Don't dare ask a moderator what "political" means

The BBQ Pit
1

I’m only posting this thread here because apparently I’m not allowed to anywhere else.

This seems to be what happens around here if you ask a moderator to define a word or phrase they use to chastise you:

locked thread

I’d suggest that the moderators pretty darn well have to arrive at an operating definition of what “political” and “debate” mean if they’re going to use those words as reasons to chastise and, presumably, eventually ban members.

Apparently we’re not even allowed to discuss this anywhere but here, which rather trivializes the intent of the discussion and the views of the complaintant.

The manner with which this is being dealt leaves me fairly unimpressed with the moderation; I still have no answer in this specific case, which is rather different than the apples and oranges strawman arguments advanced by CK Dexter Haven. Apparently it’s also OK to insult a member when they ask a question about the moderation.

Comments, anyone? Are we allowed to discuss this all here at least? (You’ll note I have over 500 posts no and I don’t believe any of them in the Pit, which I don’t bother even reading; this isn’t the sort of thing I usually engage in, but there doesn’t appear to be much of a choice.)

2

Note … the thread was not locked. It was simply moved to the proper forum for further discussion.

Take a valium, son.

3

That only happened as a result of me posting this very post, didn’t it?

Dexter re-edited the thread to unlock it and moved it. He removed the text that said “this thread is locked,” an advantage in covering one’s trail that non-moderators lack. When I made this post to which you responded, “son,” it was locked.

Don’t insult me

4

You’re accusing an admin of ‘covering his trail’ and engaging in fundamentaly dishonest practices?

You want the cigarette too or just the blindfold?

5

Um … doubt it. If you look at the time stamps, Dex moved and edited the thread at 5:13. You didn’t post this thread until 5:15.

6

Get over yourself, if you think that CK Dexter Haven unlocked and moved and edited his last post in that thread just because you decided to make a Pitting of him for it. What happened is that Dex locked it, planning on consulting with his fellow mods and admins. He then did consult with his fellow mods and admins. Since this happens by e-mail (the board staff being scattered across this great nation of ours) rather than face-to-face, it took a while. Once he had consulted, he carried out the recommended actions agreed upon by the consulting mods and admins and re-opened, moved and edited his final post in that thread. It had nothing to do with you opening this thread to…what? Expose his evil nastiness before the Teeming Millions? :wally

7

Maybe that was a poor choice of words. But if I screw up on here, we can all read it forever. Moderators can just change the text of what they wrote, and in this case a second mod used that to make me look foolish, in this thread.

I was just instructed to take any complaints about moderation right here, and that’s what I did. I don’t expect that people would be unreasonable enough to ban me for following instructions and responding to insult based in an inaccurate portrayal of events.

8

I’d just like to note that I actually have no first-hand witnessed insight to secret moderator/admin consultations. I’m speculating based on things that have been posted by mods and admins after similar brouhahas, and the outcomes of those.

My guess, however, is powers of infinity more likely than Crandolph’s…

9

It’s all a conspiracy! The mods want to keep us from knowing the truth!! They’re all in on it!

[sub]The truth is that no children were killed in the World Trade Center attacks; instead, they were flown to Afghanistan by the terrorists and dressed up as local children to be gunned down by our own soldiers. Terrorists love irony – to them, it’s like rain on their wedding day.[/sub]

Shit, I’ve said too muc

10

I opened the thread to discuss what “political” means here, the one thing that hasn’t happened yet.

The thread was locked after I complained, I complained again and I find it unlocked. I don’t check time stamps on everyone’s posts, no.

I can’t believe that people are defending the kind of insults I’m getting for asking what seems like some fairly reasonable questions in a reasonable manner.

11

I’m not defending the insults. I’m just showing proof that Dex did not do what he did based on your complaints in this thread. The timestamps show that this just ain’t so.

12

Mods, don’t worry, I’m on it:

political (po·lit·i·cal): Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

I tell you, this dictionary is paying for itself!

It’s because you’re being a big baby. You weren’t even chastised in the original GQ thread, just told that your comments weren’t appropriate for the forum/thread. Now you’ve opened two more threads because of it, with ever-increasing levels of drama in each one.

Just to be sure, though, let’s check Mr. Dictionary again:

baby (ba·by): 2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.

Bingo!

13

So what? If this was indeed the case, it seems simple enough that C K first locked it for being in the wrong forum, then realized that it fit the rule that ‘complaints about Board adminsitration go in the Pit’ and moved it. And so here we are. With the thread unlocked so you can continue to whine to your heart’s content.

In any event, I read your nested link and I really have no clue what you are getting all het up about in the first place. You posted something in a GQ thread that was clearly irrelevent to the subject and was what, to most reasonable people, seemed an invitation to political argument. You were admonished for this by a Mod, but not, in my view, in a particularly rude or hostile manner, and instead of bringing the issue here, like you are supposed to, you continued to bitch about in that thread, and another you started in another forum.

You’ve really got nothing much to complain about here. Kindly get a grip and go on with your life.

14

When I saw Dex and dishonest in the same sentence, my brain misfired.

15

Crandolph, the following possibilities exist:

  1. I am a total idiot.

  2. You posted to a thread with a factual answer, therefore sited in GQ, with an off-topic comment about children killed in Afghanistan. The moderator deemed this an attempt to start a “political argument.”

  3. The comments about Jewish people killed in 9/11 were, strictly, off-topic too, but within a reasonable stretch from the question at hand, especially since there had been some investigation here recently of the (false) allegation that no Jewish people were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

  4. You then started a thread (I presume in GQ, from the gist of it) throwing a fit because somebody with the authority to do so told you not to get into political arguments in GQ.

  5. When that thread was closed (probably for consultation, as JayJay suggests), and then moved, you started another thread, this one, bitching about the other one being closed.

  6. The rules are not at all hard for most people to understand. “How many species of water buffalo are there?” is a question with a factual answer, and belongs in GQ. “Is George Bush’s foreign policy alienating the rest of the world?” is a political argument, and belongs in GD. “George Bush is a flaming idiot” is a rant, and belongs in the Pit.

For the record, probably three-quarters of this board agree in general principles that the invasions of Afghanistan and/or Iraq were morally and politically wrong, and nearly all the remaining quarter would agree with them that the death of children due to the U.S. incursion into Afghanistan is tragic and deplorable.

That does not make it appropriate to bring the issue up, out of context, in a thread in GQ seeking the answer to a different, even if tangentially related, question.

(Oh, and just for the record, I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time on this board over the last five-and-a-half years, including seeing a number of posts that moderators have edited. Not once have I ever seen them abuse the power to edit for their own benefit. The one time I have ever seen it used for anything remotely substantive, rather than correcting coding errors or removing material that violates laws or board rules, is when Manhattan, then a moderator, once posted erroneous information, caught his own mistake within ten minutes, corrected his original post, and openly said what he’d done and why.)

At least one of the moderators in question has, I believe, made public his/her own unhappiness with the Bush “Speak loudly, and whale about you with a big stick” foreign policy. As have I, for what it’s worth.

Essentially, you’re transforming a question of making a comment out of place in the context it was placed in, into a major political issue in which you have strawmen dressed up as moderators representing the Big Bad Establishment. You’re mistaken.

Discussing how to improve your sex life is quite appropriate with your counselor, with same-sex friends over drinks at a bar, with your SO and a couple you two are intimate friends with – but not at Parents’ Day at your daughter’s kindergarten class. That her teacher and your principal may be trying to shush you is not because they’re Puritanical prudes, but because you’re saying something legitimate in quite the wrong place. Same thing here.

Nuff said?

16

I’m not quite sure what your beef is. A specific question was asked in GQ. You provided information that didn’t address the question specifically. You were admonished by a moderator to address the question asked - based on their interpretation that your response could be construed as one that would lead to a debate - and advised you to make a post accordingly in Great Debates if you wanted to expound further. I don’t think the admonishment was intended as a harsh one; but rather one in the manner of “please focus on the specific question asked.”

Seems reasonable to me - the mods don’t want General Questions devolving into a free-for-all that takes away from the intent of General Questions. Now, what consitutes something as political is open to debate. However, I think a good-rule of thumb that the mods use in GQ is (note: I do not know if this is actually the case, but just an interpretation on my part) - do the responses address the specific question asked? Anything else could be interpreted as a response that could invite debate. Makes it easier to moderate (manage) the forum.

17

What the hell kind of lame-ass dictionary is that?

Poli, meaning many. And ticks, a catch-all term for any number of species of blood-sucking parasites.

Duh.

18

Well, my thread about Turning Base Metals Into Gold For Fun And Profit vanished without trace shortly before Dex bought himself a flash new sportscar and moved into a palatial mansion: don’t bother searching for the thread; it’s like it never existed. Coincidence…or something more sinister?

19

Crandolph, I wouldn’t worry about being banned for making a political comment in GQ and then getting admonished for it. I’d worry if I kept making political comments, and kept getting admonished for it, and then warned to stop making political comments or my posting status would be reviewed. Even then I’d only worry about it if I ignored the warnings and kept posting political comments in GQ.

People are only banned for ignoring multiple specific warnings. If you are put on double secret probation, you’ll know. Some people might seem to be banned without warning, but they are invariably known returning griefers. And even if you are banned for violating the rules, a series of calm and reasoned emails to the administration where you solemnly undertake not to violate the rules again has been known to get you reinstated.

20

Your brain misfired a long time before that