Curious when enough is enough? [Der Trihs]

[Measure_for_Measure]

@John_Mace

I notice that you didn’t quote the part of your post that added context. Please do so, and explain what contexts was missing.

And you seem to have missed one of TD’s favorite posting tricks. The “I recall reading somewhere that…” where some uncited source supports his arguments. When pressed, he is never able to produce these mysterious sources that he somehow recalls reading, and never withdraws his claims made from these uncited sources.

1. Saying “I recall somewhere” is superior to stating it as a fact.

2. Though it’s certainly not best practice.

3. Sometimes others will produce the cite. eg the 45% figure from the notorious recorder thread.

4. Yes, Der’s empirics are weak.

[Zoe]

John Mace: And you seem to have missed one of TD’s favorite posting tricks. The “I recall reading somewhere that…” where some uncited source supports his arguments. When pressed, he is never able to produce these mysterious sources that he somehow recalls reading, and never withdraws his claims made from these uncited sources.

I see your point, but I do that a lot myself. Sometimes we just can’t remember where we read it or saw it. But then, I think I’m a lot older than DT. If I see that someone has asked for a cite, I will at least try to find something that supports my point of view – or shows how dated my comment is.

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@John_Mace

And you seem to have missed one of TD’s favorite posting tricks. The “I recall reading somewhere that…” where some uncited source supports his arguments. When pressed, he is never able to produce these mysterious sources that he somehow recalls reading, and never withdraws his claims made from these uncited sources.

Ah yes, you’ve got that nailed. I’ve had some hearty laughs over the years with some of his “I recall reading somewhere that [insert something bordering on urban legend that happens to strengthen whatever he’s on about in the thread]…” and pigs will fly before you see the cite.

@Ibn_Warraq

The mods have made it clear that Der Trihs can keep doing what he’s doing, making noxious comments that border on trolling but don’t quite cross the line, receive a note to “knock it off”, back away, and then continue with the same behavior in a different thread. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This is the impression I get as well. It seems like the mod notes don’t seem to add up for him no matter how many he gets in different threads. They’ve certainly added up for others in the past who are now long gone. Whatever the reason they allow him this leeway is irrelevant really, they’re obviously going to stick with it as is their prerogative. The only thing I can think to do is to not be involved with it anymore whether that means to put him on ignore or just scroll past him. I know I’ve been guilty of responding to him in the past when I should absolutely know better, but that’s done now.

[Monty]

Has anyone’s interaction with DT been the post that’s pushed them over the banning ledge?

[billfish678]

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

. The only thing I can think to do is to not be involved with it anymore whether that means to put him on ignore or just scroll past him. I know I’ve been guilty of responding to him in the past when I should absolutely know better, but that’s done now.

And that’s kinda the problem with problematic posters. At any given moment there is somebody who should know better than to respond to that baloney WILL respond to it because the morning coffee hasn’t kicked in or they had a bad day or whatever.

That or somebody who is kinda new that hasn’t figured out the problematic posters pattern will engage them and Bullshit ensues.

[colander]

@Measure_for_Measure

4. Yes, Der’s empirics are weak.

There’s only so much that kegels can do, you know?

[Trinopus]

@John_Mace

I notice that you didn’t quote the part of your post that added context. Please do so, and explain what contexts was missing.

No… Not going to go to that much effort. I’ve explained the problem. Quoting myself verbatim, with breakdowns, would simply be tiresome. Frankly, no-one wants to read it. Just go back and read my post, and then Vinyl Turnip’s response. That’s the whole of the matter. What possible benefit would it have for anyone for me to re-quote so much original material?

And you seem to have missed one of TD’s favorite posting tricks. The “I recall reading somewhere that…” where some uncited source supports his arguments. When pressed, he is never able to produce these mysterious sources that he somehow recalls reading, and never withdraws his claims made from these uncited sources.

That isn’t a straw-man technique. That isn’t a method of altering the content (or context) of someone else’s post to change their meaning. Those are the games that a lot of people around here play, which Der Trihs doesn’t.

And… Red Shirt! Holy geeze, I should have seen that!

[Cheshire_Human]

@Trinopus

And… Red Shirt! Holy geeze, I should have seen that!

Turn in your ‘Geek Card’. You have failed me for the last time. </Vader>

[Irishman]

@Trinopus

The reason was in a complex of more than one clause. The response quoted only one clause, and, worse, used the phrase “in itself.” But the quoted part of my post did not exist “in itself.” It was only part.

It made it seem (as Hentor the Barbarian colorfully points out) as if I were supportive of Der Trihs solely because he says what he thinks. But my point was that he says what he thinks, without taking the additional step of altering what his correspondent thinks, the kind of straw-man manipulation which, alas, happens an awful lot here on the SDMB. (No names will be named.)

Apparently I am invisible, so I will state it again.

Your post in post 255:

@Trinopus

I like Der Trihs. Always have. He says what he believes.

He says it loudly… Volume cranked to eleven… But he’s honest, dammit. He doesn’t play games. He doesn’t distort, doesn’t quote out of context, doesn’t alter the meaning of posts, doesn’t “straw man,” doesn’t do all the dishonest things that – ahem – some others here do all the damn time. He has more integrity than a hell of a lot of others.

I included the first 2 paragraphs, deleted the rest as irrelevant. Notice, you made your argument in 2 separate paragraphs. Here is what Vinyl Turnip posted in post 258:

@VinylTurnip

So does Fred Phelps. “Saying what you believe” isn’t in itself an admirable quality.

He quoted your first paragraph **in full. **He addressed the entirety of your paragraph 1. Now in paragraph 2 you explain that you don’t think Der Tris distorts other people’s arguments. That is certainly laudable. But that’s a full separate paragraph. What is sounds like you are saying is that you applaud him for saying what he believes, and that he doesn’t distort other people’s arguments. Not that you applaud him for saying what he believes without distorting what others say. The first statement is an and - you applaud two separate items. The second is one item, his lack of distortion of his opponent’s position, the fact that he can present his position without distorting his opponents’ arguments.

Vinyl Turnip addressed the case as you wrote it. Not distorting other people’s positions is laudable, but saying what you believe is not, in itself, a laudable goal. Of course, I would tweak that - being honest about your own positions is better than misrepresenting your own interests and arguments. But it’s my right to disagree with Vinyl Turnip.

But Vinyl Turnip did not misrepresent what you said. He quoted the full paragraph. If he did not take away the message you intended, then you should consider they way you presented your message. Perhaps it did not say what you thought it did.

[Darth_Panda]

Ban for the Ban God!

[BigT]

@Marley23

I’m not seeing the use of this either. This isn’t the right forum to argue with Der Trihs about his opinions, perhaps it was worthwhile so people could see it’s basically pointless. (Hey, I tried.) And piling on the guy isn’t appropriate for this forum either. Our view has been that Der Trihs’ posts may be obnoxious and they may contribute little to the discussion in some cases, but they generally don’t break the rules. That being the case, you can engage and accept the posts for what they are, you can ignore them, or you can Pit him.

Your “position,” then, has nothing to do with this thread. Whether Der Trihs breaks the rules was never, ever the point of the thread.

The point is that you give him a bunch of mod notes but never warn him. This is not what you do for everyone else. Lots of warnings come even though no one actually breaks the rules, just because they do something you tell them not to do.

So answer that accusation instead of making up your own strawman. No one gives a shit whether he breaks the rules. We give a shit that he is treated differently than every other poster. When you rack up enough mod notes for a specific behavior, you always switch to a Warning. Why is Der Trihs different?

No response, and it becomes clear you think it’s okay to crawl right up to the line and then back away when you get a note, and never have to worry. Surely that’s not the type of board you want.

Show us some respect and answer the actual question asked by the OP.

[billfish678]

Bill Bixby voice:

Don’t make BigT angry. You won’t like him when he’s angry.

[John_Mace]

@Trinopus

That isn’t a straw-man technique. That isn’t a method of altering the content (or context) of someone else’s post to change their meaning. Those are the games that a lot of people around here play, which Der Trihs doesn’t.

You’re right, and I never said it was any of those things. It’s a game peculiar to Der Trihs, and certainly doesn’t qualify as honest posting or debating in good faith. Your list was not a comprehensive list of “games”.

[MrDibble]

@BigT

When you rack up enough mod notes for a specific behavior, you always switch to a Warning. Why is Der Trihs different?

You have failed to show that this is, in fact, the case. We’ve already seen that DT gets mod noted for different things. And that he gets warned when he’s sufficiently out of line. What you’ve failed to show is that everybody else who racks up a lot of notes, absent any other rulebreaking, automatically gets a warning.

tl;dr : Different to which posters, exactly?

[MrDibble]

@BigT

Lots of warnings come even though no one actually breaks the rules, just because they do something you tell them not to do.

Since ignoring mod instructions is breaking the rules, this statement disappears up its own arse.

[Shodan]

@BigT

The point is that you give him a bunch of mod notes but never warn him…
Show us some respect and answer the actual question asked by the OP.

With all due respect, the question was answered. At least when it comes to certain posters, enough is never going to be enough.

Posters are allowed to make extreme, obnoxious, unsubstantiated accusations that often lead to hijacks and do not add to the discussion, and are intentionally insulting to groups of Dopers, provided they do so only once per thread, and are careful to go off and do it in other threads after being mod noted. I suspect it also has to do with the topic - an anti-abortionist would not be allowed to get away with posting “Abortionists are motivated by a desire to make babies suffer” or a racist with posting “Blacks are genetically inferior” even if that were in threads about abortion or social problems in sub-Saharan Africa.

But the bottom line seems to be that Der Trihs is free to continue to do what he does - the mods are not going to do anything no matter how many threads he does it in.

Regards,
Shodan

[MrDibble]

@Shodan

I suspect it also has to do with the topic - an anti-abortionist would not be allowed to get away with posting “Abortionists are motivated by a desire to make babies suffer” or a racist with posting “Blacks are genetically inferior” even if that were in threads about abortion or social problems in sub-Saharan Africa.

Bullshit. At least on the latter point, that’s exactly what the “race realists” are allowed to get away with.

[Zoe]

Trinopus: That isn’t a method of altering the content (or context) of someone else’s post to change their meaning. Those are the games that a lot of people around here play, which Der Trihs doesn’t.

You are mistaken. The following is an example of a statement that I made to Der Trihs to illustrate the diffference that changing just a couple of things in his style would make. (See how he twists my original comment around):

Post #175 in this very thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=691074&page=4

Der Trihs:

Originally Posted by Zoe (Underlining added for clarification by Zoe.)

…From Websters: Definition of slur : “an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion.”

By this definition, I think that most Der Trihs posts contain slurs. Using the Der Trihs style of posting just to demonstrate to him how leaving out appropriate words or adding inappropriate words makes a difference:

“Der Trihs always uses slurs.”

But that makes the statement false, doesn’t it? That would no longer be a matter of opinion. It would be dishonest.
You do that often, Der Trihs. Is that unintentional?
Der Trihs’ reply to that particular point:

Der Trihs

You’ve just defined “slur” so broadly that the majority of the board would be banned if that was enforced. Including you, for the very statement you just made. “Der Trihs always uses slurs” is a disparaging remark.

Der Trihs failed to point out that “Der Trihs always uses slurs” was not an accusation. It was an example of his style. I even commented that the change from the original to this quote would make the statement false. This is an example of how he twisted the meaning and intent of my post.

I also asked him if he used the unpleasant style intentionally. I received no answer.
He also failed to ascribe the “broad” definition to Webster’s, but attributed it to me.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@BigT

The point is that you give him a bunch of mod notes but never warn him. This is not what you do for everyone else. Lots of warnings come even though no one actually breaks the rules, just because they do something you tell them not to do.

This was addressed in post 216. Basically there are different types of mod notes and Der hasn’t been told to “Don’t do this again.” Quoted in full:

@tomndebb

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.”

As for Shodan’s remarks:

@Shodan

With all due respect, the question was answered. At least when it comes to certain posters, enough is never going to be enough.

Posters are allowed to make extreme, obnoxious, unsubstantiated accusations that often lead to hijacks and do not add to the discussion, and are intentionally insulting to groups of Dopers, provided they do so only once per thread, and are careful to go off and do it in other threads after being mod noted. …
But the bottom line seems to be that Der Trihs is free to continue to do what he does - the mods are not going to do anything no matter how many threads he does it in.

No, actually the rule is, “Posters are allowed to mischaracterize and distort the posts of others, even moderators, as evidenced by Shodan’s modus operandii”. Thus necessitating others (eg me on occasion) to work cleanup crew now and then.

Hey, I do the same for Der Trihs. Different symptoms, same effect. So I can understand John Mace’s frustration. The problem is crafting a rule like “Don’t mischaracterize” is pretty much impossible to enforce. So here we are. Now it’s possible that there might be some general directions that could be fashioned for Der, or at least debated. But when I ask for something like that I get nonresponsive responses from the membership here.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Zoe: But Der’s underlying point was correct. You noted: From Websters: Definition of slur : “an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion.” …and Der replied (stripping away the hysteria) that such a definition covered behavior that was ubiquitous on this board. The rules here involve direct insults not promotion of mutual respect.

FWIW, I don’t think Der intentionally twists meaning so much as makes mental shortcuts from his largely apocalyptic perspective.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I also asked him if he used the unpleasant style intentionally. I received no answer.
[/QUOTE]
Not strictly topical, but an interesting question. Der is the only guy I’ve encountered who is frequently both intentionally and unintentionally hilarious. Usually angry little teapots lack any sense or grasp of humor, while those who can tell jokes have a better sense of perspective. Seriously, I’ve never heard of anybody else with this combination of temperaments.