Here Marley details 3 warnings launched at BrainGlutton. The first was directed at uncivil discussion in a GD gun thread. The second involved irony. The third was a mischaracterization by J. Chance: it was not a direct insult. Here it is. JC: yes, OP can refer to Original Poster, but usually (not always) it refers to Original Post.
Look. A week’s suspension won’t kill anybody. Heck it would probably be a good thing if they were handed out at random, in volume. And I understand that TPTB are trying to raise the bar. Furthermore, there have been calls for years in ATMB to do exactly that.
I’m just laying down a marker here: there was nothing wrong with BG’s posts according to 2012 standards. BrainGlutton was caught on the scrimmage, not violating longstanding bright lines. This sort of error deserves multiple suspensions preceding a final ban. Oh, and constructive ambiguity is a good thing, so I’m not asking the mods to lay down any official position in this thread.
Finally: BrainGlutton is a fine poster and adds value.
That third one you linked to was pretty clearly an insult being directed at the Original Poster of that thread:
If **BG **hadn’t added the second sentence about “subsequent posts”, I’d say you might have an argument, but he’s clearly talking about the person that made the original post - and the posts they made after that.
Also, as tomndebb pointed out in the post right after JC’s:
So either interpretation was a warnable offense - either for insults or for threadshitting.
I am not comfortable with the passivity implied by ‘caught in a scrimmage’ and the excuse it implies. People lose their tempers, but we’re adults here and you have to be responsible for what you say. Further, yes, I’d say at least two of these are bright line. ‘The original post is pretty fucking dumb’ is out of bounds for Great Debates, and like Bob Ducca says, he goes on to insult the poster’s intelligence anyway. So are the insults in the post I gave him a warning for- he not only called the post stupid in emphatic terms, he insulted the poster’s intelligence and suggested he didn’t believe what he was saying. That’s pretty bad.
Nobody suggested BrainGlutton is on point of getting banned. He was suspended for a week instead of, say, a month because we felt that he’s generally a good poster and that his desire to get off a good quip has maybe surpassed his sense of what the rules are. Three of those in two months is too much.
Cite? As in, either a link to the rule that says that or a previous moderator action based on the rule, not “we have always been at war with Eastasia”.
The guideline is indeed ‘attack the post, not the poster.’ It does not follow that any attack on any post is allowed no matter how vitriolic or insulting. That shouldn’t be news to anyone in GD. I’ll see if I can find a specific example, but any mod note where I said “cool it” or “tone it down” would probably qualify.
I stay out of GD in most cases. But I do recall in several other threads BG getting called out for over the top responses. Not sure what was reported. But to my untrained eye it seemed that something is effecting him recently and is making it harder for him to communicate civilly. I hope he just needs a little time off like many of us do sometimes.
I don’t disagree with the moderation, but this is silly. It’s the exact opposite:
“The original poster is pretty fucking dumb. Subsequent posts show some intelligence, or at least some serious attempts to exercise it.”
What are the posts in the second sentence “subsequent” to? You need a previous reference to a post for that sentence to make sense. The following makes a lot more sense:
“The original post is pretty fucking dumb. Subsequent posts show some intelligence, or at least some serious attempts to exercise it.”
OP clearly meant “original post,” not “original poster.” Semantics demands it.
“*So, there was no actual down side.” *in response to "The second Spanish Republic was in charge for a bit over five years. In that time churches were being burnt, priests and nuns were being killed " is trolling, pure and simple. As i said "It takes a 'special" kind of “person” to think that because someone holds different views than you do, they deserve to be killed and tortured. And to make a joke out of it. I bet you have a good number of Concentration camp zingers, since after all, they “deserved it” having faith and all that stupid stuff, eh?"
then here:
"Shameful! Shocking! [ziiiiiiiip] So, what exactly were these filthy comments, anyway? ". He indicated that he’d masturbate when listening to a cop harass a teenage rape victim.
"BrainGlutton is a fine poster and adds value"? Maybe at one time, but it’s clear he’s off his meds or having a problem or something. He needs to take some time off from posting.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
He’s lucky he was only suspended.
[/QUOTE]
BrainGlutton will be back (we hope) in one week to speak for himself, if he so chooses. Since he has no way at present of participating in this thread, I am surprised that it has not been closed. Whatever happened to the “because he can’t defend himself, this is closed” policy?
Usually, I try to stay out of these threads, but I read “OP” as “Original Post”, and think the phrase “Subsequent posts” supports that reading, as does the fact that the post was in response to the statement " … and this thread is pretty fucking dumb".
I was startled anyone who interpret that post as a personal attack, particularly after some many other posts directed at the Original Poster passed with no comment.
I also found the thread interesting because such a mediocre opening lead to so many better expressed opinions.
Bob Ducca: Adding **tomndebb **'s clarification was indeed relevant. Thanks. I think the example goes in the Original Poster column, but tomndebb addressed that.
Dr. Deth: I was disappointed that you didn’t consider the possibility that the remark was a wisecrack.
There are 3 issues here involving wordsmithing, substantive principles and whether BrainGlutton received due process and perfect justice. Set the last one aside.
Wordsmithing: Well football players are adults too. Shifting metaphors, I’m just saying that there’s a distinction between being caught on the wrong side of an incoming line and walking or wandering across one that is bright and fixed.
Substantively, I perceive 3 notches of application of the board’s prime directive (don’t be a jerk).
Attack the post and not the poster.
If the discussion gets too heated, mod notes will be written. If the posters don’t comply inthread, they risk further sanction (notes or warnings). The basis of such warnings is failure to follow mod instructions.
Over the past couple of years, I’ve perceived a substantially larger number of in-thread mod instructions. So much so that I think it constitutes an additional notch of civility moderated in ~2010-2013.
Avoid excessive incivility in GD, even if the attack is not direct and personal.
Number 3 is a feature of the Jon Chance era. Now I trust you can argue precedent from as far back as 1999: that’s not my point. (Maybe I just think “Jon Chance Era” sounds catchy.) What I’d really like to see a superior characterization -a clearer one- than “Excessive incivility” to match this newish emphasis. We have better wordsmiths on this board than myself: Marley, Little Nemo and Exapno Mapcase come to mind. And admittedly Marley has already presented a take upthread:
Sure, and I agree. And yes it’s always been this way to some extent.
But I have the sense that the bar is being raised, following years of member commentary in ATMB. Personally, I can handle any of the levels of civility indicated above - I could even go to level 6 (treat other posters with respect by default). Or 7! My main concern is that the board remain dedicated to fighting ignorance and that is consistent with a range of civilities.
But I thought it might make sense to discuss this newish era in the context of a longstanding poster who generally speaking does not annoy massive numbers of members. Remember my fellow posters: the civility bar was raised by popular demand.
