reject that accusation. Am I a jerk to be banned, maybe - that’s not my call and if it comes to me not being right for things, well you won’t find me whinging and crying about it. But trolling, uhuh, my interventions are straight up honest, whether you like them or not. So go fuck youself you whinging little rat.
Now, as to use your fucking eyes, fuck. I frankly find it absurd that anyone characterizes this as an insult. Don’t be so fucking stupid, it was an expression of irritation at lucwarm’s little semantical games, hardly an insult by any stretch of the imagination.
As to drooling idiocy. You’re all right, that was not in the ballpark, not going to defend that at all. I was wrong.
And yes, you’re right Lib.
I should further note:
I don’t disagree at all, I neither desire nor ask for any special treatment at all. Not at all. In fact, while I don’t mind at all being called an asshole and apparently intensely disliked by some folks, I find the idea of having special privileges very embarrassing. I don’t like it one bit. If there is any one thing in this thread that actually bothers me, that is the idea of special treatment.
Now, I communicated with the proper folks – and I think this is pretty clear: if there has been I don’t want it – and it’s their call as to whether there is or is not ‘special treatment’ or whatever. Further, in regards to Arnold’s statement, let me say that I’d prefer that there be no pit thread berating the mods about any eventual decision, either way. They have their job, they make their decisions and we either play in their sandbox or we don’t. I see little point pissing and moaning about it one way or another.
So, there we go. Carry on.
I agree with Fenris for a GD rules overhaul. We need a place for the thinner-skinned people who may have just as much to say as the belligerents about the big important issues.
I missed the point where we all started paying for the upkeep of this board, that we should be able to demand extra forums and a change in rules.
Still, at least that means the mods are paid something now, to have to put up with this shit.