In the gun debate thread, Bone gives out a warning to ElvisL1ves for not following the mod instructions.The instructions were as such "You are both being jerks. If you want to debate, feel free to do so. If your intent is to take shots at other posters, then don’t.
"
ElvisL1ves’s statement was not a pot shot, but a direct reply to XT, who says, “No, it isn’t. Why even bring this up? You disagree, you know I disagree, we’ve had this discussion before…like, oh, 100 times perhaps. Your mind is made up and you aren’t going to change it. You aren’t going to change my mind, I know you are wrong. There is no point. Yet you felt the need to beat this dead horse yet again because…?”
I do not see the reply to be anything like a pot shot, but simply replying to another poster that is criticizing him for even participating in the thread. There was absolutely nothing “pot shotish” or even snarky in the comment for which he was warned. XT straight up said that his participation was not welcome and his viewpoints should not be considered, and ElvisL1ves was challenging that notion on its (lack of) merits.
Well, debating would have been discussing the topic and “pot shots” is continuing to engage the other poster about how they don’t get along and will never agree.
Here’s what he said:
“not a ‘Nuh-uh!’ forum” seems like icing on the pot shot cake.
pot·shot
/ˈpätˌSHät/
noun
noun: pot-shot
a shot aimed unexpectedly or at random at someone or something with no chance of self-defense.
“a sniper took a potshot at him”
a criticism, especially a random or unfounded one.
“the show takes wickedly funny potshots at movies”
a shot at a game bird or other animal purely to kill it for food, without regard to the rules of the sport
It was not unexpected, nor random, nor at someone or something with no chance of self defense. It was not a random or unfounded criticism, and if we get rid of 75% of the second definition, then that means that criticism of any post is not allowed.
I wasn’t. I mean, maybe I was skirting on junior modding on asking you to stop hijacking threads into a first amendment debate, but that’s not a pot shot.For that matter, I was not surprised, but slightly disappointed that you were never asked to stop trying to hijack the thread.
As far as my comment about HD, it is possible there was disappointment in my observation that he admits to getting enjoyment out of nitpicking and pendant knighting until a thread is derailed, but that also was not an attack, much less a pot shot.
As far as Elivs’s comment, that was directed to a poster that was feigning inability to follow the conversation, and in a thread where the question is why can’t we have a debate, the observation that that attitude and behavior is part of the problem is exactly on track.
Now, if your surprise comes from the fact that you think that Bone is biased in your favor, and will rule in a biased fashion against gun control advocates, well, while I disagree with Bone the poster on pretty much everything, it’s not often that I’ve disagreed with Bone the mod, in fact, this is probably the first ruling of his that I really questioned.
A couple of things. First off, as always I have to point out…you do know, people can scroll up in that thread and see the actual conversation, how it transpired and what was said on both sides. Right? Because, I think anyone looking at it with anything like an open mind will see that, in fact, XT did not ‘straight up said that his participation was not welcome and his viewpoints should not be considered, and ElvisL1ves was challenging that notion on its (lack of) merits.’ What I said was that Elvis was trying to hijack the thread to yet another discussion about the 2nd, that he and I had done this same stupid, silly dance before, that we both knew all the steps and that it was pointless for him to bring this crap up again, especially in a thread that wasn’t about the 2nd Amendment. I wasn’t going to change his mind, he wasn’t going to change mine. He thinks I’m wrong, I think he’s wrong (thus, my quip about me knowing he’s wrong, which was a paraphrase from Megamind, in case you missed it). There was zero point. Yet he persisted, and as I hadn’t seen the Mods come back about the hijack, I went ahead and played the same silly game, went through the same stupid steps.
Myself, I don’t think Elvis was taking a pot shot. I think he was hijacking the thread and possibly trying to get me to bite the shinny lure he tossed out, but he wasn’t taking a pot shot. That said, he DID get an earlier warning from the Mods, and he WAS trying to hijack the thread into a discussion about the 2nd Amendment…and I have no doubt he DID know what my reaction to what he said would be, since, as noted, we’ve been through all of that before.
If you want to have a discussion about the 2nd Amendment then feel free to start yet another one in GD or the Pit or whatever. If you want to blast me for my supposed failings, feel free to take me to the Pit…I’m pretty sure you’ll get lots of 'dopers eager to pile on. But just know…if anyone is really interested in finding out whether what you say in your OP is accurate, they can in fact scroll up. It’s a little known feature that is completely undocumented, but folks can do it. Just for future reference. Ado.
That’s a nice poisoning of the well in that you are accusing anyone that disagrees with you as not having an open mind.
That is the sort of comment that I am talking about. No, you did not say that he may not participate, but you did do that same passive aggressive thing where you a priori tell someone that their participation indicates a moral or intellectual failing on their part.
It is a thread about gun control, the second amendment is not a hijack. Just because someone isn’t going to change your mind doesn’t mean that their posting is pointless. Telling someone that their posting is pointless, as you are admitting you are doing here, I see no difference between telling someone that their posting is pointless and that their posting is not welcome, and is absolutely telling them that their viewpoints will not be considered.
The reason that the mods didn’t come back about the hijack, is because he wasn’t noted about a hijack, and 2A is not a hijack when talking about gun control.
Telling someone what you know they know, or what their motives are, is trying to bully and frustrate them into submission, not a way to have a productive conversation. If you didn’t feel a productive conversation was possible, you could have simply not participated, rather than telling those who want to try to have a productive conversation that they cannot.
The note, not warning, was because he indicated that someone feigning ignorance, and he said that that act of feigning ignorance was part of the problem. Unless there was another warning that you are thinking about. Was there? Please cite it, I just went back through the thread, and I did not see it.
I still don’t see how you can hijack a discussion about gun control into the second amendment. Hijacking it about the 1st, or about smoking, or about cars, or any of the other deflections that I see in those threads constantly would be a hijack. Talking about 2A in a gun control thread is exactly relevant.
Okay, how about in a thread about gun control?
You don’t make half as good a victimized martyr as you think you do. You do have a tendency to become very hostile, and to make assumptions about other people’s motivations, emotional states, or what they do or do not know. I do not assume that you do this on purpose, but it does tend to make productive conversation harder, when I am being accused of having foaming spittle while I type, or any of your other “observations” with which you like to sprinkle your posts. You make very hostile and unsupported assertions about other posters, and have an extremely thin skin when receiving any criticism.
Yes, anyone can scroll up and see that all of your claims here are entirely unfounded and not supported even slightly by the actual facts.
If you both know how the other will react and that no minds will be changed, why do you continue to engage? Sounds like “Someone’s wrong on the internet!!!” syndrome from both of you.
XT was interested in other aspects of the discussion, rather than one as well trodden as the one Elvis was bringing up. Your interpretation is very far apart from mine. There is nothing wrong with indicating this - the topic is ABCD and a person wants to talk about D, whereas another wants to talk about A and B. Saying, ‘man, why are you bringing up D when that’s really uninteresting, and A and B are more relevant?’ does not mean that someone’s participation is not welcome, nor that viewpoints shouldn’t be considered.
This is not accurate. The original note for ElvisL1ves in post #418 had nothing to do with feigning ignorance. Elvis’s response to sps49sd was personal in nature. In a thread that stemming from multiple mass shootings, I interpreted Elvis’s statement to mean that sps49sd was part of the problem - i.e. blaming him for others being killed.
It was clearly directed at the poster, rather than any argument being advanced. I was trying to interpret generously, and therefore left a note rather than a warning for that post. My instruction was to not take shots at other posters - personal insults are prohibited in GD so this was a reminder about that. Typically when I leave a note, I monitor the thread more closely to ensure that things stay on track.
Then 9 posts later, there is this:
Elvis is fond of these types of insinuations, “says all it needs to, doesn’t it?”. It’s his way of trying to insult someone without actually making a statement, employing an epiplexis. I may have left this with just a note, but seeing as how I did just that immediately prior, and combined with the taunting “nuh-uh” comment, escalated my response.
As an aside, I don’t view discussions about the 2nd amendment as a hijack to that thread. Certainly different threads with more focused discussion specific issues of gun control could be hijacked by 2A discussions, but general gun control (which is what that thread was about) is pretty far reaching in relevant subject matter. Things like relative risk analysis can make other risky behavior germane to discussion. Things like standards or jurisprudence can make other types of legal analysis germane as well. Broad discussions of gun control will have rather wide latitude on what is relevant.