And another questionable non-call -

About This Message Board
1

Look - all I want is a little reasonableness and consistency in the modding.

We have Ibn Warraq being moderated/warned over a non-infraction, yet this post -

[QUOTE=<redacted>;18064269]

[QUOTE=<redacted>;18064012]
I’d say one factor has been the in your face paranoia of the pro-gun lobby. “Obama is coming for your guns!” does not paint the pro-gun faction as a demographic with a firm grip on reality.
[/QUOTE]

Says the guy who calls the cops every time he sees a non-uniformed person carrying a gun.
[/QUOTE]

Goes completely unchallenged.

Yes I reported it - and I know the Moderator(s) got the report as I got an email asking for clarification.

Yet this flagrant personal insult goes un-modded.

I’ve redacted the names to avoid poisoning the well here - warn me on that if you like.

2

I remember that group of threads. But didn’t he actually claim to call the police if/any time he sees a civilian carrying a gun? How can he be insulted by his own behavior?

3

Don’t worry about the ‘who’ here - look at the quotes as provided - what the poster does/does not/claims to do is irrelevant.

Poster A talks about a group (external to the board) having lost grip on reality - poster B then tells poster A he has lost grip with reality. (or alludes to it strongly)

One is attacking an external group (allowed)

The other is attacking the poster (not allowed).

4

Sorry; that’s just not something I’m good at. I’m more the “whole truth” side of the coin than just the “truth” side. Guess that’s why I never get picked for a jury.

5

understood - I’m mostly the same way - but someone saying another poster has “lost grip on reality” - well, thats a personal statement that is against the rules in GD.

(regardless if the person has/has not/should be/should not be actually offended by it).

6

Maybe it’s my little phone but I’ve read that over and over and I don’t see an insult. Maybe I need a diagram or something.

7

I am really not seeing the insult, here.

Instead, I see a position disparaged based on the previous actions of a poster.

Please explain the explicit insult.

8

He’s explicitely saying that the poster has ‘lost grip on reality’ - his disparaging the actions is in a “takes one to know one” response.

Even if its not an explicit insult - he is attacking the poster - not the post.

9

If a mod gave a warning for an insult on that I want to open the torch and pitchfork concession.

I would probably have to see it in context to see if it runs afoul of some other rule but I’m not seeing it right now.

10

He is certainly not explicitly saying anything of the kind.
He is resorting to a sort of tu quoque in which he points out that the argument is weakened by the poster’s own odd statements. It is really a stretch to say that there was an explicit accusation that the poster’s grip on reality was impugned. The attack is on the hyperbole of the poster’s assertion, mocking that by comparing it to similar remarks he had made.

That is why I took no action when the post was reported.

11

we clearly disagree - I see it as a ‘takes one to know one’ retort - bringing up a claim from a completely different thread (not having been discussed in this thread at all) to attack the poster and not the content of the post.

12

I am not a GD mod so I am not going to render an opinion based on GD specific rules. But I just want to point out that no where in this explanation quoted do you come close to showing it to be an insult. Are you thinking of some other rule maybe?

13

I have no idea why simster finds the posts in the OP objectionable, while at the same time defending Ibn Warraq in another thread.* My take is is that Colibri made an unfortunate call and I give him props for rescinding it.

I suppose I can see the OP’s post being mod noted, except that the above passage seems self-limiting and not destined for a trainwreck. Doing nothing is a good call, I say.

  • Ah. simster posted the OP before Colibri’s reversal. Maybe everything is in equilibrium now.
14

I still see this as attacking the poster - not the post.

You’ll note that my stated subject here is “questionable” - as opposed to the Ibn Warraq issue - which, IMHO, was never questionable.

15

You still haven’t point out an insult.

The general rule about attacking the post and not the poster does not mean you have to ignore who the poster is. It is to keep “That post is stupid” from becoming “You are stupid.” It is not to keep “I disagree” from becoming “You said the opposite last week.” Posters are going to bring their past interactions into each thread. That can’t be helped. Moderators need to step in only when that derails a thread or becomes too heated. You have not shown how either had happened.

16

Telling another user they have ‘lost grip on reality’ is not an insult?

I’ll have to remember that one.

and, btw - the thread is derailed - as this argument was the end of it.

The entire point of the rule is to keep the debate (this is in GD, after all) from becoming too personal -

17

Does this mean that “pot calling the kettle black” comments aren’t insults?

edit: That is to say, I would consider it an insult based on colloquial understandings of the phrase and the word insult but on the dope, anything goes.

18

If you phrase it as “Congrats, this post wins the “least connected to reality” prize of the day.” it is explicitly permitted. (At least if you’re a mod. If you’re a mere member and use similar phrasing, it can get you mod-noted, depending on which way the wind is blowing)

Cite for it being just fine (for mods, at least)

19

That is not what was said in the post you quoted. Maybe it was indirectly implied. Your argument needs a lot of if/then statements to make that connection. If you want all implied snarkiness to be moderated I think you will be in the minority. I don’t see a lot of calls for more heavy handed moderation.

Since I am not a GD mod as I said I am talking generally about the board not GD specifically. And not about a thread that I haven’t read since it was redacted. Tom already commented on the specific post since he was involved and knows which thread you are talking about. I can only comment on the one post out of context that you quoted. I’m not seeing anything that needs to be moderated.

20

But atleast that still refers specifically to the POST - so its atleast veiled.

“says the person who…” is reffering to the person.

snark is good -

@Loach - the only thing I redacted was the usernames - as the actual usernames (and the topic itself) are largely irrelevant to the exchange that happened.

The second poster is clearly talking about the poster, and in all worlds I am familar with, stating that one has ‘lost grip of reality’ is an insult.