FTR, I was astounded by his claim that somehow both parties were equally to blame for there being no healthcare policy superior to the ACA, and annoyed by his refusal to acknowledge the GOP’s role in thwarting the development of any such policy. But I was really surprised by the mod stepping into the conversation.
But his reaction to the mod? Inexcusable.
Huh, I didn’t think either of you were getting at blame - a more nebulous and debatable concept than ‘were they even trying to work together?’
Based on his post #20 “Instead of playing the blame game, we have all known the potential for it to be struck down was there. Everyone should have been working on it.”
~Max
He wasn’t banned for refusing to answer a question, he was banned for insulting the mods, and for repeated infractions.
On the subject of this thread, all K had to do was come back and say, “you know what, I can’t back that up. I withdraw the claim” or “that has been my impression, but I don’t have a cite, so consider it my opinion.”
What_Exit can answer more definitively than I, but the “I’m not allowing you to ignore this” seemed to require a response to Akaj’s assertion that Kearsen1 was “clearly, demonstrably, factually, stupefyingly wrong” about Democrats and addressing the healthcare problem.
~Max
This is my concern here. What Exit was participating in the thread as a poster, and asked questions twice of Kearsen1. Then suddenly he puts the modhat on and insists that Kearsen1 answer the question.
I don’t think a mod should be doing both in the same thread. It makes it looks like if you’re engaging with a mod in a discussion, suddenly you face discipline if the mod doesn’t think you’re not replying to his questions as a poster. It’s bad to mix the two functions.
Here’s my extracts from that thread. What Exit made four posts, apparently as a poster:
Post 55:
Post 62:
Comment to Procrustus in post 70.
General comment at post 73.
And then the mod comment at post 83:
What Exit was clearly participating in the thread as a poster, expressing his opinions, but put the modhat on when Kearsen1 didn’t respond to his questions, demanding that Kearsen1 answer his questions.
Reading the thread, I had thought What Exit was posting as a thread participant. That was why it was so jarring when he insisted as a mod that Kearsen1 answer his question.
That’s not a power that any regular poster has.
That was my recollection as well, and my concern.
Possibly, but not when the moderator has been participating in a debate/politics thread as a poster, and is demanding that the poster answer the mod’s question.
It is possible that I didn’t sufficiently read the linked thread to understand it, and I wasn’t an original participant, so my thoughts may not be relevant to this case.
In general, I think that it’s best that mods not take an active modding role in a thread in which they are also taking an active posting role. It’s going to be very difficult to wield mod powers equitably when one is actively engaged in one side of an argument.
I understand that, but I’m less concerned about the appearance of impropriety given that two of the three active forum mods (What_Exit and Hari_Seldon) were participating in the topic.
I also think the demand was to respond to Akaj’s argument, not What_Exit’s.
~Max
Actually, to be completely clear, I only joined the thread once flag(s) came in about Kearsen1. I am probably guilty of leading the witness to see if he really was a troll or not. I was not a part of that thread until his JAQing activity was reported.
If I knew his past record, I probably would’ve just warned him and not bother participating but I didn’t at the time. Unfounded claims that can’t be backed up are generally not allowed in GD or P&E.
I will not use this tactic again, I think it is fair to say it wasn’t the best approach. I’m actually amazed he didn’t bother answering but instead asked even more questions.
But I honestly wasn’t preconditioned to think he was a troll, he showed his true colors pretty quick. Then as I warned him, I saw the 3 recent warning and 2 suspensions. I have to check for those first for now on.
Actually, I think it’s fine that you were unaware of previous warnings. Justice should be blind, in some sense.
Thanks for the comments, What Exit. All I can say is that I was just reading along because it looked like an interesting thread, and I had no idea you were modding in your first two comments about answering the question, especially since you made general comments in two posts following that.
Looking back, I can see how the questions were tied to Akaj’s posts, but that’s not how it looked to me when I was reading the thread.
However, I’m still uneasy with a mod power to “Answer the question!”
If unfounded claims or gross exaggerations were ban worthy from GD and P&E there would be no GD or P&E. Seriously, look at how many posts in those two forums are pure opinion, even exceedingly provocative opinion yet go unchallenged much less labeled trolling.
That’s fair. Probably not a good technique to use.
Pleonast, part of modding is body of work. We don’t mod by sharp lines, if a poster that is normally solid and contributes and gets along with everyone loses their shit during a super tense election, they’re going to get a modnote and maybe a PM asking if everything is OK. If someone that racks up warnings and has had recent suspensions, they are far more likely to get another warning than just a modnote.
octopus, I am pretty sure, JAQing will not be well tolerated in any of the forums if any of us notice it. If you’re right about many BS claims being made in GD & P&E then we probably need more flags sadly to clean it up. But there is a difference between what is presented as opinion and what is presented as a fact. Rightly or wrongly I went after a post presented as a fact that was not.
The issue with JAQing (although this may be better suited for another thread) is that one man’s legit, sincere question is another man’s JAQing. It all depends on what the accuser considers to be the accuser’s “acceptable range of opinions.” Questions - even sincere, reasonable ones - that lie outside an accuser’s ‘tolerable range’, are considered JAQ’s.
Mod notes and warnings should stick to citing the broken rule. Everything else detracts from the appearance of objectivity.
Yes, what rule was broken?
I’ve had cases when someone refuses to answer my question. I’ve not tried to report it. I’ve just re-posted the questions after there’s been a lengthy non-reply, and said something like “So, you’ve got nothing.” Let the other readers in the thread draw their own conclusions.
It’s not like this is a court of law, where it’s contempt not to answer a question.
Kinda agreed, in that he probably should have just banned him from participating in the thread, rather than giving him a chance to show that he was not trolling.
I don’t think that it was a mistake to give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him a chance to back his assertions, but since this is the reaction to doing so, it probably is best to just go ahead and moderate, rather than allowing any ambiguity.
Personally, I think I prefer the idea of giving a poster a chance to explain themselves, but requiring that they actually do as a requirement to continue posting in a thread, but that doesn’t seem to be what some of the posters who are posting here in this thread will tolerate.
I disagree. We have a permanent record here for a reason - precisely because a pattern can mean the difference between good poster having a bad day vs a troll.
Well, two things.
What rule did Kearsen1 break?
And, like Velocity, I remember a mod, I think JC, saying it wasn’t his job to require posters to answer questions. Has that changed? If so, shouldn’t there have been some announcement?