I don’t get it. This is a common phrase. It has been used many times by various people on the SDMB without penalty. I don’t see why it is worth even a mod note, let alone a warning.
Examples:
**DrDeth **has used the exact same phrase several times without ever getting a note.
1, 2, 3
Or this postfrom DSeid:
Or consider:
Since none of these were moderated, and there are probably many others, what was so bad about CarnalK’s post?
I won’t comment on that particular sequence, but CarnalK had earned a spot on my (very short) Ignore list by being the sort of guy who was always looking to argue over relative trivialities. I’ll miss Shodan more than I’ll miss him.
How many of those examples came after a suspension? I’d imagine it wasn’t the words themselves but the context. People just coming off suspensions should have a much shorter leash.
None of those posts were in a forum I moderate except for Exapno Mapcase’s. His remark did not say that the other poster himself was babbling, but was referring to “babbling internet bullshit.” It is not the same kind of remark as CarnalK’s.
CarnalK’s post was in the Quarantine Zone (as was Exapno’s). We try to hold that forum to close to GQ standards. The other posts were in GD, Politics and Elections, IMHO, and ATMB, where looser standards apply. I don’t know if any of those other posts were reported.
The primary meaning of babble is “to talk rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited, or incomprehensible way.” It is clearly meant to be insulting. CarnalK definitely meant it as such.
I took this seriously because CarnalK was back only a few months from a 30 day suspension, and he should have been on his best behavior. The thing is, this sort of thing has been habitual for CarnalK for his entire time on the board. He was constantly making these kinds of obnoxious, snarky, and jerkish comments. He had accumulated 19 warnings in his time here, and I don’t know how many notes. I believe his banning was more than a decade overdue, as did others on the staff. That remark made it clear he had no intention of changing his behavior, and action was taken accordingly.
“What are you babbling about?” is a phrase with a clear meaning that means that the post of reference, the what is being said, is nonsensical in the context of the conversation. Which was, IMHO, a completely accurate assessment of the complete irrelevance of the post that it was in reference to. asahi’s “Riiight.” was OTOH snark directed at a poster. Huh. No comment made.
CarnalK’s comment was an attack on the post not the poster. (Even if you disagree with the assessment that asahi’s snide crap comments to Telperion’s points was such.)
And it was a very mild attack at that.
Your post Colibri pretty clearly states that you feel he should have been banned long ago so were looking for something to use, no matter how trivial. That’s … weak.
This was not even close to any line. Given that you are so sure he would continue to be jerkish, far better ban based on actual jerkish action rather than be the jerk with this sort of action.
Please reconsider this decision.
Yeah, I am afraid I have used that term several times. It is directed at the post, clearly, when the post goes off into some odd area or doesn’t make sense.
Does this mean I can use it anymore? 
Long-time posters seem to be getting banned left and right lately over incredibly soft language, thats my observation anyway.
It was an insult to the poster, not the post.
Note the “you” tied to the “babbling”.
Agreed. And I think mods need to think of the larger context. This board is not exactly attracting new members at a rapid pace. It will soon go through a disruptive change. At least consider reducing perma-bans to longish bans of 3 or 6 months.
In the first place it seems to me to be entirely similar. If anything, EM’s post was the worse of the two. CK’s post said nothing about “bullshit.”
But, leaving that aside, banning someone requires a consensus of moderators. Presumably several moderators who voted for it moderate the forums where the messages I listed were posted. Perhaps they would like to explain why they thought this post was worth a ban, but didn’t moderate any of the other ones.
And several other people have used the exact same phrase, or similar ones, without it being considered a breach of board rules. Or do you think the ones I listed should have got warnings?
It’s a good thing I came across this thread, I nearly used the phrase “what are you babbling on about X?” today when Little Nemo was literally, well, spouting nonsense to make a point in our debate about semantics. I can’t guarantee that I’ll catch myself in the future, because to me it’s just a normal phrase. I’ve used the phrase in real-life debates when I don’t feel like saying “what is this nonsense about X”, for the same effect. Compare with what (I think) is a British mannerism, “what are you (going) on about”, all spoken at that high pitch normally reserved for the end of a question.
I had a sticky in my office with a list of verboten words and phrases while on the SDMB, but that is inaccessible under my current circumstances.
~Max
We’ve long had the idea that you can insult off-board people in ways you can’t insult posters. EM didn’t say anything about a poster babbling, he called an off-board source “babbling bullshit”.
So no, not “entirely similar”
Are you just waking up to the fact that you can get away with more banter in other forums than you can in GQ (and by extension, the QZ)? That’s a weird look on someone who has been posting for 17 years.
How many of those were on thin ice from suspensions?
Moderation is not some unvarying algorithm. The sooner people realise that, the happier they’ll be.
But given the context of the conversation, you *knew *why **Nemo **was posting nonsense sentences. So why would you ask him that?
Nope:
"It’s your claim. You haven’t even said where you heard it, despite being asked directly. If you want us to believe in what seems to be babbling internet bullshit, you’re the one who has to back up what you post. "
EM was attacking the claims made by poster Jim Peebles. He said that JP’s post was babbling bullshit. Note that JP had not given an off-board source for his claims.
An entirely irrelevant distinction. Either the words “What are you babbling about” are an insult, or they aren’t. Coming off suspension, or not, doesn’t change that.
He had earlier referred to Wikipedia, and a pre-Covid “article”. That was what **Nemo **was referencing. That he couldn’t cite those sources was why it was “bullshit”. It’s a technical term.
Can change whether you get a Note, a Warning, or just a “Knock it off”.
Also, can change whether people are motivated to report you, or not.
So, not irrelevant at all.
Egads, I find myself in agreement with **Peter Morris **. Something is way off here.
“What are you babbling about?” seems completely innocuous to me. It is not a statement about a person’s character, like calling someone a “liar”. He didn’t even say “You’re a babbler,” which would be the same format as “liar”. He described the poster’s *behavior *.
What’s next, the inability to call out any confused, nonsensical posting? Nonsense.
Look, I don’t know if CarnalK has been living on borrowed time. It seems the moderators think so. But this remark is so trivial, it doesn’t even merit a “whoah, somebody got taken down,” nevermind moderator action.
“You’re not making sense.” “That’s silly.” “Nonsense.” “I can’t even.” “What are you talking about?” “Your post is an incoherent mess.”
All of those are acceptable standard responses when someone’s post seems unrelated and incomprehensible. “Babbling” is right there at that level.
I don’t know if CarnalK would ever change his behavior, but this is not an example of jerkitude. Cite him for an actual transgression, or just kick him of for accumulated past behavior, but don’t make up excuses.
I’m pretty sure I’ve referred to a brook as babbling, and for that I apologize.
The list of posters who have used babbling to describe a poster; were they reported, but not warned?
Not in GQ, they’re not. And **Colibri **has said the GQ standards apply to QZ
I agree that this warning was unwarranted and should not be used to ban a poster.
“What are you babbling about” seems to attack the post to me – it’s an attack on what the poster is saying (“babbling”), not saying the poster is a babbler in general. “The post appears to be the arrant nonsense of a babbling buffoon”, while seeming to attack the post (“this post”), is actually an attack on the poster, whereas CarnalK post seems to attack the post to me.
Even setting that aside, the insult, if there was one, is so mild as to not be an insult at all.
I think CarnalK may be a bit harsh sometimes, but is generally a valuable poster, who argues truthfully, brings facts, and engages honestly. He’s a much better contributor to this board than some of the posters who do nothing but post drive-by snark, don’t back up their arguments, don’t engage in discussion, and don’t respond to posts correcting their errors.
Anyway, that’s the extent of my white knight efforts here. I’ve tried it once to no avail.
ETA: It’s news to me that QZ is an offshoot of GQ. It doesn’t seem to be generally moderated that way.
I’ve been spending a fair amount of my time here recently in QZ. Since it started. My experience is that political potshots are clearly discouraged but otherwise “banter” has been permitted. And I am pretty sure that I’ve read many examples of responses in GQ being called out as nonsensical.
asahi had been snarky (which I see lots in QZ and seems to be fine there) and then proceeded to post a post that babbled on unrelated to the specific issue being discussed at that time. Calling out that post as the babbling it was is completely within the norms of QZ as it has existed.
QZ is NOT GQ. It is a hybrid which includes elements of GQ MPSIMS, IMHO, and GD, united by theme. Different threads are more one than the other. No one would read the specific thread that this comment was in and think it would have otherwise been a fit for GQ. GD or IMHO possibly.
Read through that thread. Within that thread that post doesn’t even register as banter. By the standards that Colibri is claiming several of us (and I’d include myself) should have been getting warnings. We did not even get notes because QZ is not GQ. There are debates and humble opinions and more there.
No request for an unvarying algorithm made, but this is switching from from Euclidean to non-Euclidean based only on a mod not liking a poster or as a way to relitigate past rulings by kicking out a taillight.