# Curious when enough is enough? \[Der Trihs\] **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 15, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461 "2013-05-15T22:46:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/101 "2013-05-16T19:26:54Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Then why bother with the mod notes in the first place? To prevent things like thread hijacks. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/102 "2013-05-16T20:04:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Except for the warnings, that is. The reason for the Warning is unrelated to the reason for the mod notes. They have nothing to do with each other. > [@](#): > > To prevent things like thread hijacks. Are inflammatory hijacks against the rules? If not, then why bother mod noting him? If so, why don’t you do something besides ignoring it until the next time? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/103 "2013-05-16T20:14:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Are inflammatory hijacks against the rules? Yes, hijacking threads is against the rules. The issue here is that **Der Trihs** ’s post usually aren’t overt hijacks. He’ll post something on topic and couple it with some other large generalization that can lead to a hijack. This is what we often tell him to stop doing, and in passing I mentioned earlier that it’s something people could occasionally attempt to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/104 "2013-05-16T20:24:59Z")
> [@Nzinga\_Seated](#): > > Yes, he was. No he wasn’t. He had information that could contribute to the discussion but was unable to post it without being a smug jackass. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/105 "2013-05-16T20:26:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not eager to start making guesses about what a reasonable person ought to know while making an argument. Come on, you don’t have to make any guesses at all. Someone who isn’t mentally retarded, and is debating against people who are saying that abortion should be illegal, knows damn well that he’s debating against people who are anti-abortion. Of _course_ Der uses “anti-abortionists” or “Republicans” or “Christians” to flame those he disagrees with, because he knows full well that if he’s debating against anti-abortionists, or Republicans, or Christians, that those are the people he’s debating against. And come on, are you honestly confused as to whether or not he knows it? You think he debates people who say abortion should be illegal, and he’s honestly confused as to whether or not he’s debating anti-Abortion folks? What do you believe he thinks he’s doing, discussing topiary designs and arguing the finer points of bonsai pruning? Do you think he’s unaware of the fact that he’s arguing about abortion, with people who are anti-abortion, while he’s saying that people who’re anti abortion are scum? Again, think of what would happen if, reliable as clockwork, I didn’t simply argue my position in the I/P debate with tenacity and vehemence, but instead posted “Anybody who opposes [Israel Policy X] is an asshole”. Or “Anybody who supports the Palestinians is a son of a whore.” How would that be _any_ different from Der debating Christians and tossing out insults about Christians? How on Earth could someone intelligent enough to not have electrocuted himself by sticking a fork into an electrical outlet, truly not understand that in a debate against Christians, he’s debating people who are Christians? Isn’t that such a basic tautology as to beggar disbelief? Or, for another example, let’s say someone started a thread in ATMB criticizing a moderator’s decision. If, upon not gaining satisfaction from the results, they posted “Ah well, anybody who moderates a message board is obviously a sexual deviant who eats kittens… cute kittens!” (or substitute an actually odious insult) would that be okay? If not, how is that _any_ different from someone debating Republicans and saying “Ah well, any Republican is obviously a woman-hating freak who enjoy oppressing people”? Honestly, I’m not trying to be difficult here. I believe I started my posting in this thread by pointing out that while the “it’s okay to insult groups” rule has always rankled a bit, I’m not sure of a 100% effective strategy. But I do think that the metric I describe a bit below to Ibn is a viable one that would be easily implemented without ‘collateral damage’. I really am trying to understand the logic whereby “Those who disagree with me are morons” is in any substantive way different from “Republicans (who just so happen to be the people I’m debating against in this thread, what a coincidence!!!) are morons.” Maybe I’m just having trouble understanding what you’re getting at, but from where I sit it honestly seems like there’s a logical disconnect going on in your reasoning. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I was alluding to the fact that you, and for that matter I and probably too many other people to count, have used words like “dumb”, “stupid”, or similar terms to refer to birthers, 911 truthers etc. Definitely true. But, I think (although I wouldn’t bet a huge sum of money on it without combing through my posting history) that I’ve done that in threads about CT’s or CT’ers in general, but not where there were actual CT’ers supporting their positions. I’m pretty sure that in all the debates I’ve had with actual CT’ers or JAQ’ers, I simply engage in board-allowable levels of snark, and don’t talk about how stupid CT’ers/JAQ’ers are. _I actually think that’s a pretty good basis for a rule. You can make disparaging comments about ideologies, or off-board-with-on-board-exemplars groups in general. But in a thread where you’re actually debating against someone who holds a position, saying “all those who hold your position (or any semantic equivalent) are [pejorative]” should be counted as flaming. How is it not reasonable to expect someone to know that in a debate against people who hold a certain view, that if they say “people who hold that view are [pejorative]”, that they’re flaming their opponents in a debate?_ ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/106 "2013-05-16T20:28:26Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > No he wasn’t. He had information that could contribute to the discussion but was unable to post it without being a smug jackass. That’s \*your \*opinion… which happens to be about a poster who isn’t able to answer you. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/107 "2013-05-16T20:37:37Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Someone who isn’t mentally retarded, and is debating against people who are saying that abortion should be illegal, knows damn well that he’s debating against people who are anti-abortion. Of _course_ Der uses “anti-abortionists” or “Republicans” or “Christians” to flame those he disagrees with, because he knows full well that if he’s debating against anti-abortionists, or Republicans, or Christians, that those are the people he’s debating against. In other words, you believe the rule should be that posters can’t say anything insulting about viewpoints they would reasonably believe are represented on the board? > [@](#): > > Again, think of what would happen if, reliable as clockwork, I didn’t simply argue my position in the I/P debate with tenacity and vehemence, but instead posted “Anybody who opposes [Israel Policy X] is an asshole”. Or “Anybody who supports the Palestinians is a son of a whore.” How would that be _any_ different from Der debating Christians and tossing out insults about Christians? Because he’s commenting (rightly, wrongly, strongly) on the beliefs of a group of people instead of just calling them names. There are places where enforcing this can get complicated, but that’s not it. If **Der Trihs** regularly called people assholes and sons of whores he’d have been gone long ago. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/108 "2013-05-16T20:38:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, hijacking threads is against the rules. The issue here is that **Der Trihs** ’s post usually aren’t overt hijacks. He’ll post something on topic and couple it with some other large generalization that can lead to a hijack. Is repeatedly posting large, inflammatory generalizations that can lead to a hijack against the rules? > [@](#): > > I mentioned earlier that it’s something people could occasionally attempt to ignore. Occasionally? Sure, no problem. How about if it happens over and over again? And if the poster in question ignores mod notes that are intended to prevent the behavior from happening in the future? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/109 "2013-05-16T20:42:26Z")
I don’t see how what he normally serves us isn’t ‘being a jerk’…it pretty obviously IS being a jerk when you call large groups of people, some of which are posting in question in those groups. He regularly calls all Republicans evil…and broadens that to all Americans and anyone who is religious…knowing full well that at least some of the folks posting in a given thread ARE Republicans, the religious and Americans. Equally obviously, however, is the Mods don’t see it that way and are giving him a pass. Yeah, he’s been warned and given Mod notes, but this behavior pattern has been going on for literally years with no escalation…I don’t believe DT has even been suspended for his behavior. He really has no incentive to change his behavior, since his general insults are just blown off. The only thing he needs to be careful of is gaming the board rules wrt personal insults…which he’s clever enough to do (as are most veteran 'dopers at this point who’ve managed to survive as long as he has on this board). Basically, I think this gets back to the fact that his world view coincides with the corporate culture of the majority of the board. He’s pro-science, he’s anti-religious, and he hates Republicans and conservatives. He basically hit’s all the high points, and the fact that he’s such a fanatic about his views just means that his methods have even liberals rolling their eyes…but his basic points, taking the hyperbole out, strikes a cord with most posters. As a personal for instance…I’m an agnostic. So, while I generally cringe when he joins in religious debates, I’m sympathetic to his view point. I also know how he is, so I automatically filter out his ridiculous hyperbole when I see his posts on religion, knowing that his comic book views are how he really sees the world. Obviously I don’t take offense, since his baseline view is similar to mine…and, again, I know how he is so I automatically filter it. Since his baseline views on most things coincide with the majority of Mods AND posters, he gets a pass overall from Mods and posters alike. And complaints from whoever has their Gore Oxed. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/110 "2013-05-16T20:43:01Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So, is your position that the mods should lift the rules forbidding us from insulting other posters outside of the pit? I’d be for that. But with the caveat that they have to be interesting insults. No “You suck!” but more along the lines of “I would sooner have sex with a she-wolverine than listen to your drivel” > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which is why I didn’t argue with you about the matter and have tried to remember to avoid using “you” in the general sense since then. > > I lie poorly, and the latter is what I genuinely believe. And the former is an exaggeration of my beliefs; however, the religious people who _don’t_ hate women are largely silent in this country so they really don’t come up much. They’ve long since ceded the public face of American religion to the right wingers, who most certainly do hate women. Maybe if you said what you say, but do it nicer. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/111 "2013-05-16T20:43:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Is repeatedly posting large, inflammatory generalizations that can lead to a hijack against the rules? That’s kind of a tough call and it’s generally handled on an as-needed basis. Which is why we’re having this thread, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/112 "2013-05-16T21:02:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s kind of a tough call and it’s generally handled on an as-needed basis. Doesn’t seem to be working too well, does it? If and when the mods decide to do something different, it might be interesting to ask why it went on for as long as it has. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/113 "2013-05-16T21:11:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Doesn’t seem to be working too well, does it? If and when the mods decide to do something different, it might be interesting to ask why it went on for as long as it has. I think it’s probably worked about as well as it’s going to. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/114 "2013-05-16T21:13:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In other words, you believe the rule should be that posters can’t say anything insulting about viewpoints they would reasonably believe are represented on the board? No Marley, that’s a very weird interpretation of what I wrote. I’m most certainly not claiming that someone can’t insult viewpoints that might be held on the Dope. I clarified that explicitly in what I said to Ibn, that I asked you to look at. I’ll requote it in a moment, but even in what you quoted, you seem to be missing my point. I’ll highlight: > [@](#): > > Someone who isn’t mentally retarded, and is debating against people who are saying that abortion should be illegal, knows damn well that he’s debating against people who are anti-abortion. Of course Der uses “anti-abortionists” or “Republicans” or “Christians” to flame those he disagrees with, because he knows full well that if he’s debating against anti-abortionists, or Republicans, or Christians, that those are the people he’s debating against. Do you really disagree with this? Do you really believe that it requires “guessing” to know if Der realizes he’s debating anti-abortionists in a thread where people say abortion should be illegal? Honestly? And to Ibn: > [@](#): > > I actually think that’s a pretty good basis for a rule. You can make disparaging comments about ideologies, or off-board-with-on-board-exemplars groups in general. But in a thread where you’re actually debating against someone who holds a position, saying “all those who hold your position (or any semantic equivalent) are [pejorative]” should be counted as flaming. How is it not reasonable to expect someone to know that in a debate against people who hold a certain view, that if they say “people who hold that view are [pejorative]”, that they’re flaming their opponents in a debate? I think that’s pretty clear, Marley. Der, or anybody else, can rant and rave all he wants about Comic Book Villain Christian and Evil Genius Anti-Abortionists and Nefarious Conservatives, or what you. But if they are debating Christians, or anti-abortionists, or conservatives in a specific thread, then they cannot say that the people they’re debating are [pejorative], as that’s flaming. I mean, honestly, if I said “Well, to be fair, people who moderate internet message boards all rape dogs and eat babies, and sometimes the other way around”, would you truly be confused as to whether or not I realized that I was debating with a moderator? I mean, really? Truly? That seems like a pretty clear, bright line with zero ambiguity. If you’re debating against someone who holds a position/belongs to a group, and you know they hold it/belong to a group _because that’s the position that they’re arguing or they tell you they’re a member of that group_, then saying “People who hold your position/are member of your group are [pejorative]” is a flame. Seriously, I will immediately concede my entire argument and enthusiastically support whatever you say if you can give me a rational explanation of how Der doesn’t realize that when he debates people who say “abortion should be illegal”, that he’s debating against people who think that abortion should be illegal. And when he says “people who think abortion should be illegal are evil motherfuckers who are extra evil and have evil sprinkles on top”, in that thread, that he doesn’t realize that he’s referring to the people in the thread who’re saying that abortion should be illegal. I really do not understand how you can argue your position, it doesn’t seem to be based on any choate logic that I can discern. But maybe that’s just because everybody named Marley is [pejorative], and they can hardly help themselves, the poor dears. Right? I mean, how can I even be expected to know I’m discussing something with someone named Marley. It’s a mystery, I deserve the benefit of the doubt. Yes? > [@Marley23](#): > > Because he’s commenting (rightly, wrongly, strongly) on the beliefs of a group of people instead of just calling them names. But direct personal insults are against the rules, _not_ direct personal insults that happen to use naughty words. I mean, come on, when Der says “And if the government so ordered I’m quite sure you and your fellow veterans would have cheerfully lined me up against a wall and killed me.” How is he _not_ flaming his opponent and calling him a potential cheerful murderer? When Der says “The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don’t care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else’s. They care about guns. Period.” how is he _not_ flaming his opponents in the thread and saying that they wouldn’t even care if their own children were murdered, because they’re so infatuated with guns? Is it okay for me to post in GD “Folks who support Palestinian causes are cheerfully murderous people who do not care about their own children and would gladly see them die for the sake of inanimate objects”? I’d sure hope not, right? I mean, I’d be flaming my opponents even if I didn’t use the word “asshole”, wouldn’t I? So isn’t Der doing the same exact thing? If not, _why not - specifically, and explicitly, and with a clear bright line, how is that at all substantively different_? ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/115 "2013-05-16T21:17:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Doesn’t seem to be working too well, does it? If and when the mods decide to do something different, it might be interesting to ask why it went on for as long as it has. > > Regards, > Shodan You’ve made thousands of liberal-bashing posts and you’re still here. Why should Der Trihs be treated differently. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/116 "2013-05-16T21:20:27Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > You’ve made thousands of liberal-bashing posts and you’re still here. Why should Der Trihs be treated differently. Can you link to some examples of Shodan’s posts along the lines of those shown in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/117 "2013-05-16T21:27:27Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Do you really disagree with this? Do you really believe that it requires “guessing” to know if Der realizes he’s debating anti-abortionists in a thread where people say abortion should be illegal? Honestly? No, that doesn’t require guessing. I was speaking more generally. I think at this point you’re more obvious instances that already get modded sometimes. > [@](#): > > I mean, honestly, if I said “Well, to be fair, people who moderate internet message boards all rape dogs and eat babies, and sometimes the other way around”, would you truly be confused as to whether or not I realized that I was debating with a moderator? Again- that’s generally not what **Der Trihs** does. He’s more likely to comment on what people believe, not make a comparison that’s obviously insulting like the examples you keep using. > [@](#): > > If not, _why not - specifically, and explicitly, and with a clear bright line, how is that at all substantively different_? I already explained what we do and why. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/118 "2013-05-16T21:40:42Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Can you link to some examples of Shodan’s posts along the lines of those shown in the OP? Why? The point is whether or not it’s against the rules. Volume doesn’t really matter. Some seem to think that Der Tris bashing his opponents in GD is particularly unacceptable. Maybe GD should have higher standards. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/119 "2013-05-16T21:49:59Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > Some seem to think that Der Tris bashing his opponents in GD is particularly unacceptable. Maybe GD should have higher standards. Are you saying that there shouldn’t be rules against trolling and insulting other posters in GD? If you’re arguing that “Der Trihs bashing his opponents in GD” is “acceptable”, that seems to be what you’re saying. After all, don’t those count as “bashing” one’s opponents? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/120 "2013-05-16T22:06:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I thought the issue was **Der Trihs** getting a lot of mod notes and not a lot of warnings. Where do whims play into that? The “whim” is when a mod note, rather than a warning, is given. I think a lot of us don’t understand how repeated behavior that gets mod’ed isn’t simply **always warned** after some point. But not just “some point”-- after posting that generates mod action pretty much every few weeks for years on end. Per the title: WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH? Because it appears that “knock it off” applies only to the next few hours, not to the next few days or weeks. At least for one particular poster. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461.md?page=7)