# Context While Modding
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690
**Category:** About This Message Board
**Created:** [August 15, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690 "2018-08-15T21:58:08Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/21 "2018-08-16T15:48:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> There are obvious insults and they are easy to deal with. Much of the time, though, comments can and should be dismissed as “what you just \*said \*is dumb” rather than “you are a stupid poopyhead.” That won’t change the civility of a thread. Contentious threads aren’t civil in the first place. Mods can still come in and tell everybody to tone it down. Pretty much everything would stay the same except that the mods wouldn’t have to mind-read intent. Nor would they have to go back and read through every post to parse who exactly said what to whom that is being referred to by third parties and commented on by fourth. We know that happens because very often mods explicitly say they don’t have time to do that.
To me, it’s an obvious insult when someone insults a person. What makes an insult obvious to you?
Here’s some context from that thread:
> [@How likely is this scenario? Global warming at 4C](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-this-scenario-global-warming-at-4c/819484/17):
>
> Odd. I would have expected an expert of your magnitude to be able to read the caption on a chart. That first diagram clearly says “ **present** climate.”
>
> Most of the rest of us would therefore read on to the **second** diagram, which has the projected future aridification that I mention.
That looks like sarcasm directed at the same poster to me. The post that is in the OP comes after that. That makes the comment look more like an insult to me.
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> It’s a small change, a matter of kicking the line over a bit, and certainly not erasing it.
What would that change look like? How would you define that line?
So far, I’m not following how you would know which insults are obvious.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/22 "2018-08-16T15:48:30Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> Unless the rule is changed. Rules can be changed. Much larger rules have recently been changed.
There was a valid reason to change those other rules. I see no valid reason to change this one. It’s simple, effective, and easy to follow/moderate.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/23 "2018-08-16T22:00:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> Unless the rule is changed. Rules can be changed. Much larger rules have recently been changed.
You think we should change the “insult the post, not the poster” rule because you were unable to write clearly which you meant? :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/24 "2018-08-16T22:16:41Z")
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> You think we should change the “insult the post, not the poster” rule because you were unable to write clearly which you meant? :dubious:
Is there anything gained by this use of snark to ignore the argument someone’s actually making and make it sound ridiculous?
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/25 "2018-08-16T22:32:36Z")
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> You think we should change the “insult the post, not the poster” rule because you were unable to write clearly which you meant? :dubious:
It honestly frightens me that so many people are insisting they know nothing about context.
You might want to look at all the other threads that have shown up in ATMB recently. Virtually all of them are screaming battles about mods not mind-reading properly. Was it an insult? Was it about an individual or group? What is an insult, anyway? Who can say what about whom? Women are complaining that misogyny is ignored. LGBTQ people say they are being bashed. People of color point out rampant bigotry. Political parties and ideologies are vilified daily, but let’s all pretend that nobody ever means that a poster of that persuasion is at the butt of the insult.
Stop making this about me. I’m going to bow out now. You can close this thread or not.
Just remember, I’m not slamming the mods. On the contrary, I’m saying that the increasing frustration with their rule enforcement is a signal that the rules are the problem. Now is the opportunity to make sweeping changes to make your lives better. I’m on your side. Go for it.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/26 "2018-08-16T22:34:46Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> Is there anything gained by this use of snark to ignore the argument someone’s actually making and make it sound ridiculous?
**Exapno** is attempting to blame the fact that he wasn’t understood on the reader, rather on that he failed to write clearly. That’s relevant to the issue.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/27 "2018-08-16T22:38:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> It honestly frightens me that so many people are insisting they know nothing about context.
One shouldn’t have to parse a statement so carefully. Say clearly what you mean and the problem won’t arise. The basic problem in the case in the OP is that you failed to write clearly.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/28 "2018-08-16T23:06:26Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> Unless the rule is changed. Rules can be changed. Much larger rules have recently been changed.
Let’s see your proposed rule change. So far, you’ve been harping on “context” as your escape clause. But it appears to me that the context of **Stranger’s** post makes it more obvious that you broke the rule.
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2018, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/29 "2018-08-16T23:47:33Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> It honestly frightens me that so many people are insisting they know nothing about context.
>
> You might want to look at all the other threads that have shown up in ATMB recently. Virtually all of them are screaming battles about mods not mind-reading properly. Was it an insult? Was it about an individual or group? What is an insult, anyway? Who can say what about whom? Women are complaining that misogyny is ignored. LGBTQ people say they are being bashed. People of color point out rampant bigotry. Political parties and ideologies are vilified daily, but let’s all pretend that nobody ever means that a poster of that persuasion is at the butt of the insult.
>
> Stop making this about me. I’m going to bow out now. You can close this thread or not.
>
> Just remember, I’m not slamming the mods. On the contrary, I’m saying that the increasing frustration with their rule enforcement is a signal that the rules are the problem. Now is the opportunity to make sweeping changes to make your lives better. I’m on your side. Go for it.
I’m not sure that’s the actual common property these threads and discussions have in common. If we were judging by context, from a variety of sources, I’d say this is a continuation of an ongoing effort to manipulate the structure of the board into one where clear rules are replaced with subjectivity which would be highly influenced by an extraordinarily persistent and vocal minority. Taking context into account and all.
---
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/30 "2018-08-17T13:05:51Z")
What a lovingly fallacious gulf you’ve constructed between “Clear rules” and “subjectivity” there… as if the moderation isn’t _currently_ subjective in any case. It’s just a subjectivity that favours racists and misogynists (up till recently, although I’m noticing backsliding even there).
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/31 "2018-08-17T17:12:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> What a lovingly fallacious gulf you’ve constructed between “Clear rules” and “subjectivity” there… as if the moderation isn’t _currently_ subjective in any case. It’s just a subjectivity that favours racists and misogynists (up till recently, although I’m noticing backsliding even there).
That statement isn’t quite true. Neutrality with a slight antipathy is not favor. You and a few others are just upset that your crusade to have a narrow subset of ostensibly bigoted posts ruthlessly moderated isn’t met with universal agreement.
---
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/32 "2018-08-17T20:10:44Z")
> [@octopus](#):
>
> Neutrality with a slight antipathy is not favor.
“Neutrality” - sure, mate, whatever you say.
---
### Author:  [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/33 "2018-08-17T20:16:19Z")
> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> “Neutrality” - sure, mate, whatever you say.
In a thread about “context” I find your post ironic.
---
### Author:  [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/34 "2018-08-17T20:31:29Z")
I find your latest a _non sequitur,_ but that’s a burden I’m willing to bear.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/35 "2018-08-17T21:35:17Z")
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> **Exapno** is attempting to blame the fact that he wasn’t understood on the reader, rather on that he failed to write clearly. That’s relevant to the issue.
I didn’t say it was irrelevant. I said it was deliberately snarky and changing what he said to sound ridiculous. I argue that such things do not actually serve any purpose in resolving the tension.
To me, it seems entirely a miscommunication. **tom** doesn’t actually think he crossed the line, or he would have given him a Warning. He could do well to be more clear in his moderation: e.g., “That almost looks like you’re crossing the line between attacking the post and the poster. Please be more careful.”
But, hey, if I say it the way I am now, then I’m preachy or whatever, so I never know I should make suggestions.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/36 "2018-08-18T03:12:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> It’s a weird feature of “attack the post, not the poster”. You can say almost the same thing (which you did), but if you aim your comment at the poster instead of the post (which you also did), then you’ve stepped over the line.
This reminds me of a warning I received. A poster said that he never told lies. I pointed out an example where he had told a lie in that thread.
I was given a warning because I had called another poster a liar. Which I had done. But keep in mind I didn’t just say “You’re a liar” or “You tell lies” - I cited a specific statement that he had made where he had said something that was a lie.
To this day I don’t see how you can refute a post where somebody says they never lie without saying that person tells lies. I just accepted the warning and dropped out of the debate. Because this seems to be an insurmountable Catch-22; if somebody posts that they never tell a lie, you’re not allowed to argue the point.
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2018, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/37 "2018-08-18T11:29:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> This reminds me of a warning I received. A poster said that he never told lies. I pointed out an example where he had told a lie in that thread.
>
> I was given a warning because I had called another poster a liar. Which I had done. But keep in mind I didn’t just say “You’re a liar” or “You tell lies” - I cited a specific statement that he had made where he had said something that was a lie.
>
> To this day I don’t see how you can refute a post where somebody says they never lie without saying that person tells lies. I just accepted the warning and dropped out of the debate. Because this seems to be an insurmountable Catch-22; if somebody posts that they never tell a lie, you’re not allowed to argue the point.
“Your post is a liar” … problem solved …
---
### Author:  [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2018, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690/38 "2018-08-19T03:55:49Z")
Setting aside the application of the rules, here’s the policy proposal:
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> The default should be that “you” means “your words.” People can and do insult the poster rather than their words, but they almost always have to go out of their way to be explicit about it.
Ok, let me test this out. I’m going to indent to make it clear that “You” within the indented area does NOT refer to the OP, any poster in this thread, or even you, dear reader.
## [INDENT] [del]You[/del] Your words are an idiot. [/INDENT] Ok, this is easy: since “Your words are an idiot” is nonsensical, this overrides the default and can be modded as an insult. [INDENT] Why don’t [del]you[/del] your words pick up a fucking book some time? [/INDENT]Ditto [INDENT] There is nothing borderline about [del]your[/del] your words’ personality [/INDENT] Ditto.
Ok, I say Exapno’s proposal could work. But would it involve _more_ of my brain cycles rather than fewer? Currently, I edit my posts to substitute “You suck” with “Your argument sucks bad weed.”[sup]1[/sup] With the rule change it wouldn’t be a 1 decision process. I would have to figure out whether “Your words suck,” is sensical or not. Then proceed accordingly.
I agree that posters need to take some care before submitting their work to GD or Elections. I agree with Exapno that this is a good time to consider tacking towards civility, incivility, or simplicity. I don’t think the proposal is awful. But it doesn’t pass my C/B test. YMMV, etc etc.
[sup]1[/sup]Hey! I’m discussing medical marijuana! Context people!
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/context-while-modding/819690.md?page=1)