Not personal -my original post was about the kind of people who start threads about DT, not about anyone who objects to him. The point was that there’s a certain amount of ox-goring that seems to have to happen, or at least lately, and that seems to mean the people DT most opposes. Nothing personal about Guin at all.
In the third mod note, you say “Stop doing this or I will issue an official Warning.”
No, the rule would apply to everyone who ignores mod notes and repeats the behavior over and over.
If you can figure out what the criteria are to mod note a poster, then you can figure out the criterion for when the mod note turns into a Warning - just count the number of previous mod notes for the same issue.
Leaving aside my urge to giggle at the sight of an SDMB mod complaining that he can’t do anything because the rules are too vague.
Regards,
Shodan
Our policy on mod notes has always been that they’re not officially documented. This, of course, would change that- I don’t think that would go over very well.
You could document them for “x” number of months, and then drop them off the person’s permanent record.
Or you could have a better memory. In the case under discussion, it wouldn’t take much. 
Since Saddam killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of brown people and used chem weapons against an ethnic brown minority of his; couldnt goi ng to war to topple him e an act of love for brown people?
I am not defending any interpretations or debating the merits of war in Iraq.
Sticky notes. When someone gets a mod note write it on a sticky and stick it on your computer monitor. When you can’t see your screen anymore BAM! warning time. Of course for this to work you are going to need several hudred monitors. So buy in bulk to save money.
Poor Marley would have to start cleaning his computer monitor every ten minutes all the while muttering “why did I take this job, why did I take this job.”
You don’t think he already does the second thing?
Yeah, good call. Besides, I doubt there are very many 'dopers who would see that as a justification today, regardless…certainly DT wouldn’t. Ever. Under any circumstances.
No, I think his wall is covered with post-its with the names of posters he can’t stand which he flings darts at while wishing voo doo dolls worked.
You think the Kurds are brown?
In all seriousness, some of the Shia in the South could be described as such, but not most Iraqis.
I would say that racist garbage like this constitutes bigotry.
As for Der Trihs alleged misogyny, I said I hadn’t seen any such posts. I really don’t know. I think recording all of one’s sexual encounters as protection against false rape claims is pretty strange. But I don’t know the context, or whether or not the taping was to be done with consent. As for comments directed towards female board members, I don’t know about that either.
Did you report the comments you found offensive? Was there a response?
It was a comment pointing out how ridiculous it would be if men acted as paranoid towards women as certain female posters were recommending that women should be towards men. I’ve never recorded anyone’s sexual encounters; I don’t even own a camera.
So then, to be clear, you’re claiming you never said that it would be extremely prudent of men to surreptitiously videotape all their sexual encounters with women to protect themselves from falsely being charged with rape and that the men should do this without the consent of the women involved because otherwise they wouldn’t get laid?
Similarly are you denying that you claimed “the typical American woman” views all men as monsters and potential rapists and that this was true of “plenty of female posters”?
Incidentally, several people have said that your behavior shows extreme paranoia about women but isn’t tantamount to sexism.
Do you think people who favor the constant monitoring of Muslims and blacks to make sure they don’t commit crimes are paranoid about blacks and Muslims, but not racist?
As I have already noted, I suspect that there is a misperception regarding the actual situation.
The Mod Notes issued have not all been for the same action repeated and repeated. The ones selected for the OP were for a variety of actions. For those posters who see the name Der Trihs and simply assume that his obnoxious language is the only aspect to be considered, I respectfully disagree.
I picked a couple of other posters whose activity generally catches my attention and did a search on my Mod Notes to them. Every one of them had a similar number of Mod Notes from me in the same time period and not one of them has been mentioned as a “problem” poster in this thread.
Now, one may argue that I should also be Warning them if they have garnered Notes that often, but, like Der Trihs, their Notes addressed different actions in different threads and none of them have been mentioned, here, or have prompted reports that they are doing X again. That is why I wondered what guidelines those calling for more action would set. I see multiple posters being “disciplined” at roughly the same frequency for similar actions, but I am only seeing calls for one poster to have more stringent sanctions leveled against him for his behavior.
I certainly agree that his more obnoxious comments are distasteful, bringing nothing of substance to the discussions in which he inserts them. (That is the problem with a fundy world view, I suppose.) But under the current rules, I do not see his behavior as sufficiently different from several other posters to whom Warnings would prompt multiple ATMB threads decrying the heavy-handed Moderating for things that “have always been permitted.”
There is no misperception. The OP did an excellent job of documenting the actual situation.
Arguments about what people might do if such-and-such were to happen aren’t generally useful, and in this case I think it’s absolutely incorrect. Besides, Marley says he has given DT warnings (or at least a warning) and that didn’t generated any ATMB threads about heavy handed moderating, did it?
Additionally, are you trying to tell us that you are at times intimidated about giving out warnings because some people might complain about it in ATMB threads?
Read that post again carefully. You were expecting an attack from me, I assume, and that is what you saw in my post. That isn’t what my message was. The sentence that you are complaining about is an example of the kind of slur that shouldn’t be used. But it is written in a style that you often use in discussing Christians.
Notice that I didn’t define “slur” at all. What I posted was from Webster’s Dictionary. I used only the “a” definition and left out a couple of other definitions so that the definition would be to the point. It wasn’t a broad definition at all. What I quoted is just one of the things “slur” means.
At any rate, I did not call for a ban of anyone yet. Nor have I stated that there should be a ban against slurs. The majority of the boards that I read here have a few slurs in them. Sometimes people are banned. Sometimes they are not. The only slur that I have used in a long, long time has been in one Pit Thread – which wasn’t about you. I find it sad that you think that most people would be banned. The posters here by far are some of the kindest people that I know.
Yes, Der Trihs always uses slurs" is a disparaging sentence. But if you read carefully, you will see that it was used as an example of what not to say. That sentence was written in the exact style that you often use. I’m glad that you can see that such statements are disparaging remarks – also known as “slurs.” I was suggesting that you not write that kind of statement.
Did you notice there was a more reasonable sentence with similar meaning?:
“By this definition, I think that most Der Trihs posts contain slurs.” In that statement, I have added the word “most” instead of implying that all of your posts are like that. I took out the word “always” for the same reason. And I let you know ahead of time that those sentences were merely examples.
Absolutely not so. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. We learn to live with being fallible. There is no insult in telling other people on a message board that we believe that they are mistaken. It’s not “faint praise,” because it isn’t praise at all. Damning with faint praise would be saying something like: “I love reading your intelligent comments when you make them.” “Mistaken” doesn’t mean the other person is a “liar” or “stupid.” It may mean the other person is ignorant, (but all of us are ignorant of some things.)
If a poster really believes the other person is “lying” rather than being mistaken, there is not much that you can say back to her or him in a “Great Debate.” Others have pointed that out to you.
Would you please offer a quote of anything I’ve said that makes you think that I am arguing for solipsism? Are you certain that you know what it means?
What am I arguing for? I’m trying to help you be less offensive in what you post. I’m suggesting alternative ways of making your points. I was a debate teacher a long time ago.
This would be a good topic to discuss later.
Could you be one of the people who writes out of irrational hatred? Sometimes it sounds like it. It would be nice to be wrong.
Again, if you read other people’s posts without assuming or projecting their hatred as you read, I think you will be better prepared to respond without so much seeming malice. You will understand our posts better.
BTW, I agree with you about not responding to pittings. You might learn something from reading them, but when you know that you are being targeted, it’s better just to let them rant without giving them the dignity of a reply.
I agree with you. It might be one of the reasons of many.
Not really. You can just take them at their word. It’s an option.
I’d say the only thing wrong with DT’s posts is that he often casts things as absolutes. Anti-abortion people hate women, for instance. I agree that many, if not most of them want women to suffer the consequences for getting pregnant, and that’s kind of a hateful sentiment, but some number of them are just dull, ordinary people who let their religion think for them. And some are just convinced that fetuses are exactly like babies.
So, I prescribe more weasel words.
But Der doesn’t even draw the line there - he’s claimed, repeatedly, that opponents of abortion would like to see pregnant women handcuffed to their hospital beds and dying in agony in childbirth, and that the pro-lifers would be gloating and rubbing their hands in glee to see it. I don’t deny that in a world that has Westboro Baptist Church in it there might not be a handful of such sick individuals, but our dear friend would have it that such were typical of the entire side of the debate.
As an aside, nothing to do with Lobohan, I’m glad that someone picked up on the arrant falsehood that Dio had or has a “Master’s level” education in religion. It’s on record somewhere that it was a college course of sub-Bachelor level. That might well make him the one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind, but you’d point and laugh at anyone who claimed that an education to that level made him any kind of authority on any other subject. The guy can spout a few phrases of Greek and rehearse the PoE ad nauseam, and on that basis he once blew hard that in a debate he would have kicked the ass of C. S. Lewis, who was an Oxford triple first. :rolleyes: