Damuri would like to argue moderation standards in GD

Damuri recently posted a minor laundry list of complaints (pretty much exclusively aimed at me) in a GD thread, related to moderation standards. As GD is the improper place to discuss such matters, I figured I’d do him a favor and start a thread for him here, should he care to voice his thesis in the proper place. Suffice it to say, he’s incorrect and/or not grokking the actual policies in place in GD, so I’ll post his criticisms and identify why he’s wrong. Perhaps he’ll wander in to defend his claims. Anyways, they started with the complaint that Newcomer had been Warned twice for flaming after being Noted once to stop flaming.

As I didn’t break forum rules, I believe that was an appropriate bit of moderation. I don’t generally support the mods’ decisions to ‘control the tone’ of a thread, but I’ll accept 'em and do my best to abide by them. Newcomer, on the other hand, was first Noted for saying to another poster (not me) that "I think you are not even aware of how biased you are. I mean, seriously, you have no clue what a debate is, you wouldn’t recognize a proof even if it hit you in the head. " After his Note, he was Warned for further personal insults when he called me a “a notorious debate-dilettante”. He was then Warned a second time for saying that I was having a “tantrum”, and that I “don’t have necessary maturity for a debate in a serious framework.”

While it’s a judgement call whether or not the Note should have escalated to Warnings, Damuri’s confusion on this point is bizarre: personal insults are not allowed in GD, and it’s pretty clear that Newcomer was attacking the poster, not the post.
With that out of the way, I’ll address some of Damuri’s other objections. As many are repetitive, I’ll just cover the ones that are (somewhat) unique. They were:

What exactly his objections are is anybody’s guess, but going down the list:
-It is not against the rules in GD to point out that a poster is ignorant on an issue. In fact, the mods in GD have been known to make such statements, sans mod hat, on multiple occasions. Further, saying things like ‘I don’t believe that/I don’t think that’s true’ or even “that’s not true” are explicitly allowed under GD rules.
-Calling a comment batshit insane is, while snarky, legal under GD rules. It is textbook attacking the post and not the poster. Just like if you say that someone has posted an awful argument, you’re not saying they’re an awful person.
-Saying that a poster’s claims are fictional is most certainly within GD rules. As is saying that someone is making a claim that is not based in reality/they’ve imagined something that didn’t actually happen/ they’ve misremembered something/ etc…
-I have no idea why Damuri thinks that we’re not allowed to comment on the verbiage that other posters use, especially when the terms being used are central to the debate. Your guess is as good as mine.
-Evidently Damuri also thinks its wrong to point out that a poster did not provide a factual rebuttal in GD. What rule he thinks this violates is beyond me, but perhaps he feels like explaining.
-It is not against GD rules, especially if someone uses their credentials repeatedly as Appeals to Authority, to point out that you’re correct on the facts while they are not, despite their degree.
-I have literally, no clue, at all, why Damuri thinks it should be against GD rules to say that one has “an M.S. in Snark Science.” Really, I am at a loss here what rule he thinks was violated.

Damuri then goes on to claim that:

Damuri is distorting both of Tom’s actual statements. Tom’s injunction was not to simply “knock if off” in general (that was simply the summation to his post), but that posters could not express personal hatred, off-topic posts about hatred on either side of the I/P issue, or expressions of delight in the suffering of either the Israelis of Palestinians. I’m not sure which prong there Damuri believes I violated, but perhaps he’ll elaborate.

Damuri’s claims about my posts after Tom’s initial injunction are pretty much old hat. You’re allowed to call someone’s argument bullshit. Attack the post, not the poster, yadda yadda. Asking someone if they think that their argument would be acceptable in academic circles is, likewise, allowable. Additionally, despite Damuri’s belief, Tom did not tell me to “stop implying” anything about another poster “lying”. In point of fact, and in opposition to Damuri’s claim, what Tom actually said was ["We do, indeed, have a problem with posters calling other posters liars. Expressing disbelief is not, in and of itself, an accusation of lying. (And since you were the first that I saw declaring that a statement by another poster was untrue, it would be well for you to not harp on that topic.)" His instructions to me were that I could not challenge the truthfulness of OLP’s claims, going forward. Those were instructions which I followed.

Damuri then claims that Newcomer was unfairly warned for “calling one of FinnAgains analogies stupid” As well as for “calling FinnAgain’s argument style.” (I assume he meant “calling out Finnagain’s…”_
Rather obviously, calling someone a dilettante is not a comment on their argument. Likewise, neither is saying that someone lacks the maturity for a debate. Both are personal comments, and insults. Ya know, personal insults, which aren’t allowed in GD. How Damuri thinks these are comments on an argument, and not on a poster, is beyond me. Perhaps he can elaborate on that too.

Damuri then goes on to claim that:

This is more than bizarre on Damuri’s point, as I wrote that quote in response to Newcomer, who’d already been Warned for personal insults in that thread, claiming that in GD, my “ad hominem tirades are nauseating.” I’m honestly not sure what Damuri thinks he’s proving. Really, no idea. Since Newcomer was using ad hominem arguments/personal insults in GD, and I was not, I figured that statement was fairly self explanatory. If someone wants to posit ‘nauseating ad hominem tirades’ on another’s part, but they’re the only one flaming in the thread, I think that’s a bit ironic, somewhat humorous, but so glaringly obvious as to require no explanation.

Evidently not.

Ah well. If Damuri wants he can let 'er rip and decry what he and others see as biased moderation in GD.

This is one of those cases where I really feel sympathy for the mods.

If you weren’t warned and have no real beef with the moderation, why are you crapping up ATMB with this?

And as an in- and then unindicted co-conspirator you certainly know whereof you speak.

Referencing other threads is often done too, which is either a sign of attentiveness and inclusion, assuming posters are abreast of other thread topics at least, and at least within the particular forum. Sometimes even two recent, if not top-of-the-pile threads at the same time.

But the scent of in-jokiness is sometimes unpleasant.

It doesn’t make sense to handle this dispute this way. If Damuri Ajashi wants to argue about the moderation of that thread, he can open an ATMB thread of his own. I’m closing this one.