Not sure why he brought that up originally, because he said in post #25 that factual statements can be insulting.
I’m content to let this go now, and thanks all for the feedback, and especially those who saw my side of it. But I just want to respond to some of the recent comments that arose in the interim, specifically focused on the one below, because it seems that not everyone is clear on my original argument and my defense of it. I’m more than happy to let this whole thing die but I do want to ensure clarity about what I was originally saying, and especially to dispel the notion that I was intentionally trying to do something underhanded.
The interpretation in question is the one that I gave in the OP when I said that I was “disparaging his arguments, and specifically disparaging the series of statements that I had just listed” rather than intending to disparage the poster.
Measure for Measure summed it up well:
The allegation was that wolfpup’s respondent was focusing on irrelevant factual corrections, while dodging the main argument, which was unaffected by said factual corrections. To curb such discourse makes the fight against ignorance more difficult.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19591456&postcount=13
The purpose of the silly poem was to sarcastically highlight that fact, the original Ogden Nash poem being a harmless bit of doggerel about a language purist.
The question that I originally asked is what part of this was insulting enough to garner a warning, and the interesting thing is that no one seems to exactly agree.
The original warning seemed to highlight the “OCD pattern of argumentation” phrase, but as I described, that was a criticism of what I felt was an obsessive and pedantic style of argument, as MfM noted above, and not against the poster.
Then there was the implication that it was the poem. Perhaps the fact that I had customized it with poster’s name gave offense. Maybe it was perceived as a stealth effort to inject an insult. But I just saw it as a creative way to poke fun at the style of argument the poster was using.
Then there was the assertion that it was the “humor-impaired” phrase that was a clear insult. But the adjective “humor-impaired” has been directly applied to other posters on the SDMB in the past without consequence, such as here and here and here, so one can at least say that not everyone shares the belief that it’s an insult. We also commonly say that someone has been “whooshed” and we might say that someone doesn’t get the joke or seems often not to get jokes and it’s not clear that any of those are necessarily insults, either. Some might even agree with it as applying to themselves.
As some have surmised, it wasn’t my primary intent here to try to get the warning reversed – it’s not like I’m trying to maintain a reserve so I can unleash insults in the future! It was just what I said it was – an expression of genuine surprise and an interest in broader feedback, which I have received, both positive and negative.
Emphasis mine. LHoD, you wrote that to someone else in defense of one of your own posts. I quote it here just to say that I would have been grateful to have had such a charitable interpretation of my own post and intentions.
Firstly, just because something wasn’t moderated doesn’t mean it’s OK. There is no telling whether those were reported. They’re also all 5 years old or older, and there has been an effort in the last 2 years or so to make GD more civil than it had been in the past by being a bit more strict in enforcing the rules. I think you probably know that, but maybe not. Look at the recent thread Bricker started in this forum.
Your most recent cite is from 2011, and none of the cites are from Great Debates. Are you unaware of the shift in civility in Great Debates, and of the higher standard it’s being held to, especially in terms of what gets warned?
Being whooshed describes an event, not a personality trait. Are you clear on the difference between them?
A charitable reading does not mean that no judgment is applied. It simply means that if there are multiple reasonable, plausible interpretations of a post, you choose the best one. In your case, it’s unambiguous that “humor-impaired” is a negative trait you’re using to describe Bone’s personality. That’s exactly what an insult is. There’s no charitable reading by which that isn’t an insult.
I agree. But we also run the risk of getting rid of interesting posters who actually contribute. If this had been a simple mod Note, I would concur. Whenever a Mod has to impute motives that aren’t clear, it’s never a time for a Warning. That is what Note are for.* “This appears like some sort of veiled personal insult. Those are not tolerated in GD. No warning issued, but you need to dial it back and tone it down.”*
“Humor-impaired” is not veiled.
Nor is it an insult. Some people just dont have a very good sense of humor. There’s no shame in it, nothing wrong with it, they are not ostracized from police society, no approbation. People are different.
It’s like saying “he doesn’t like Opera” Or " he takes things too seriously". Personal observations, sure, but not insults.
Would it be an insult to say you are argumentative?
I am.
Yes it is.
OK, look, I don’t want to seem like I’m insisting on bickering over these issues, rather than just trying to amicably conclude the discussion, but I feel compelled to object to some of the observations that are being made, to wit:
-
“humor-impaired” was never called out as the reason for the warning, so I don’t know why you keep focusing on that one term as the reason the warning was justified.
-
I’ve cited three occasions where “humor-impaired” was used in the past without even a comment or mod note. John Mace suggested that perhaps mods never saw it, but the first of those threads where someone was called “humor-impaired” included Marley23 as an active participant, and the second one was actually directed AT RickJay. It’s hardly plausible that mods didn’t see it!
-
You stated that the most recent cite is from 2011 and that things have changed. Yes, but isn’t it also fair to point out that the last update to the rules in GD was 2008? Of course I’m aware that JC has been applying stricter standards than mods in other forums, but equally obviously (at least I hope it’s obvious) I didn’t think that post was over the line, for the reasons I cited, or I wouldn’t have made it.
To be fair, in retrospect (in which things are always clearer) the respondent poster’s sense of humor or lack thereof didn’t add anything to my argument and it would have been best to omit it, insulting or not. And I can see how “OCD” could be taken the wrong way and I would substitute some comment to the effect of “the argument is persistently focused on an irrelevant detail that has nothing to do with the real issue at hand” which at least is not subject to misinterpretation.
But really, the whole gist of my post was to post a funny (IMO) variant of an Ogden Nash poem as a humorous way of highlighting what I regarded as the poster’s relentless and irrelevant pedantry. What if I had just posted the original, unaltered Nash poem without the preceding commentary (which was actually what I had before I embellished it)? Would that have been OK? Or should I also assume there is also some unwritten rule to the effect of “don’t try to be funny when criticizing someone’s argument, and especially don’t try to be creatively funny”? I think it would have been OK, but I can’t be sure. Unwritten rules are like that.
RickJay became a moderator in 2011. That thread was from 2006.
Marley became a moderator in 2008. Just a few months before that thread, but he was in MPSISMS, not CS. Different forum, Different Date, not a moderator for that Forum.
I find that word to be the clearest example of insult in your post, but also consider the OCD comment to be over the line. The poem was also used to insult Bone.
Creatively criticizing a post would involve comparing the post to a foolish utterance. You coopted another poem (an act I didn’t find especially clever or creative, but that’s not really relevant) in order to compare Bone to the professor in the poem. That’s not criticizing the post, that’s criticizing the poster.
It’s possible to be clever and creative in a post in great debates without overstepping limits. If I got warned for an attempt to be clever and creative, I’d probably back away from making such attempts in the future.
Which is incidentally what happened to me awhile ago. I sarcastically suggested that another poster was intellectually disabled. My post only made sense if it was read with the implication, “Of COURSE you’re not intellectually disabled, therefore comparing yourself to someone who IS intellectually disabled is a terrible comparison!” Without that implication, my post would have been a complete non sequitur. However, Chance didn’t appreciate that implication, so I got a warning. So I’ve drastically toned down that sort of sarcasm in GD.
Your case, I think, is a much clearer case of straightforward insults.
Just to summarize my take on this:
-
It would have been much better had JC focused on the “humor-impaired” part than on the “OCD” part, as I think the “OCD” part was questionable as to being an insult or not.
-
The rules have been tighter in GD specifically in the past few years. Comparing what happened in other forums 5 years ago is not really relevant, even if a moderator had seen the phrase in question.
-
It’s always a mod judgment call whether to issue a warning or a note, so this is completely MHO: A note would have been better, especially since there was heat being generated by both posters and they were s clearly locked in an argument without an end. Best to just tell them both to calm down. But I don’t see wolfpup as the sort of poster who is going to spiral downward into a warnings tornado, so chalk it up to a learning experience and move on. One warning doesn’t mean much.
I can agree with all that–including with the idea that a note might have been a better approach. Especially if both sides were locking horns (I only read the warned post and the warning, staying out of gun control threads like a pregnant woman in a Zika neighborhood).
I will concur here, thanks for being a voice of reason. that isnt meant as a insult!
I want to say that yes, our Op stepped very close to being over the line IMHO, and so a Mod stepping in was a good idea.
Just to clarify - I consider accusations of mental illness to be insulting and consequently I reported it. Other people may have reported it as well but I am not privy to that information. I’ve personally worked extensively in the field of mental health and it’s something I don’t joke about. The other items in the post like the humor/sarcasm, and the poem etc. by themselves would not have caused me to report a post. I chose this course of action rather than respond tit for tat which is frowned on.
Calling out factual errors no matter how relevant has always seemed welcome on the board and is one of the things I appreciate.
That explains why that part of it was called out in the warning. Thank you for the clarification, Bone. It makes more sense now, notwithstanding that it wasn’t my intent, but intent isn’t always the whole story. And I apologized for the offense that it caused, though at the time I didn’t quite understand why it had caused it.
Thanks, John, that seems to wrap it up nicely. And thanks LHoD – we seem to have this strange relationship where I agree with your positions most of the time and appreciate your often eloquent posts, yet we keep having spectacular clashes over (as you recently said) unimportant stuff! So I will choose to ignore your personal insult that my fabulous poem was “an act I didn’t find especially clever or creative”. 
Anyone can see that that thing was a work of art!
Thanks DrDeth, BigT, and others for supporting my side.
All we need now is a benevolent mod to close this. Stick a fork in it – it’s done.
Just to be clear… when you mention “mental illness” are you talking about the OCD reference or something else? Not to make light of OCD, but people often use that term in a non-clinical sense. It would never have occurred to me that the poster thought you literally suffered from OCD.
Yes, I am connecting OCD with mental illness.
I agree with John here. I am a little “ocd” myself, I always have to double check I locked the door. Yes, there is a mental disorder by this name, but there’s no way our Op was indicating that.