Anti Catholic opinion warrants official warning?

[Q.E.D]

@Guinastasia

Who was that, and what was the original name?

Venus Hottentot, now known as Nzinga, Seated.

[Q.E.D]

And here is the thread in which he whined about it until he got his way.

[Boyo_Jim]

@kaylasdad99

Another perspective from a different former Catholic: I consider it a heartening sign of my ongoing recovery that I don’t feel a need to view Catholics or Christians as my enemies.

As such, I was able to see the post as a threadshit. I note that Ellen Cherry characterized the post as an insult; Czarcasm made no such mention. As for myself, I saw the warning as a consequence for a reported threadshit, rather than for an insult.

I don’t view Christians, Catholics, or idiots as my enemies either. Not even the ones who are all three. From the theoretical point of view of my inner atheist, it seems to me that the overlap should be 100%, but I know that’s not true. I know too many very nice, smart people who have deep religious faith – I just don’t understand how they can believe what they do. My point is that if you are asked for an opinion, you should give it honestly, and shouldn’t be punished for doing so.

How much “punishment” a mod warning is, is an open question. Maybe we all have “permanent records”, and after too many warnings we are banned. Hopefully it’s not so tight-assed as that.

I supposed there is also a question of whther the reply was honest or just a cheap joke. MHO is that it was both. Many of my own posts fall into that range so I’m kind of interested in this for personal reasons.

[Guinastasia]

Thanks, peeps. I remember that now.

[Colibri]

@Dinsdale

I know I have threadshat in the past (hopefully, not too terribly often.) And while I knew it was impolite, I was not aware that it is forbidden around here. There’s really little constructive in posting to say - in essence - “I think this thread is stupid.” Like someone said, turd in the punchbowl. So was I simply “being a jerk” sufficient to warrant a warning?

In this case, I didn’t think I was doing that in this case. I was expressing my personal thoughts, feelings, and experience. I am an ex-Catholic, with all the benefits and luggage that come along with that. As such, I was specificaly invited into the thread and asked my opinion. And when I walk downtown Chicago once a year and see folks with smudges on their foreheads, the main thought that honestly goes through my head is, “What an idiot.” “What an idiot.”

I think Diogenes has a good take on the situation in his post just after your last one. While I can’t speak for Czarcasm, in my personal opinion, if you had elaborated on your personal thoughts in this fashion, your post would not have constituted threadshitting. As it was, it was almost void of content aside from something that could be perceived a general insult towards some of the others posting in the thread. As such, it wasn’t really appropriate for that particular thread.

[FWIW, I am also an ex-Catholic, now a hard atheist. So my opinion has nothing to do with your remark in and of itself, but rather whether or not it was suitable for that thread.]

But I guess I didn’t realize that the standard for meting out warnings was whether someone got offended and complained. I’m assuming that is is not so simple as 1 person complains, 1 warning gets issued. Therefore, when czarcasm received this complaint(s), he/she must have applied some standard for finding my post unacceptable. That’s all I’m asking for. And pardon me for saying, but your response isn’t all that helpful to someone simply seeking clarification.

We certainly don’t hand out warnings just on the basis that someone else was offended by a post and reported it. Such a complaint will cause us to look a post, but it doesn’t mean a formal warning or even an informal caution will be issued. I hope that my remarks just above will clarify at least how I would look at the issue.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

@Miller

You called every Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopalian posting in that thread an idiot, and you can’t figure out why you got warned for it?

You’re not exactly the brightest light on the Christmas tree, are you?

To be fair, there are other threads that have been around where someone insults a wide variety of board members via stating their opinion, and I don’t think they have gotten a Mod warning out of it. Granted, sometimes the thread was moved to the Pit so the offended members could more properly chew out the OP… Maybe that is why there was a warning in this case, they didn’t start the topic, and the topic really couldn’t be moved? But, why couldn’t those who were insulted follow SDMB tradition and Pit him? Will this be a new trend now, where if you insult a certain amount of the board’s population you will get a Mod warning? Or is it because the OP has done this more than once? I’m trying to understand how the rules are evolving here more than anything, because it seems to me that they might be. As an example, don’t they want threads discussing Moderator action to be started in ATMB now? Time for an update on the rules FAQ, so we know where we stand as members?

ETA: NM! I need to remember to read the whole thread before posting in this kinda thread! :smack:

[samclem]

@Boyo Jim

How much “punishment” a mod warning is, is an open question. Maybe we all have “permanent records”, and after too many warnings we are banned. Hopefully it’s not so tight-assed as that.

Let’s make it a “closed” question. If you got one warning for such a post in a year, we(mods) don’t even see you on our radar. If you got two in a year, maybe one of us will notice this. If you got three in six months, you betcha one of us will send around a report. And ask for comments. And discuss your behaviour.

@Boyo Jim

I supposed there is also a question of whther the reply was honest or just a cheap joke. MHO is that it was both. Many of my own posts fall into that range so I’m kind of interested in this for personal reasons.

The only person who knows whether the reply was honest or a cheap joke is Dinsdale, and he’s posted his motivation here. Had he posted it in such a way that it was more clear, we wouldn’t be here right now. But we are. These kinds of questions are usually mixed. Trying to read the nuances behind a post in cyberspace is always a hard thing. Sometimes you just know the poster is being a jerk. Sometimes you know the poster so well, you just know that he/she was misunderstood and couldn’t have meant it that way. Sometimes, you’re on the fence.

[Boyo_Jim]

@samclem

Let’s make it a “closed” question. If you got one warning for such a post in a year, we(mods) don’t even see you on our radar. If you got two in a year, maybe one of us will notice this. If you got three in six months, you betcha one of us will send around a report. And ask for comments. And discuss your behaviour.
The only person who knows whether the reply was honest or a cheap joke is Dinsdale, and he’s posted his motivation here. Had he posted it in such a way that it was more clear, we wouldn’t be here right now. But we are. These kinds of questions are usually mixed. Trying to read the nuances behind a post in cyberspace is always a hard thing. Sometimes you just know the poster is being a jerk. Sometimes you know the poster so well, you just know that he/she was misunderstood and couldn’t have meant it that way. Sometimes, you’re on the fence.

Please, take it as a given for my future questionable posts: I will be misunderstood and I won’t mean it that way.

[kaylasdad99]

You could always put a standard disclaimer in your .sig.

[Liberal]

@Dinsdale

IIn this case, I didn’t think I was doing that in this case. I was expressing my personal thoughts, feelings, and experience. I am an ex-Catholic, with all the benefits and luggage that come along with that. As such, I was specificaly invited into the thread and asked my opinion. And when I walk downtown Chicago once a year and see folks with smudges on their foreheads, the main thought that honestly goes through my head is, “What an idiot.” “What an idiot.”

Is it not of some value/interest to Catholics to know that their display has that response, at least in the eyes of one cranky old nonbeliever? Of course appearing silly has never played much part in dissuading anyone from follonwing their chosen “faith.” And I certainly have no expectation that a fear of looking silly in my eyes will change much of anyone from doing much of anything. But IMO most outward dress reflecting religion looks silly. Idiotic. Foolish.

Is it okay to go the other way? To say that atheists are missing something? Clueless? Can’t see the forest for the trees? That they’re dishonestly suppressing what they really believe? Or just that they’re stupid? In IMHO, now, not the Pit.

[Boyo_Jim]

@kaylasdad99

You could always put a standard disclaimer in your .sig.

That is an excellent idea.

[Frank]

@Boyo Jim

Please, take it as a given for my future questionable posts: I will be misunderstood and I won’t mean it that way.

“I’m just a boyo whose intentions are good…”

[Bill_Door]

@Liberal

Is it okay to go the other way? To say that atheists are missing something? Clueless? Can’t see the forest for the trees? That they’re dishonestly suppressing what they really believe? Or just that they’re stupid? In IMHO, now, not the Pit.

Why bother? You’re going to heaven to sit forever at the right hand of the Father, atheists are in hellfire writhing in agony for all eternity, and you figure your contempt is an issue? Oh, I sure hope Liberal doesn’t think I’m a buffoon.

[Dinsdale]

@Colibri

Such a complaint will cause us to look a post, but it doesn’t mean a formal warning or even an informal caution will be issued. I hope that my remarks just above will clarify at least how I would look at the issue.

@samclem

The only person who knows whether the reply was honest or a cheap joke is Dinsdale, and he’s posted his motivation here. Had he posted it in such a way that it was more clear, we wouldn’t be here right now. But we are.

Thanks for the responses, all. I guess one thing that got me was that I was given an “official warning”, rather than an “informal caution” or - heavens forbid - a request for clarification. I’m generally a pretty big fan of progressive discipline, and had thought that to be the general practice round here. So I was a tad surprised, and a tad pissed, to see my remarks met by what was in my mind more than the appropriate initial-level response.

Heck, most folk around here recognize the limitations of posting. How many qualifiers and explanations ought I include in every post? Here, I posted my base opinion, phrased tersely yet entirely accurately. I was able and willing to discuss it to whatever extent anyone wished or requested. But no one asked. Instead, a mod jumped to (in my mind) at least the second level of “discipline.” And then failed to respond to my well-intentioned inquiries. And now in this thread, hs failed to elaborate on his actions beyond a snarky 2-brief-sentence response.

As I said before, I really appreciate the efforts of the administration here. Just IMO, in this instance the mod dropped the ball.

Also, I have not yet seen a definition of threadshitting. Honestly, I did not know that necessarily led to mod warnings. Is that the case? If so, wouldn’t it be useful to have it defined?

Oh, and Lib, I’ve got no problem with you expressing your opinion on that or anything else. If I disagree and care to say so, I will. (You do realize, tho, that you’d be wrong, don’t you?)

[stretch]

Are warnings now going to be issued for “threadshitting”? Because I see a lot more warnings in some posters’ future if that is the case.

I thought threadshitting was something that was being policed by the members, not by the mods.

I guess I need a better definition of what threadshitting actually is if there will be warnings for it.

[Colibri]

@Dinsdale

Thanks for the responses, all. I guess one thing that got me was that I was given an “official warning”, rather than an “informal caution” or - heavens forbid - a request for clarification. I’m generally a pretty big fan of progressive discipline, and had thought that to be the general practice round here. So I was a tad surprised, and a tad pissed, to see my remarks met by what was in my mind more than the appropriate initial-level response.

It can be a fine line whether to issue an official warning or an informal caution in a particular case. I am speaking only for myself here, but personally I am more likely to issue a warning to someone who’s been around awhile, on the theory that they should be familiar with the rules and standards, than to a newbie who is just learning the ropes. And you’ve been around for a long time.

I can understand your feelings on the matter, but as others have pointed out, one isolated warning is not going to have much effect on your status on the Board. Warnings become a concern to the moderators mainly when someone accumulates several over a short period of time for the same kind of unaccepable behavior.

Also, I have not yet seen a definition of threadshitting. Honestly, I did not know that necessarily led to mod warnings. Is that the case? If so, wouldn’t it be useful to have it defined?

A definition can be found in this sticky in ATMB: Beginner’s Guide to Glossary of Terms on Straight Dope Message Boards

@C K Dexter Haven

Threadshitting – basically, shitting on a discussion, by belittling the topic or the people discussing it. It typically takes the form of a dismissive comment, like “Who cares?” or “This is stupid!” or similar. The implication of the threadshitter is that discussion of such a topic is beneath them, and should be beneath everybody else. If you really do think that a discussion is inane or pointless, the appropriate thing to do is to not participate in it. And, of course, if you see someone threadshitting, please do not respond in kind, but REPORT the post to a Moderator.

While it is not explicitly stated to be against the rules, I think that it is clear from this that such behavior is strongly frowned upon. It can be considered to violate the expectation of “good manners and common courtesy” standard for all forums except the Pit. Warnings have frequently been issued for such behavior in the past; yours is hardly the first one.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Colibri

It can be a fine line whether to issue an official warning or an informal caution in a particular case. I am speaking only for myself here, but personally I am more likely to issue a warning to someone who’s been around awhile, on the theory that they should be familiar with the rules and standards, than to a newbie who is just learning the ropes. And you’ve been around for a long time.

I can understand your feelings on the matter, but as others have pointed out, one isolated warning is not going to have much effect on your status on the Board. Warnings become a concern to the moderators mainly when someone accumulates several over a short period of time for the same kind of unaccepable behavior.

A definition can be found in this sticky in ATMB: Beginner’s Guide to Glossary of Terms on Straight Dope Message Boards

While it is not explicitly stated to be against the rules, I think that it is clear from this that such behavior is strongly frowned upon. It can be considered to violate the expectation of “good manners and common courtesy” standard for all forums except the Pit. Warnings have frequently been issued for such behavior in the past; yours is hardly the first one.

I appreciate that definition, but I don’t see how Dinsdale’s post in the previous thread fit it. He didn’t insult the OP, or posters to the thread, or the nature of the discussion, he insulted an anonymous group of people who engaged in a certain kind of activity. And I know that a mod can just as quickly respond that you all have your own interpretations of the rules, and I supppose that’s ok too.

So the best way I can interpret this resolution is – keep opinions that can be perveived as insults of groups of people down to one every six months or more, unless you are in the Pit where pretty much anything goes, and you’re good to go.

[Colibri]

@Boyo Jim

I appreciate that definition, but I don’t see how Dinsdale’s post in the previous thread fit it. He didn’t insult the OP, or posters to the thread, or the nature of the discussion, he insulted an anonymous group of people who engaged in a certain kind of activity. And I know that a mod can just as quickly respond that you all have your own interpretations of the rules, and I supppose that’s ok too.

He didn’t insult an “anonymous group of people;” since several people in the thread had already stated that they received ashes, by implication he was calling them idiots.

And, as I have said above, the threadshitting was more in the short, dismissive nature of the post itself. A more extended explanation of why Dinsdale held that opinion might not have warranted a warning, at least in my estimation.

So the best way I can interpret this resolution is – keep opinions that can be perveived as insults of groups of people down to one every six months or more, unless you are in the Pit where pretty much anything goes, and you’re good to go.

Yeah, that’s a pretty good rule of thumb. The thing is, most actual jerks don’t know how to pace themselves for the long haul.

[Dinsdale]

Thanks for the definition, Colibri. As I said, I did a bit of searching, tho not exhaustive.
You’ve been a heck of a lot more help in illuminating this minor matter, than the mod who was directly involved.

[buttonjockey308]

@Miller

You called every Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopalian posting in that thread an idiot, and you can’t figure out why you got warned for it?

You’re not exactly the brightest light on the Christmas tree, are you?

That’s the thing, I think. If you believe that, you are, or should be, free to say so, and be ready to accept the backlash from the other board members. I think it’s not as much what he said as where he said it.