OK, to clarify matters, I wasn’t following what **Shodan ** said at all. In fact, I wasn’t participating in this thread…my first post to it was that link to Acid Lamp’s post. I was directly referencing what Der Trihs was being pitted for…his claim that it’s the people on the right that we need to be afraid of where gun ownership is concerned. The ensuing conversation seemed to all be referencing that post of mine…considering that Starving Artist responded to me, mswas responded to him, etc. (Which you seemed to agree with, based on your reiteration of the exchange in post #154.)
Your first point is true, but not in the way you want it to be. Interpretation of a subjective event clearly includes the personalities involved as well as the context of the events. Those personalities and overall context are every bit as much of the “facts” as the words that actually appear on the page. (Otherwise, friendly insults would be impossible, yet they clearly exist.)
I agree that my relationship with Shodan is troubling, but since he is careful to stay behind the technical lines of the rules, I see no reason to actually reprimand him for his frequently disruptive behavior.
I suppose that I could shut him down when he is disruptive, but, like Carol Stream’s behavior, I do not think that it is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action.
As to Sevastopol, his “final Warning” was issued at the end of a brief period in which he garnered three in a few months. Following that he received no Warnings for over a year, received one, then again went over a year without receiving a Warning. Back when the board was only a few years old, simply counting the number of Warnings made sense. As the board has aged, we have tended to look at the number of Warnings collected in a short period of time, not since the board was initiated. While he is hardly an ideal poster, Sevastopol has stayed inside the boundaries often enough to avoid banning, just as several other posters have–a couple of them now considered valued posters despite having received “final Warnings” several years back.
Argent Tower’s thread was closed because the line between calling the beliefs of various groups and the beliefs of individual posters had been blurred on numerous occasions by numerous posters in the thread. It was not closed because he called one belief stupid on one occasion. (That is how he spun it in the subsequent thread that addressed the topic again and in which he declined to participate further, but that was not the reason.) He opened the thread with a Pit rant and his single use of the word “stupid” was hardly the only Pit-like comment in it. Despite that inauspicious beginning, I allowed the thread to proceed for many posts until it was clear that the personal hostility was going to overwhelm the topic–and I noted in closing that the topic was still open to discussion provided that it was not wrapped in personal acrimony.
I’m impressed by your ability to distort something even when you quote it. The whole thread was partisan sniping with hardly a fact in evidence (and not generally directed at other posters, initially). As it began to run off the rails, one poster took a personal swipe at Der Trihs for expressing opinions and I noted that at least he admitted that his opinions were opinions rather than being [reverb] Edicts of Truth [/reverb] or something. I then told the poster to knock off the personal attacks. It is not permissible to insult groups of posters as posters, but it is not prohibited to insult large categories of people. (If your claim was true, you should have received multiple Warnings for insulting anti-semites–a group that you consider to be significant in Great Debates.)
You will note in each of these instances that what is permitted is expression, (regardless how objectionable some find it), and what is not permitted are personal attacks or disruptive behavior that will tend to shut down the expression of opinions.
I don’t care what Der Trihs believes or what sort of rants he spouts. As long as he is content to rattle off his list of attitudes and most posters are smart enough to ignore him, he is not hurting anyone. If anyone wishes to engage him in order to show where he is wrong, they are welcome to do that as well. His claims that all the members of various groups are evil or stupid are, themselves, stupid. However, they are so stupid that no one takes them seriously and they are not really impinging on the board.
Too often the claims for “fighting ignorance” resolve to “the staff should suppress the views that I don’t want to see aired.” I’m sorry, but I figure good ideas, well presented, should be sufficient rebuttal without the heavy hand of the staff to support them. Posters who submit nonsense in ways that disrupt the board are liable to be reined it, but if their nonsense is not disruptive, I see no reason why I should be arbiter of Truth. Even insults are prohibited NOT because insulting people is bad (read The Straight Dope some time), but because personal insults tend to derail the discussions.
The reverb on your Edicts of Truth broke my speakers. Who’s going to pay for that?
The point of that thread is confessions. Imagine if you went to a counselor’s office and got berated harshly and loudly by the counselor every time you mentioned the things you don’t tell anyone else. I can understand making a new thread, but confessions should be kept free of negative judgement. (And I thought it was incredibly disturbing as well)
Just one point, Tom: on the one hand you say that the “report a post” function is a tool that should be used by posters. But then you share publicly that a particular poster uses it, albeit not seldom. Do you see how the latter might tend to cut down on the former?
That is all.
But the confession itself was a negative judgement, surely? If Acid Lamp is allowed to share his murderous thoughts, it’s only fair that others be allowed to share their negative thoughts towards his/her confession.
Plus there’s a difference between counselling where presumably such thoughts may be overlooked with a higher purpose in mind or the focus of counselling, and a post on a message board that seemed to me to be almost boastful - but that’s just my opinion.
I’ll bet the guy who called 911 to report his inadequately-made Subway sandwich was irked to see his name in the papers. With luck, it won’t discourage him from reporting future emergencies, e.g. too few mayonnaise packets or a toyless Happy Meal.
You really think that is a good analogy? :smack: Let’s spell it out, Number 4: In this SDMB instance we’re talking about an action that the powers that be supposedly want people to take. In your example, the person took an action in contacting the authorities that they DO NOT want people to take.
I hope that helps. I doubt it will, but there’s no harm in hoping. [Sigh.]
I asked (pretty much rhetorically) whether either of two posters who were upset about a post in MPSIMS had reported it.
The response was a claim by Shodan that he had reported posts in Great Debates to no effect.
At that point, it seemed appropriate to note that he had submitted lots and lots of Reports, many deemed to lack justification.
His response was to make a point of calling out specific posts that he had reported.
I responded to those claims and further noted that his Reporting, even if excessive, was occassionally useful. (I also noted that his Reporting was selective, apparently basing what to report on his agreement or disagreement with the posters in question.)
If the topic of Reports and responses to Reports was not appropriate, then Shodan should have considered not bringing it up. I have responded specifically to Shodan’s comments. It is not my habit to point out posts or posters involved in a Report situation, but it seems silly to refrain from responding to a direct statement by the poster in which the details are laid out by him.
I think I hear the beck and call of Vagisil for some of you. Jesus tapdancing Christ on a pogostick.
What an expenditure of creative energies for naught.
Yeah, I see your point. But this:
…I feel was very inappropriate. I find it surprising, unfortunate, and unseemly that a moderator would share information that members don’t have when it was not necessary, as per your explanation. (I’m referring only to the passage I cited.) I would think that mods, and administrators, would choose to err on the side of keeping opinions of posters that the mods and/or administrators might collectively hold to themselves. As it is, your action here has discouraged reporting posts on the future. Or doing so often. Which I think you would agree is a problem because we run into the another problem: discerning what the meaning of “often” is.
Anyway, I’m disappointed. Not that anyone gives a crap…
Onward.
nevermind
A quick correction - tomndebb was the one who brought up the topic of reporting posts.
He asked if “Acid Lamp’s specific post” had been reported, Sarahfeena and I both responded that we had not. Sarahfeena said she did not because mod action was not the point of her post. I responded because I had reported direct insults in GD in the past, and no action had been taken. It was at that point that tomndebb began the discussion of his perception of my reporting of posts -
which is an ingenious construction, because it puts me on the horns of a dilemma. An insult, which would otherwise garner a warning, will be ignored if I report it. So, some insults I simply have to ignore, because nothing will be done whether I report it or not.
QFT. On the one hand, he complains that I report too much; on the other, that I report too few.
I suppose this, and your ruling on use of the phrase “you are a pill” (and, presumably, “paranoid nutcase”) are as close as we can get to an official ruling - both calling another poster “a pill” or saying that they speak “paranoid nutcase” and Carol Stream’s posts are acceptable, not disruptive, and not deserving of warnings.
Good to know.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, yeah. Not to brag, but I thought it wasn’t a half-bad analogy. Neither Shodan nor sandwich-guy is prohibited from their particular recourse for seeking help, but neither method is designed to be abused.
Not being privy to each of Shodan’s myriad cries of outrage—each one no doubt completely justifiable, which will one day be revealed and confirmed in all their abject horror by some independent Truth Commission —I rely on tom’s word. It does not, unfortunately, tax the imagination that Shodan would seek to bog down the board’s moderators (and tomndebb specifically) with innumerable petty partisan complaints. If only it did!
Despite convincing performances to the contrary, you poor, put-upon souls are not stupid, and you know exactly what you’re doing with all your melodramatic wails and semantic nattering.
Well, it wasn’t half-bad. It was all bad. Completely inapt. It didn’t work. Period. I’ve explained that, but you’re either too dense or, and this is my take, just too stupid. Literally. If you want me to keep attempting to educate you, I will need to be compensated financially. It is only fair.
But it does tax the imagination that one cold be as stupid as you and operate a computer. See how you have to go over the top and characterize Shodan’s reportings as 1)innumerable, 2) petty, and 3) partisan? That should have tipped you off that you’re talking out of your ass. Especially since your oracle, Tom, stipulated himself that some of his reportings were valid and helpful. And it would have dawned on you if you weren’t of such low IQ. And given you’re grasp of anaolgies, that’s a clear fact.
Congratulations, you know what a thesaurus is. You sound like Cornell West or the Wyans brothers doing their schtick from the TV show channeling him as two guys in jail. And make as much sense.
I can see that your trying. But you must try harder.
You know, I read this post, and the very first thing that came to mind was when an Army whistleblower provided pictures of Abu Ghraib and the like, and the administration’s response was to ban cameras. Forget about the bad thing, let’s get pissed that someone talked about the bad thing.
This must be a whoosh. You’ve GOT to be kidding me. Please tell me this is a whoosh.
Hey, I just said it was the first thing I thought of.
Whew. Good. Maybe next time you should share the second thing you think of. 
You are correct; the word “innumerable” was hyperbole and I’m sorry if that confused you. He obviously has not reported an infinite number of posts. Nos. 2 and 3, however, fairly characterize what tom said about many (again, not a literal infinite number) of Shodan’s reportings.
See, now you’re just trying to hurt my feelings. And here I thought we were friends.
I do own a thesaurus, but rarely use it. I’m sorry if my comments drove you to a dictionary.
In the future I will try to better adapt my language to my audience, and will remember to qualify statements such as “you people are not stupid,” in light of the occasional glaring exception.