Blow it out yer butt, Gary. I made a suggestion, I didn’t “demand” anything. Next time, try reading for comprehension.
Fenris
Coll, I’ve always admired your knowledge of African & Middle East history and politics. But I stopped posting in those threads, or about those topics, or in GD in general, largely because of you. “Better suspend my opinion until Collounsbury gets here to tell me what it is.” After a while it just got boring.
There is some middle ground between “Collounsbury The All-Knowing” and “drooling idiots.” There are intelligent people who may not know as much about a topic as you do, but who know something about it, are anxious to know more, and are fighting the good fight alongside you. Yours isn’t the only informed opinion on the earth. Skewering idiots can be one of the great joys of the SDMB, but like Jodi said, can’t you just interact with people like a human being? The knowledge and insight you have to share has never been more necessary and valuable, but the “entertainment” value started wearing thin about a year ago.
To the posters that say “we need to make Great Debates a more polite place” - if the rule was “you must not be rude in Great Debates”, I predict posters complaining about these types of sentences:
“You failed to understand what I so clearly demonstrated in my previous post.” – My opponent is calling me stupid!
“Your statement shows a total ignorance of US laws and customs.” – My opponent is calling me ignorant!
“Your proposal to exterminate the jews is abhorrent and hateful.” – My opponent is calling me a hate-monger!
“Those views bring to mind the policies of the Nazi regime under Hitler.” – My opponent is calling me a Nazi! (which is considered an insult by most people)
FTR, I think the rule of “attack the argument, not the poster” is a fine rule. I don’t see the problem in saying “that’s a stupid statement.”
I basically agree, but it seems to me that Collounsbury regularly violates that rule.
If he were to say “As usual, you’re making a stupid statement,” it’s an attack on the poster.
If he were to address somebody as “stupid statement boy,” again it’s an attack on the poster.
Will you concede this?
I also don’t see any harm in having some very simple and basic rules of civility, such as forbidding name calling and putting very strict limits on the use of profanity.
But he was warned when he commented on december’s “usual drooling idiocy,” and he would be warned about calling somebody “stupid statement boy.” Collounsbury dances very close to the line and occasionally crosses over it–and I seriously fucking wish he would just back the fuck off a few fucking notches unless it’s really fucking called for, for fuck’s sake–but I generally agree with the mods here.
In a previous thread, Collounsbury addressed me as “argument clinic boy.” Arnold Winkelried seems to think that, in essence, Collounsbury was saying that I had poor debating skills. How is this not a personal attack?
As far as the “warning” goes, this only confirms my argument that Collounsbury is getting a “pass.” I would venture to guess that he is warned far more frequently than any other regular poster. IMHO, the next time he personally attacks somebody (outside of the Pit), he should be banned for a month. The time after that, two months. Then four, eight, and so on.
With the argument clinic issue looming so critically here, I’ve got to wonder whether Collounsbury intended to reference something like this, or perhaps this. As I see it, the comment could go either way, and still present a legitimate stylistic issue.
Just a WAG here, but stricter politeness rules would raise the entry bar to GD to a higher level than it is already; especially if those rules favored a particular style of discourse or cultural norms. We’d end up with decreased participation, and the diversity of debatable subjects would suffer. If the cost of an informative and useful forum is a little interpersonal friction, I’m happy to pay for it.
Bullshit! No wait, that should be fucking bullshit, per your example. :rolleyes:
You admit to abusing other posters in GD for your own amusement, and when called out on it, by Jodi and others, you say you consider it necessary to be abusive. Quack!
BTW, I thought you were leaving. You know, that big ole important job of yours. What, did you get transfered from the Valpo Walmart to the Gary Walmart? You have pulled this shit before, on multiple occasions. “I’m leaving because of my job, so I won’t be able to post for awhile.” It’s pathetic. Not trolling per se, but definitely loser quality posting style.
Nobody cares what you think anyway, asshole.
As the OP’er of this thread, my purpose was to confirm that nobody, but Collounsbury in particular, was getting different treatment than the GD hoi polloi. This applied to both the use of gratuitous profanity as well as to personal or ad hominem attacks. I did not have ‘banning’ on my mind at all and regret that that possibility was even expressed in some posts.
Gaudere and Arnold have addressed the issues and there’s been ample discussion and contribution by non-mods. At this point it would seem (to me at least) that, notwithstanding what some might view as a certain arbitrariness in past enforcement, there will be, henceforth, uniformity in applying the “rules” (however they evolve and/or are defined). I am satisified.
'Cause it’s not particularly insulting. It may be infuriating because it has nothing whatsoever to do with any worthwhile point, but you’d have to be really thin-skinned to be insulted by that comment.
You say this on page five?
Compare and contrast:
with
Now your mileage may vary (and I’m fairly damned sure you’ll claim it does) but I’d say the statement “do a major rules overhaul” is not a suggestion.
So blow it out yer own butt, and try writing for comprehension, there’s a good chap.
That’s irrelevant to the basic point. By my reading of Arnold Winkelried’s interpretation, Collounsbury was making a general statement about my debating skills. That’s a personal attack, and I don’t see how anyone can seriously deny it.
You seem to be saying that it doesn’t count because in your opinion it’s a fairly mild insult. To that I would point out that (1) the insult was made in a rude and demeaning fashion; and (2) as far as I know, the moderators have not (yet) said that mild insults are permissible in Great Debates.
Comments that refer to a poster’s positions or tactics are acceptable. Simple as that. If we’re in GD and I call you a tenacious little schnauzer that refuses to let go of an issue even though it was shaken to death two pages ago, that’s just the way things happen. “Argument clinic boy” was a shot at your debate tactics, based on (I assume) your ingoring of one or more valid points in favor of a minor rhetorical one.
Sheesh, if that’s all you’re complaining about, grow a thicker skin.
I’m tired of all this discrimination based on the thickness of someone’s skin. Scientists no longer believe that skin thickness… Oh, wait… Nevermind.
Oh, and feel free to call Collounsbury “ad hominem boy.”
Aww, how cute. Wanna cracker Milly my boy?
Eh? Lead up time bro’ - have some time to get me things together. But yes, things get busy, disappear, come back.
Oh good, well then I am sure you’ll not be bothered responding to my kind missives and love letters anymore, eh? Really Milly, your petticoats are showing.
I hadn’t heard that you were appointed a spokesman of the Message Board. :rolleyes:
I gather you’ve given up on the “mild insults don’t count argument.” Well, your “plan B” is just as stupid.
Look, if I think that one of your posts contains a falsehood, is it ok to address you as “liar-boy”; or as “Pinocchio”? It’s merely a comment on your tactics, right?
If I think that one of your posts reflects a far right-wing position, is it ok for me to address you as “nazi-boy”? It’s merely a comment about your position, right?
**
Arnold Winkelried thought it was a comment on my debating skills. As such, it is clearly a personal attack IMHO. I would love to hear from Arnold however.
**
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard all week. Look my complaint is about Collounsbury getting a “pass.” Read my freaking posts, ok?
In any event, lots of people have made mention of Collounsbury’s mean-spirited abusive nasty tone. The ‘official response’ seems to be that this is acceptable because Collounsbury hasn’t technically violated the rules.
So I point out some technical violations, and you try to argue that I shouldn’t be so sensitive!?!?!?
Whatever.
Anyway, my question is mainly directed at the moderators so I’d appreciate it if you’d quit your lame attempts to answer it.
:: Dr. McCoy looks at the horse lying on the ground ::
It’s dead, Jim. They beat it to death, and still they beat it.
IMHO it’s not.