Perhaps I can make a suggestion regarding something you, I and Marley have had discussions about.
The golden rule of GD is “attack the post not the poster” and it is explicitly permissible to describe posts as “stupid”, “idiotic”, “racist” etc. and lots of posters will sometimes use those or similar adjectives to describe posts.
However both of you felt, quite understandably and looking back at it you were clearly in the right, that I was using such terms excessively and while that clearly wasn’t against the rules to make such comments and lots of posters did, using such comments excessively was becoming a bit of a problem. You felt, quite understandably that if I continued to use such terms excessively you might be forced to conclude that I was using such terms to try and get around the “don’t attack the poster” and insult the poster. You both made it clear that you weren’t going to forbid me from using such terms, but said that I should probably use them far less often and find other less inflammatory terms to register my feelings about others arguments and more constructive ways to critique them or you would have to consider taking actions.
Let me make this clear to anyone listening it wasn’t “you’re not allowed to use such terms or we’ll start issuing warnings”. In fact, it was made explicitly clear that I shouldn’t feel pressured to stop entirely. Instead the argument was words to the effect of “stop doing this or we’re going to have to conclude that either you’re deliberately trying to insult others and we’ll have to take action or you’re clueless.”
Perhaps Der Trihs, might consider the same. As you say the problem isn’t what he says but that he says it “more often than other posters”. Obviously it would be wrong to tell him to stop using such posts entirely, but he certainly could consider using them less often lest people conclude that he was trying to skirt the “don’t troll” and “don’t insult the poster” rules.
FWIW, I think it made me a better, or at least more tolerable poster.
That is one of the main arguments against his style of posting. We all have issues that we are passionate about and may cross the line from debating to insulting from time to time. It happens. I’ve probably been guilty of it. But when a poster does it consistently, and always, that qualifies, IMHO, as being a jerk and needs to be stopped.
I don’t recall him ever claiming he did and he certainly never came across that way and I remember him making some errors about Islam that I doubt too many people with Masters degrees in religious education would have made.
He also claimed that the Serbs were Catholics which would have raised quite a few eyebrows in Eastern Europe and made such absurd claims as arguing that Boston College, BYU, and Notre Dame weren’t religious colleges.
Saying he was an “expert” in religious studies is like saying I’m an expert in the Middle East or Islam. I know more than most dopers but I’m hardly an expert and have never claimed to be.
I have no doubt he studied it in college and may even have gotten a BA in it, but I doubt he had a Masters in it.
I did that in post #51. It’s very simple. If you get a warning for “doing x”, then if you “do x” again, you get another warning and not a mod note. IOW, continued ignoring of moderator instructions results in increasing levels of moderator action, instead of a reset button that allows you to start all over again as long as you wait a few days.
OK. So, how often can a poster do it before we need to Warn him or her? If the answer is “I don’t know, but Der Trihs is clearly at that point,” it sounds an awful lot like we are looking to establish a rule that is aimed only at Der Trihs.
If the answer is different, what is the specific criteria? (I am at a bit of a handicap, here, as I really do not want to begin singling out posters for “inspection.”) Do we forbid all the dismissive comments in which posters declare that religion is all fraudulent or always employed only by the weak minded? Do we prohibit all claims that the Republicans, (or the Democrats–or unions or corporate officers or whoever), are acting solely for selfish motives with total disregard for the good of the country or any other party? If we do not prohibit all such occurrences, then what is the number at which we draw the line? If we have no bright line separating the acceptable from the unacceptable, what is the logic for placing sanctions of Der Trihs and not other posters?
If we are looking to improve the tone of the discussion, (and I can state unequivocally that “raising the tone” is already considered fighting words by a significant portion of the SDMB population), then what are the specific guidelines used to enforce it–guidelines that are not simply ad hoc “rules” intended to protect some posters from having to encounter Der Trihs’s bile?
I have never felt the need to censor Der Trihs’s bile for two reasons:
it was already a part of SDMB culture long before I became a Mod;
the same sort of comments have been made by a number of other posters (with less frequency) while no one has called for them to be censored.
When his words appear to be about to produce a hijack, (or have already led to a hijack), I have stepped in. However, his odd beliefs are tolerated for the same reason that the beliefs of Creationists, CT enthusiasts, “scientific racists,” ludicrously extreme partisans of the Left and Right, religious fanatics, anti-religious fanatics, and a host of other posters’ beliefs are tolerated.
Although there is a tendency to shy away from dictionary definitions, since someone was banned for her slurs:
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?
How about using the word mistaken – as in, “I think you are mistaken.” Then you can give your rationally expressed reasons and cites for why you disagree. That’s what debating is, generally speaking.
How do you (or any other poster) know that that poster knows that what she or he is saying is false? I can be pretty suspicious too, at times. But I don’t know that they know. That would call for mind-reading.
As mentioned, we had a similar discussion last year when you felt, quite rightly in retrospect, that my repeatedly characterizing posts as “stupid”, “moronic” or something similar was certainly within the rules(attack the post not the poster) but that excessively doing so was causing a bit of a problem.
In your own words,
As you noted, repeatedly using such a style of debate angered quite a few people and led many to think that I was manipulating the rules to find ways to insult people while staying just within the rules.
Well, clearly two separate ATMB threads and complaints going back for years demonstrate that quite a few people have similar feelings regarding Der Trihs behavior.
You made the point that:
I would humbly suggest that you might want to think about giving Der similar advice. Not to completely end making over-the-top comments that strike so many posters as trolling and attempts at circumventing rules against directly insulting posters, but that he might want to cut down on the number of such comments.
It was certainly appropriate with me, didn’t require any special rules. Now, I know Der Trihs has been doing this for years before I even joined this board, but I don’t see why similar measures can’t be taken. It would probably do him and the board some good. It did for me.
Answered by a mod upthread: there are different sorts of warnings. I acknowledge that you answered my inquiry though.
That was directed at Der, but I should acknowledge that his GD empirics are awful, so he really isn’t a top tier poster by any means.
His specialty was early Christianity, IIRC. He could read the NT in the original Greek. If he had a PhD, he probably would have had some experience teaching core courses which would have given him both broader knowledge within his field and probably a more patient outlook.
Answered by a mod upthread: there are different sorts of mod notes, some of them pretty thread specific. I acknowledge that you answered my inquiry though.
That was directed at Der, but I should acknowledge that his GD empirics are awful, so he really isn’t a top tier poster by any means.
Dio’s specialty was early Christianity, IIRC. He could read the NT in the original Greek. If he had a PhD, he probably would have had some experience teaching core courses which would have given him both broader knowledge within his field and probably a more patient outlook.
Well there’s the pernicious issue of “Bad faith” otherwise known as “Lying to yourself”. The tendentiousness of political rhetoric is but one manifestation of that. Pretty ubiquitous, hard to avoid.
Firstly, I’d like to say that when Ibn reconsiders his positions and stances, his credibility increases in my eyes. It shows the sort of mental flexibility that I respect.
One problem though is that the mods were addressing the form of Ibn’s posts. Der’s problem is basically with actual opinions and the apocalyptic outlook that lies underneath. So they would basically be saying, “Participate less in GD,” which is a different sort of advice.
Yep, I completely agree with this. I hesitate to engage with him for just this reason, and I’m sure anybody who approaches GD seriously is similar. Like I said upthread, he is extremely religious in his opinions and their unfalsifiability.
I’d say form is part of the issue, too, really. His outlook isn’t as unusual as you might think. It’s just his extreme presentation of those ideas. There are anti-military people on the board. There are definitely strong anti-theists here. Ditto for extreme pro-choicers. And there are people who are worried about claims of rape. It’s just the extremes and his lack of flexibility that seems to get him into trouble.
We have other posters with offensive views who seem to manage it fine. They may not be quite happy here, but they also don’t tend to get in trouble. The so-called “scientific racists” are able to post without getting a ton of mod notes.
Der Trihs has an extreme position, so it behooves him to moderate his rhetoric so that it doesn’t cross the line to where it needs moderation. It is possible to have an extreme belief yet talk about it more moderately. That has a much better chance of working, anyways.
(Problem is, I’ve argued that with him many times, and he just argues thatthe people are so evil that he has no reason to try to convince anyone. But that would mean it’s just a rant he should post such in the Pit, right?)
You have repeatedly made the case that specific rules mods have to go by are a bad thing. You’ve always prided yourself on following the spirit of the rules. People have often ATMB’d you for moderating something they didn’t think was against the rules, and you’ve always argued that your job is not to enforce some set of rules.
So while I might normally be partial to this idea that we need a specific number or criteria, that’s not the way you mod at all. You view it as your job to decide on a case by case basis. You always have.
The only basic rule I can give you is to count how often you’ve given mod notes to others who eventually got a warning, and try to figure out the appropriate pattern from that. It’s clear that you already have an idea of how much is too much, so all you need to do is figure out what it is, then apply it to Der Trihs from now on the same way you would for anyone else.
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.
In other words, call them stupid or delusional - because that’s what you are doing when you call someone “mistaken” about something obvious. Especially something obvious that everyone knows is obvious.
Calling someone who is obviously lying mistaken isn’t polite. It’s an insult; “damning with faint praise”. It’s a way of saying to someone “well if you weren’t a moron I’d call you a liar, but we all know that you’re really just that stupid that you actually believe what you are saying.”
So what are you arguing for? Solipsism? At some point you have to make your best guess as to why someone is expressing an opinion.
Oh. Link to the mod note that says he was banned for not being interesting and for being a smug jackass?
Who cares if your opinion matches the mods who banned him? That doesn’t make your opinion any more correct. Unless, you just mentioned that to gloat over the fact that someone who obviously loved to post here can’t do it anymore. Ugh.
Exactly. If I were you, I wouldn’t participate in Pit threads concerning me either for just those reasons.
And this is pretty much the crux of the problem right here, in a nut shell…so to speak. Not everything IS obvious to everyone. What is obvious to YOU might not be to someone else…and vice versa. Doesn’t mean they are lying…or stupid or delusional. Doesn’t mean YOU are either. It means there is a difference of opinion. Your ridiculous black and white view of the world, coupled with your silly arrogance that YOU are the one who is right, and anyone disagreeing with you is lying, stupid or deluded…AND your willingness to basically spout that opinion out, and the Mods to give you a pass on it…is exactly why you are such an exasperating poster, and why you get all those Pit threads about you in the past.
Then I’d strongly encourage you to stop thinking that way. Try focusing on the specific issue at hand instead of blowing it up into a bigger generalization about religious people/Republicans/whoever. Not that we’re solving world hunger here but more specific discussions tend to be a little more productive and interesting.
That’s a product of your convictions, not the rules. To expand on Left Hand of Dorkness’ comment, there’s no point in arguing with someone who you think is crazy or a liar. There’s no rule against posting as just sort of a general protest like ‘the world needs to know the Republicans are crazy,’ but in the long term it’s unproductive and boring and reductive. I doubt you’re going to just start looking at people differently, but if nothing else a more balanced approach would make your posts more interesting.
I was discussing a homophobic slur. The dictionary definition of “slur” may be broader but I think that’s how the word is most often used: for very insulting comments about people based on race or ethnicity and so on.
Enough with the Diogenes the Cynic discussion, please. I understand why people feel it’s a comparable situation but we don’t need an argument about a banned poster.