Therein lie the “constraints” of which the OP is complaining. Bolding mine.
Well, I’m not arguing for you, and I’m really not arguing. I’m trying to figure out what the rules are, and these threads never provide any answers other than: 1) I’m an idiot for even asking, 2) If we have to tell you, then I’m an idiot, 3) Don’t be a jerk, and 4) We know it when we see it.
Much like the OP and the second poster in the thread, I am confused about the direction of the board. It is scattershot and changes by the day or by the moderator. I understand that this new “misogyny” kick has caused a lot of this confusion, but even given that, I don’t understand how your comments were in any way a violation of any board rule. Not even close.
SamuelA was a bit different. The moderator correctly noted that his OP had changed a bit and suggested that the Jews should have attempted to assimilate in order to avoid extermination. It was pointed out in the thread how wrong he was, but the fact that this topic was warned discredit’s Bone’s assertion that we can debate any topic we want. I think SamuelA’s position is incredibly wrong, but what is warnable about it?
I am 100% confident I can open a thread in GD and lay out the (correct in my view) arguments that the Women’s Soccer Team should not receive equal pay with no threat of mod intervention.
Why do you think we have different appraisals of that risk?
I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my relatively short time here, and I’ve posted several opinions that are not at all popular. To date, I’ve not received even a warning.
So I’m not seeing the impending disaster.
Posters make mistakes. Mods make mistakes. As long as we can work it out together, things’ll be fine.
Not exactly. When it had already been pointed out in more than one post in that thread why his “solution” was actually impossible in regard to Nazi Germany, not even hypothetically possible, he persisted in coming back to restate it. In conjunction with numerous similar acts of behavior (plenty of examples in the current BBQ Pit thread) he was Warned. That Warning pushed him over a line with similar Warnings that put him on a path to suspension.
It was his persistent counterfactual return to the same [del]claim[/del] question in a trolling manner that got him Warned.
That’s not what the warning says. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21742621&postcount=60
It says that his comment about women was “beyond the pale” and that he was warned for trolling and being a jerk.
Nothing in the warning suggested what you just did, which is a very reasonable explanation.
There’s plenty of rules lawyering as it is. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if TPTB started being specific?
Fair enough and I agree. There definitely seems to be a disconnect on the difference between stating what a person “could” do and what a person “should” do.
So clarity and transparency is counterproductive?
I’m pretty confident you’re correct about this.
Moderators have noted in the past that part of their moderation depends on who is posting something. Identical posts from different posters may receive different moderator responses, such as no response in one case or a mod note in another. For example, I’m quite confident that if I were to post something about “libtards”, I’d get a warning for it. But other posters do so freely, without any apparent fear of being warned, presumably because they’re doing so insincerely. Along those same lines, I suspect that you and I could post identical arguments about the women’s team’s pay differential, and the responses you’d receive would be softer, and less vitriolic, than mine.
We don’t necessarily give extended dissertations on all the reasons for a particular warning. As tomndebb says, the fact that SamuelA kept returning to the same point after it had been explained to him why it was impossible multiple times was evidence of trolling and jerkishness. Chronos also explained when he closed the thread why SamuelA’s continued arguing was inappropriate.
Clearly what we need is a new subforum, where posters accused by mods of being a jerk are afforded an opportunity to obtain counsel and argue before a panel of their peers as to what constitutes being a jerk. Such conclusions should of course be based on precedent, so we need to keep a better record of examples of jerkishness, and perhaps index these examples in a library of some sort that all can access.
The decision of these peers can then be appealed three times, ultimately bringing the matter to Ed Zotti if he so deigns. Of course he might remand the issue to the Privy Council of ATMB, which can then form a commission of inquiry comprised of the anonymous posters on Giraffe Boards as a neutral third party.
This inquiry shall last not more than 180 days, to be followed by a secondary review by the degenerates who only hang out in the Pit. Their recommendations will be put forth to the whole message board in IMHO for a public poll to decide the matter once and for all, before anyone’s reputation is sullied by a mod note.
Or we can all try a little harder not to be jerks.
I understand that you don’t give dissertations. However, your warning contained nothing at all about what tomndebb said. You quoted only SamuelA’s post about women and said it was “beyond the pale” and warned him for trolling and being a jerk. This was after another moderator had merely closed the thread for his non responsiveness to other posters and his suggestion that Jews “should” have tried to assimilate.
The implication was that the quoted post was trolling and being a jerk and that the final comment, standing alone, was beyond the pale. The other moderator closed the thread but you gave a warning for a different and unrelated reason. If I misunderstood the moderation, then I will retract my statements.
If, in a different thread, a poster took the position that yes, sexual assault is terrible, but women can take steps to prevent it by not dressing provocatively, drinking alcohol, and being in a man’s house or apartment at 3am, would that be warnable on its own? Is that sentiment what you were referring to as being “beyond the pale”?
If so, then Bone’s comment is incorrect. If not, then manson’s warning should be rescinded.
But also that’s because he wouldn’t use the word “libtard” in his argument.
Have you not been paying attention? We already have posters dancing around trying to not cross a line; making an obvious line will encourage more such behavior and create more work for the Mods.
Neither would I. Doing so would get me a warning, whereas I doubt it would get Richard Parker a warning. That’s the point.
I do give you several points for creativity, however, it misses the issue.
The problem with “don’t be a jerk” is that one’s jerkishness has gone far beyond a universal recognition of being a jerk and into a wholly subjective and subconsciously politically based determination of what being a jerk consists of. It really has come to mean nothing more than “upsets a moderator at this time.”
Then don’t upset any moderators. 
Yet, in some entirely mysterious fashion, you’ve managed to avoid a warning for being a jerk without having any idea of how not to be one. 'Tis a puzzlement!
Could you provide an objective definition of “being a jerk”? I don’t mean a dictionary definition, though that might apply. Some sort of non-subjective way to determine if someone is being a jerk?