Ok, can someone explain to me how David B’s comment about logical bones is not an insult to the poster. I thought the rule was insult the post not the poster. I’ll go reread the rules while I wait for someone to explain this.
Not a personal insult. He is saying the quality of moderating is rude (which it was), not that the moderator is a rude person.
Again, he is saying that the moderator is ACTING like a jerk. He never called the moderator a jerk.
The only personal insult was when David B insulted Nocktober (before Nocktober did anything that could even be misconstrued as wrong by a rational person).
Of course, I wouldn’t expect David B to be able to understand the difference, because it is his lack of reading comprehension which started the problem in the first place.
To be fair, though, this is good practice. Next time someone wants a disproof for, say, the theory that the moon landing never occured, we can rest assured that he or she will be banned before his or her next post.
Um, Jodi, I believe that David’s comment was directed at Reverend Mykeru, he of the 51 posts (now 58!).
And uh, yeah, I would think that a Moderator might possibly pick up some experience with moderating, when he has done so for a few years. Just guessing, though.
Pre-empt: Knowledge of Rules not identical to Experience with Moderating. Yeah, but I’m allowing for rough language, especially when the comment was pin-point appropriate when directed at a single poster (and roughly appropriate if interpreted more broadly, I would argue). Not all have been around for more than, say, 3 years.
Ok. Now flowbark has a suggestion for Moderator Dave. Consider pitching boilerplate language at ill-conceived comments or threads by newbies. Then ratchet slowly.
To wit:
“Hi, Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board! Here at the Straight Dope, we have found that a fruitful exchange is more likely to develop when the original post has a certain level of detail? What sort of hidden earth theory were you talking about?”
Then:
“Hm. Yada yada scientific. To be a little direct, perhaps you might try to consider forming a more coherent story.”
Then:
Ciao, amigo.
No, I’m not telling you how to moderate. I’m saying you should consider the above, though frankly I must admit that I suspect that the David did us all a favor by substituting a potentially pointless conversation about crank science for a more traditional “let’s complain about the oh-so-oppressive moderators who mercilessly stomp on us poor innocent snowflakes” pit thread.
Not to be insulting Nightime, but you’re your acting like a jerk and a total moron besides.
Now, I’m not saying you are a jerk - that would be insulting. I’m just saying you’re acting like someone who has difficulty with words exceeding five or six letters. Acting that way.
I would have hoped that, coming to this pit-thread, that posters with usernames beginning with “N” and ending with “time”, wouldn’t be so brain-numb.
(Don’t worry, I won’t mention any names. 
)
[Apologies to Night-time. Personally, I find the above to be insulting. The phrase “acting like” really isn’t a sufficient softener, IMO. No, I don’t really think you’re a moron: I do disagree with the point you made in your preceding post though. OTOH, if you’re not insulted by the preceding, then I’m all clear anyway.]
FLOWBARK –
I believe David’s comment is a rhetorical question not directed at any specific person (“Does it ever occur to people . . . ?”). To the extent it was directed with specificity, it is directed at “people,” presumably the posters on this Board, of which I are one. In any event, rhetorical or not, it remains pure crap. He has no more access to “knowledge” of the rules than anyone else with the eyes to read them and the brain to comprehend them. That’s my point. I presume you believe you understand what “don’t be a jerk” means, even though you have less that 2000 posts (ya life-havin’ piker ). And I presume you understood that concept from Post One, and that your grasp continues despite your lack of Moderator-hood. To post as if the Mods know more about how the rules work around here than the rest of us is ridiculous. They don’t, and they shouldn’t, because that wouldn’t be fair to any of us, would it? If there are things you can do to get banned – and there are – they should not be Mysterious Things Known Only To The Mods. And in reality, they’re not. You can find them in the rules, you can find them in the stickied threads (heck, most of the threads) in ATMB, you can find them in the well-nigh uncountable whiney Pit threads about why poor Nimrod-du-jour got banned. That’s part of the beauty of this place: the rules are clear, and everyone is on equal notice of what they are. If there were in fact more to “don’t be a jerk” than just that, then fairness would dictate that all of us be told what more there was to it, so we could avoid doing it (whatever it was). But we’re not told of anything further because there isn’t anything further.
You’re certainly free to “allow for rough language” by doing DAVID the courtesy of reading into his statement something that isn’t there, but I’m not required to read it that way. And my point stands: It doesn’t matter if you havn’t been around for three years or three months or three days. All you should have to do to stay on the right side of the law is to refrain from being a jerk. If a poster doesn’t have the sense enough to do that, then by all means kick his ass out. But don’t then be surprised if people are bewildered why NOKTOBER’s offense was bannable but DAVID’s was apparently a-okay, when the difference was merely a manner of phrasing. It’s sophistry, and sophistry confuses people.
Jodi: I’d say the “people” comment was mostly directed at the Reverend, but yeah, I suppose David B thought there might be wider applications.
Now technically, there is only 1 rule: Don’t be a jerk. I would argue though that there are certain relevant precedents and even unwritten regs to be considered.
Ok, I wouldn’t argue that: “unwritten regs” doesn’t make much sense.
But let me try another approach: Jodi:"And my point stands: It doesn’t matter if you haven’t been around for three years or three months or three days. All you should have to do to stay on the right side of the law is to refrain from being a jerk. "
Yeah, but some of us are socially clueless. More to the point, what I consider to be jerk-like behavior is rather un-bannable by the standards of this board.
THE POINT (an example)
To be specific, one guideline in GD is, “attack the argument, don’t attack the arguer”. I understood that from post #1. That’s not written in any prominent location however (though it comes up in conversation fairly often). It’s an example of the sort of not-officially-specified codification that Mods would know about but a newbie might not.
A better example though, would be “how to handle a potential troll” guidelines that, Praise Allah, I don’t have to concern myself with. This is where a moderator’s experience might be superior to that of ordinary mortals like myself.
FINALLY: When people with less than 100 posts lecture us on how to run a message board, they look silly, IMHO. Particularly when they they can’t be brief. But, hey, it’s a free country: free expression can be beautiful, even when it’s mostly hubris.
The sophistry point I’m going to dodge. Suffice it to say that I advocate an escalating tone in certain circumstances, as opposed to one that is blunt from the get-go. But I’d really have to test my proposed method to gauge it’s effectiveness, and I have no intention of applying for Moderatorship.
David B, there is, of course, a difference between “breaking the rules” and being kind and civil. I would hope that on a board as “profound” as this one, people would adhere to a general (albeit unwritten) rule of kindness – even if it involves admonishing a less adept debater.
Did you know that I can make fun of “retards” without breaking the law?
I can laugh at granny without being taken to jail.
Hell, I can hurl all sorts of insults at the weak and intellectually-deprived without any legal recourse.
I won’t be breaking any rules. Except a moral one.
Puh-leeze.
How many times do we see a newbie Xian come in and start a GD thread “Prove there is no god”? Plenty of times. Misallocation of the burden of proof shouldn’t be even the prelude to a bannable offense. Misallocation of the burden of proof is NOT trolling.
99 times out of 100, a newbie asking “prove there is no god” is talking about a 3-O (omni-potent, -present, -scient) god and we just go from there, unless Lib shows up. 99 times out of 100, I must imagine, a person talking about a “hollow earth” must be talking about an Earth that is a 3-dimensional object consisting of a crust and then a hollow center. What more did you want? He was asking about the bloody thing, so why expect the inquisitive questioner to present the detailed physics behind that concept?
People on this board shouldn’t be afraid that making a mistake of argumentative form should land them on the BANNED list. They shouldn’t have to fear that when a person with “moderator” under his username attacks their position that they must tread lightly in responding. A newbie especially shouldn’t be provoked into replying as newbies often do, and thus giving said moderater the “HA-HA!!!” moment in which he basks in his own superiority at punishing the offender.
It’s about as classless as the people who endlessly provoke and taunt the fundies into saying something stupid about gays so that they can have a superiority party in the Pit all weekend where they flaunt their respective levels of enlightenment and tolerance. The difference is, yours had a banning tacked on at the end.
Okay.
David has pretty much admitted his error:
It is pointless to keep running all this through the spin cycle. Those who see David as having abused his authority will spin it their way, while those who see David as having exercised his authority appropriately will spin it their way. I believe that had he put on his hat — as he has agreed he should have done — we would not be here about this.
Rule #2 of the board is “Don’t piss off the staff.” As unfortunate as that may be, it is the rule nonetheless. I say unfortunate because the staff is allowed into the fray. They may debate, rant, opine, and witness just like the rest of us. But it seems to me that if they are going to be shielded from the same hurt feelings, frustration, and anger that the rest of us must endure, then I think they really shouldn’t post except for official moderator announcements, arbitrations, and rulings. It’s too much like staging a fight between one unconstrained man and another with his hands cuffed behind his back.
I think that, because of Rule #2, my future responses in any debates with moderators will be a standard fifth-amendment type disclaimer, something along the lines of: “I decline to answer for fear that I might intimidate you in accordance with Rule #2.” Of course, there is nothing then to prevent me from being accused of evasion, but at least there will finally be an objective way to settle debates. A moderator may simply say, “The answer is there is no god, and anyone who disagrees will piss me off.”
When you get both the only word and the final word, it’s not really a discussion or debate at all.
Now, even with all that said, I believe that there is still hope for fairness and an even-handed application of both Rule #1 and Rule #2. That’s because at the very top of the food chain stands a person who values goodness, whose sense of ethics is keen, and who has proved that she is not above admitting a mistake and reversing her ruling. I’m talking, of course, about TubaDiva.
So long as TubaDiva is here, there will always be recourse to both justice and mercy. The board is guided by her steady hand and her ultimate interpretation of the rules. I trust her so much that, since I have learned that she is the one who banned Noctober, I now agree with the decision. I don’t need to know her reasons. I need only to know her character.
If she would like to have a final word, I would appreciate hearing it. And I would ask all members in good standing to respect whatever she says and know that her judgments are motivated by a profound sense of honesty and fairplay. If she would rather not comment, then I would assume that she simply thinks it would be best not to. Since she can open and close threads at will, I will now request that a moderator close this thread but allow her in if she wishes to speak.
Thanks to everyone for their comments here, and I apologize to the staff for whatever headache all of this might have caused any of them.
Lib, I agree, most Mods (and Admins) are succinctly fair. However, one would hope, in the interest of “justice” (as Cecil sees it), anyone, despite their “status,” would humbly stand up and admit that they might be wrong.
Good analogy, Lib.
One way to work it may be for Mods not to post anything official in threads they are posting in as a normal poster (if you get my meaning). That would stop any perceived confict of interest for the Mod and clear them of any accusations of baiting .
Or they could change the idiotic rules in GD to say “No insults” and not “No insults that can slip past the rules”
The only reason the newbie was banned seems to be that the newbie didn’t know the convoluted bullshit tapdance needed to insult someone in GD.
If the guy was a little less new, perhaps the newbie could have tried another allowable GD insult “All posters named David are cretins.” (The “insult the non-proscribed group that the poster belongs to” loophole)
Or the questioning insult (“Are you really that stupid?”) of the sort that David used?
Or the post insult “That post is the stupidest piece of drivel ever vomited out on this board. What it says about the person who posted it…” (The second sentence is usually implied, not typed)
Does anyone really believe, REGARDLESS of GD rules, that the phrase “Do you have a logical bone in your body?” isn’t an insult, despite the fact that it passes GD rules? Try saying to someone you’re talking to face-to-face and see how it goes over.
Fenris
[Newbie hat ON/]
The only thing that I don’t agree with is that there seems to be varying degrees of application of the rules depending on your post count. Nocktober’s behavior certainly didn’t seem to get him off on the right foot, but he didn’t get the yards and yards of slack that Collounsbury got. Make the rules the same for all.
[\Newbie hat won’t come OFF]
Uh-uh. You wrote a post that was not understood by at least three posters; your writing is to blame. Of course, had you been perfectly understood, you would have less to rant about; thus, your writing is accomplishing your purpose.
Love always,
sweet cheeks
Libertarian said:
As you of all people should know, people argue with us all the time and they’re still here (heck, you’re one of 'em 
) And in this particular case, this is especially true since you have noted that I was not the one who banned Nocktober.
This one ranks up there with your bizarre accusation in the last Pit thread about me (the one started by Airman Doors) that I must have been biased against him for reasons that nobody knew because you couldn’t understand the ruling.
You were right about one thing, though – this thread continuing will serve no purpose.
Okay, enough.
David didn’t ban Nocktober. I did.
As long as this board has more than one human being posting to it, we’re going to have times when we agree to disagree. And we can do that and still be civil.
Or we should, anyway.
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
Who is also closing this thread.
Lib gets both his wish and his ass kicked.