# asahi's warning **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 4, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954 "2019-02-04T17:05:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954/121 "2019-02-06T00:05:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The sincere trolling rule, which before today was foreign to me, seems to say that you may not hold a minority viewpoint, or that you may hold it so long as you don’t say it too much or too forcefully. You are being utterly obtuse about this. Why attempt to paraphrase - less accurately - what has been stated so transparently clearly? The prohibition is **solely for the purpose of riling others up**. > [@UltraVires](#): > > But your rule has no bounds which can be recognized. The rule has no bounds that don’t require judgment calls by mods. That doesn’t mean it has no bounds. > [@UltraVires](#): > > How does arguing for Trump’s wall not fall within the confines of the rule? A poster knows that 95+ percent of posters here not only oppose the wall, but viscerally opposes it. Isn’t any further argument simply an attempt to get a rise out of other posters, even if sincere? If it is then it’s trolling; if it isn’t then it isn’t. May I direct your attention again to **solely for the purpose of riling others up**. The mods _don’t_ ban discussion of the Wall. You seem to be arguing that _if_ the mods made a judgment call that was wrong, then that would be wrong. Okay. > [@UltraVires](#): > > If I am arguing a position, I am not doing it solely to incite others, even though others may be so incited. Nobody mentioned an obligation _never_ to antagonize others if you are arguing in good faith and on-topic. May I once again direct your attention to the **solely** in the phrase **solely for the purpose of riling others up**. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954/122 "2019-02-06T00:13:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The sincere trolling rule, **which before today was foreign to me** … I’ll also add that if you’ve been around this long and never noticed any problem before, how much disagreement can you really have with the rule as stated and implemented? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954/123 "2019-02-06T00:57:42Z")
> [@a moderator](#): > > …In a discussion that involves race why choose to walk the line on inflammatory rhetoric? It strikes me as trying to push the envelope. And given recent history I think this is a fair reading. Push the envelope too far and you can cross the line. > > There’s an argument to be made that this word choice isn’t hate speech, merely anachronistic. Depending on context I could see this argument. I disagree with it, but it can be made. But here, given recent posting history, I see it as trying to push that line. > [@"That's a lie" and the edges of rules](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/33): > > I think the ruling would be that getting too cute irritates the moderation staff… > [@"That's a lie" and the edges of rules](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-a-lie-and-the-edges-of-rules/824582/36): > > …I hope you’ll understand, we occasionally see people who like to see how close to lines they can get. “This is the line? Let’s see if I can step a micron further…”… Quoting from two threads–we’ll see if that works. The point of the quotes is that, clearly, the moderation staff is on the alert for posters who are deliberately trying to “push the line” or “see how close to lines they can get.” I’m not going to claim that moderators are wrong to consider this possibility. Clearly the internet has many corners in which testing the rules (and/or taunting the moderators) is an accepted activity. No one can deny that such people might show up at this message board and try to engage in that activity. But given my own recent case, and this current case involving asahi, I’m wondering if the moderation staff is a little too quick to assume that this is going on. I know that the post I was Warned about was _not_ a case of my trying to Push the Line or Test the Moderators or anything of the kind. I’d suggest further that my posting history, here, does not support a theory that I post with Pushing Lines or Testing Moderators in mind. I just don’t find that to be an interesting activity. I have never engaged in that activity. (If someone sees something in my posting history that indicates otherwise, I’d be grateful if you’d point it out to me.) Furthermore, I would feel very safe in betting that asahi had no such thing in mind, either, with the post discussed in this thread. Or ever, really. Heaven knows I’ve said some uncomplimentary things about asahi, but I definitely don’t see him as a would-be edgelord. Anyway, at the risk of offending moderators: is it possible that you-all are overly quick to conclude about some particular post that ‘this person is trying to test the rules’? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954/124 "2019-02-06T01:00:04Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [Good job, **Bone**.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21472348&postcount=385) Seconded, thanks Bone. Bone, I hope you don’t feel this thread was too nitpicky since I endorsed the Pitting, and a Note probably wouldn’t have been controversial. Perhaps it was partly an inclination to seek scrupulous fairness for asahi, since although I’ve butted heads with him recently I also agree with this: > [@Bone](#): > > Look, if we wanted to ban asahi, it could and would have already been done. I continue to think that asahi can be a valuable contributor to the board. At times he posts some pretty inflammatory things and needs a reminder to rein it in. But most times, even though we disagree on many things, he contributes to the reasoned discourse we can have on the boards. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954/125 "2019-02-06T18:15:12Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Seconded, thanks Bone. Thirded. It’s obvious that people on the same side of this issue (that would be non-racist people) look at this situation differently. It shows a fine character that Bone was willing to consider other perspectives. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954/126 "2019-02-06T18:21:28Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > Thirded. It’s obvious that people on the same side of this issue (that would be non-racist people) look at this situation differently. It shows a fine character that Bone was willing to consider other perspectives. IMO one of the many very positive aspects of the SDMB is the Mods’ willingness to be acting in the best interest of the board’s community rather than just in the best interest of the board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asahis-warning/828954.md?page=6)