started warning people
:smack:
Well I’m off to a good start this morning
That thread was no more trolling than anything Reeder posts. The problem with the “don’t be a jerk” rule is that it’s completely arbitrary and means no more or less than a given mod wants it to mean at any given moment. It’s exactly the same as the medical advice rule, which was used as an excuse to ban handy when he was talking about condoms under the bogus rationalization that he was “giving out medical advice”. As much of a jerk as Milroyj could be, he was no better or worse than, say, ElvisL1ves, he just vomited his bile from the other side of the aisle.
The other big bullshit issue is the “being nasty in The Pit” crap. That’s what The Pit is for, and anyone who goes to the mods crying that he or she has been insulted should be summarily bitch slapped and told to crawl back to mommy’s teat if they don’t like it. “Being unnecessarily nasty in the Pit”??? There shouldn’t be any such thing, and anyone who proposed it should be laughed out of town by small children. Get real. It’s a joke. A Sham. A made up excuse from a mod trying to justify a capricious, idiotic, knee jerk abuse of authority.
Hmmm, I did? When was that? I’m not disputing, mind you, but since I’ve called lots of people dumbasses, it’s hard to remember the specifics.
Knee jerk abuse of authority? Are you being serious?
On the topic of the “troll” thread, at least reeders are fresh news. Milroyj was bringing up old and already covered news. Other than that you are right. It was fairly reeder-esque.
As for the insults, the one that caught me was the one addressed to Guin about her not being able to hold a job. That crossed a line imho. It was way too personal.
If you want to argue that this is a mistake, that’s at least acceptable. This abuse of authority is a) making assumptions about the personalities of people that you don’t know (the mods), and b) venturing deeply into the dark heart of the tinfoil hat lands.
Weirddave: As much of a jerk as Milroyj could be, he was no better or worse than, say, ElvisL1ves, he just vomited his bile from the other side of the aisle.
There I have to disagree. Maybe this is an opinion call which will split along party lines simply because everyone automatically thinks the people on their own “side of the aisle” are nicer, but ISTM that milroyj’s ratio of nastiness to meaningful content was routinely much higher than that of someone like Elvis. And the sheer tenacity of his nastiness—his refusal to back off of untenable points, apologize, or concede a mistake gracefully, as in the above-cited Barbara-Bush-quote thread—was a lot more severe. IMO.
I must say, though, it’s odd to see conservative posters “victimologizing” like this over such an issue. I thought conservatives were the ones who prided themselves on carefully scrutinizing claims of injustice and prejudice. I would expect you to have more solid, objective evidence that you really have been treated unfairly on ideological grounds before you start griping about “capricious, idiotic, knee jerk abuse of authority.”
No, I am referring to calling active members trolls, as in this by Excalibre:
“Christ, I’d be quite pleased if a number of other political trolls left the boards, on both sides of the issue.”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6155232&postcount=62
Lib, how does that qualify as calling somebody a troll? To me, that reads like simply a general comment that there is trolling on these boards, without directing an accusation at any specific poster. Is that kind of general comment frowned on? Or was there some context around the remark you quoted that indicated that Excalibre was pointing the finger at any particular individual(s)?
By the way, I suggest a nice affirmative-action solution to the perceived problem of mods discriminating against posters with conservative orientations. Namely, conservative posters should request the appointment of more conservative moderators, and should volunteer their services for mod duties. If that would make you feel less persecuted, in addition to better representing the ideological spectrum here, I’m right behind it. Bring your petition around and I’ll sign it.
But if you can’t be arsed to do anything about the alleged injustice, I can’t take your griping about it too seriously.
From what I saw of miroyj, he never added anything except insults (OK), jibes, inflammatory statements, false claims and one liners. They looked like their only goal was to piss people off, and to fuck with them. If I have an argument, and one of us says “no you stupid bastard it’s THIS way” you’ve stayed within Pit common practice. You got your digs in, and actually said something to go along with it. If you just pop in out of the blue, and say “you’re a scumbag” or “you can’t hold a job”, all you’ve done is be an asshole. If you pop up, let’s say in a discussion about Canadian beer, and say “nuke the foreign fuckers”, and reply to every counter argument with “ain’t neither”, you’re an asshole. That’s the sort of thing what milroyj did, a lot. He wasn’t here to talk or argue, just to fuck with people. If you get several warnings, you can email the mod and ask what you did wrong, and either go along with it or not. You can email the mod and maybe get the warning lifted, if you happened to be right and can convince them. But, after several warnings, yoiu need to think about what you are doing. One warning is due to eror. Many warnings is due to something more. Anyone can melt down or go off the deep end. When you do it all the time, there is a problem.
OIC.
I’m going to say, and I am not a mod, that the remark in question is toeing the line simply because it isn’t calling a specific poster a troll. I think that’s the difference. It is a blockheaded remark, but it’s pushing the rules not breaking them.
Let’s not start bringing politics into moderating. That’s all kinds of wrong. Moderators are moderators, not political mouthpieces.
And I forgot to put this in my last post. Liberal, if you think something is a rule violation (Excalibre’s remark), report it and let the mods decide.
I didn’t read that thread before, but seeing it now I gotta say him saying he didn’t request the material was one of the unintentially funniest things I’d ever seen written on this board. It’s like Bart saying “I didn’t do it” in that Krusty sketch.
Before I answer you, let me ask you a question. Have I ever held any opinion whatsoever with which you agreed? The reason I ask is that it seems like a waste of time to explain my reasoning to you only to have you shoot back that you disagree just because you and I are always destined to disagree. I mean, I cannot recall one time that a discussion between you and me has ever resulted in your saying anything remotely like, “Oh, I see your point.”
But for the record, it is at least certain that some members in good standing are included in his “troll” category since he specifically says he’d be pleased if they would leave the board. That means they haven’t yet gone. Therefore, we know that he means at least some of us. Moreover, he identifies them as “political” trolls, and since we may assume that he does not consider himself to be a troll, he means those who hold political views different from his own. Since he is a leftist, he means rightists. His trolling accusation is therefore aimed directly at certain board conservatives (and possibly libertarians, who are usually economically right).
If you’d like to save the bother of typing, I’ll be happy to compose a response for you. Otherwise, I expect to see you registering your disagreement, reiterating the points you’ve already made, and the complete absence of any acknowledgment of any validity for my point of view. Have at it.
You do see the huge assumption you’ve thrown into that statement, right? Barring evidence, the following clause is bullshit:
There are a (not large) number of people on this board of every political persuasion whom I consider little better than trolls. Stepping away from the “troll” issue to one of “jerk” (to avoid accusations of trollery) I would note that Collounsbury and I expressed very similar position on nearly every thread in which we both posted, but I could clearly see that his behavior was inappropriate. On the other hand, there are posters with whom I rarely agree on any topic whom I consider quite valuable to the board and to my education.
There are a lot of people on this board who can distinguishh between belief and presentation and making the claim that any given poster defines a troll as “one who disagrees with me” should be backed up with evidence.
Just to nitpick one thing:
Excalibre said:
I interpreted the “both sides of the issue” part of that sentence to mean that he was aiming his barb at certain people on both the left and the right.
I might be wrong, but that’s how iread it.
I think Liberal means (correct me if I’m wrong) the sort of thread that might be titled “Bush is Satan” or “Kerry is the Antichrist” or “Dems rape hamsters”, or “Nuke all Muslims”. Some may be legit discusions, but some may not be. Some trolls are obvious, some are not. I’m not defending him, he can do a better job of it than I can. Some things are obvious trolls, some aren’t. I keep quiet myself, because while I’m not shy, I tend to back away from actually accusing. But then, a comment with no names attached really accuses nobody. Applying the remark to both sides of the house is reasonable - both sides do it. It’s just a comment.
You are correct. I should have given more weight to the both sides clause. I retract my complaint, and stand corrected.
I am not the one who brought up the concept of mods discriminating against posters of certain political stripes, take that up with Shodan, but I would note that several years ago, we had a nice selection of moderators whose political views tended to skew right, so from a “political leanings” standpoint, there was some balance. Those moderators are all gone now. You can draw your own conclusions, personally, I don’t think it’s necessarily that big a deal, as long as a moderator can separate politics and personalities from their duties. I think that line has blurred for some of the moderators who have been here for a long time. I quite like the newest mods who have been introduced in the last few months.
I would ask Lynn this, since she’s the one who pulled the trigger on Milroyj. Why Milroyj and not Reeder? Reeder has been warned at least five times, he posts the exact same kind of shit, yet he’s still here, why the discrepancy?
I’m for darn sure not Lynn, but my WAG would be it’s because Reeder isn’t so consistently nasty as milroyj was. You may find his partisanship extreme, his OPs piffling, his defenses feeble, but at least Reeder, it seems to me, is posting to make certain points. milroyj from what I saw of him posted here solely to make Brutus look like a mild-mannered, courtly savant.
Asserting that a mother gets pleasure out of forcing her child to strip at public gatherings goes beyond being insulting. Even in the Pit, there are some standards. If you want a no-holds barred exchange of death threats, racial epithets and accusations of pedophilia, there’s a whole variety of unmoderated newsgroups to choose from. The Pit can be better than that and still be a place where the eloquent and foul-mouthed can verbally demolish their opponents. It’s not an either/or choice between Yahoo groups and the Miss Manners discussion forum.