That doesn’t really respond to what I said. I did note that self-reporting can be an issue, and that this was “a little (not exactly, of course) like CNN polling.” No analogy is perfect, but this one stands - especially in an argumentative environment like the Dope, where people just love to take issue with stuff.
In fact, given that SamuelA is not, as evidenced by several comments in this thread, a widely beloved poster, his thread might initiatlly attract posters looking to disagree with him. I for one had a negative reaction when I read his thread title; it’s overly combative and just begs for refutation. However, a look at the situation revealed to nine or more of us (not sure what the count is as I type) that, setting his belligerence aside, he had a point.
They can not be defined however you choose. They should be defined in furtherance if answering the question. So, when the op question is “How can you actually get to do something legal if the police stop you from doing it?” then defining “best” as whatever keeps you going on living is ridiculously inapplicable.
Also the answer “just move away” is not a factual answer to “How can you actually get to do something legal if the police stop you from doing it?” Especially if the rest of the op makes it clear that the answer looked for is in the realm of legal action etc.
He said “most other human posters in here” which I sensibly took to mean in this thread.
Patently false in ATMB. Or perhaps you have accumulated statistics that support your assertion.
In the context and considering how the thread was moved immediately after, I think the warning is at best borderline and probably over the line towards unnecessarily punitive. Not a fan of the OP of this thread, but fair is fair.
Errm, no? That is answering the question “What steps can I take to do the thing” with “You can’t do the thing. Deal”. That’s not an answer. That’s the answer to a general “How can I respond”, not a specific “how can I get what I want”
You’re right, and we all understand that the OP really didn’t mean to ask what you can do when the police are breaking the law. No one is referring to that. However, one of the questions asked by the OP is “What options does one have if you know that something is legal and the police try to prohibit it?”
So, when the question is “What options does one have if you know that something is legal and the police try to prohibit it?”, not doing it is unquestionably a factual answer.
You’re right, but there was more than one question in the OP.
A poster should not be held responsible for lacking the ability to read the OP’s mind and answer the question the OP wanted answered when he asked multiple questions.
Again, the OP asked two questions:
What options does one have if you know that something is legal and the police try to prohibit it?
AND
How can you actually get to do something legal if the police stop you from doing it?
Why is Sam the one who gets a warning because the OP asked a question he didn’t mean to ask, ask shown in post 15?
I sympathize with SamuelA in this particular instance but, as I’ve said before, it would help if people would stop posting highly debatable issues in “General Questions”. “What makes the sky look blue?” That is a general question. The question you posted is obviously a hot topic and subject to much debate. My “run-ins with the law” on this site have been in General Questions for just that reason. The result is that I’ve learned how to avoid that kind of pitfall.
“What options” to what? From context, it’s clear that they mean “…to get to do the thing”. not “…to go on in life”. You can’t just chop the question out of its context like that.
So no, “don’t do it” is *not *a factual answer to the question as posed in that thread. Because it’s a question asked in a particular context.
While to me the answer was non-factual, and given that it was the first answer, likely to contribute to derailing the thread, clearly others feel it was in fact factual. I already thought the warning was harsh, but since there seems real ambiguity, I would ask to change it to a mod-note, with clear instructions to poster to consider holding off answering in GQ threads until factual answers have been provided by others, in cases where the poster’s answer is not unambiguously factual.
But sometimes, as was the case here, running away is a viable option.
Q: “I’m going camping next week. What’s the best way of fighting off a bear?”
A1: “Run away from the bear.”
A2: “Pick a spot with (different/friendly/no) bears.”
Sure, A1 and A2 don’t answer the specific question that was asked (fighting off a bear), but it hardly seems fair to consider them non-responsive or warnable offenses.
Except they *are *non-responsive to the specific question. It was “best way to fight off a bear”, not “best way to survive a bear attack” or “best way to not get attacked by a bear”.
Personally, I agree they’re not warnable-level. But as the mods like to point out, any offence they note, they could just as easily warn too, at their own discretion.
Returning to this thread to voice my confusion over this act of moderation.
It appears the word that is getting all the attention is his use of the word “corrupt” to describe situations like the one in Tulsa. I would certainly argue against him that police can be wrong, even as a department, without being corrupt. Corrupt indicates a level of maliciousness, criminal intent, either monetary or power gain, or both. Trying to maintain safety at an outdoor event does not fit that description, IMO.
However, I don’t see how his remark deserved a warning.
Also, I think his remark did essentially address part of the question being asked, which was “how do you get do to the legal thing?” His answer was “go somewhere where they will let you do the legal thing”.
Now that interpretation of the question may not be what ishamael69 had in mind. It looks like he wants more of an immediate method of remedy, i.e. on the spot. But misinterpreting a question or answering it obliquely is not a reason for moderation, and Colibri didn’t warn him for being off topic. He warned him for political commentary.