Exactly what rule did this violate?

[UltraVires]

@BigT

The rule is against saying that other Dopers get sexual gratification, which I would agree is “attacking the poster.”

This was, however, was a statement about a political group. And normally we can say negative things about those. The only exception is when it’s clearly an attack on a person by using their beliefs as a proxy.

This was my understanding as well. I’ve discussed before that a certain policy might be a “left wing masturbatory fantasy” because I thought the rule would only apply to suggesting a poster would get sexual gratification.

Again, this seems to be a new rule implemented without announcement. The last time we did this other posters said that this was just to add up the warnings to give an unfavored poster the ban hammer. The mods vehemently denied this.

Yet Bone’s explanation seems to confirm that this is the case! He agrees that it is not against the rules, but warns this poster for it because he has racked up other warnings. I don’t follow that. If it is against the rules, then it should be modded for any poster, not just ones that have fallen out of favor with the mods.

[DSeid]

@UltraVires

… Yet Bone’s explanation seems to confirm that this is the case! …

I see absolutely no way to read Bone’s explanation as saying that.

Context impacts interpretation of actions. An action that in isolation might only warrant a gentle reminder at most may need a stronger correction when it is part of a pattern of pushing the limits.

Clearly stated in Bone’s post is an intent not to build to banning but to push someone a bit more clearly away from behaviors that may eventually result in such.

[Bone]

@UltraVires

This was my understanding as well. I’ve discussed before that a certain policy might be a “left wing masturbatory fantasy” because I thought the rule would only apply to suggesting a poster would get sexual gratification.

Again, this seems to be a new rule implemented without announcement. The last time we did this other posters said that this was just to add up the warnings to give an unfavored poster the ban hammer. The mods vehemently denied this.

Yet Bone’s explanation seems to confirm that this is the case! He agrees that it is not against the rules, but warns this poster for it because he has racked up other warnings. I don’t follow that. If it is against the rules, then it should be modded for any poster, not just ones that have fallen out of favor with the mods.

In the context of the thread, I construed it as equivalent to being directed at other participants in the thread. Your interpretation is off - I didn’t confirm your thought, nor did I agree that what was said was not against the rules.

Non existent persecution aside, context matters. A poster who has a history of rule violations will be looked at differently than a poster that does not in some cases. Often times I will leave a note and it’s done, but if the poster exhibits the same behavior the exact same actions could then later be a warning. That’s context.

[bobot]

@UltraVires

… I’ve discussed before that a certain policy might be a “left wing masturbatory fantasy” because I thought the rule would only apply to suggesting a poster would get sexual gratification.
…

What’s wrong with being sexy?

[Mean_Mr.Mustard]

@Bone

…we don’t want to have people asserting that others jizz all over themselves, get erections left and right, etc. Stating that other people get sexual gratification in this fashion is not conducive to discussion…

Username/post combo.
mmm

[rowrrbazzle]

@Exapno_Mapcase

IIRC, This was a rule that Ed imposed back in the day. It’s as silly as many of the other rules of his that have since been rescinded.

There’s no possible way to curb all negative characterizations of liberals or conservatives. Here’s one that works for (or against) either side. (The terms used so far are solely about male sexuality, but I assume Dopers are creative.) Those are rare and should be encouraged.

Rather than enforce the silly stuff, you mods should be tossing out Ed’s dicta like a housecleaning after a parent dies. None of the heirs want the stuff. Throw it all in the trash and bring in some better modern furniture.

IMO people who use such expressions (like said “viagra” comment) simply disqualify themselves from really wanting a serious discussion, edging towards trolling. Invective is easy. Reason is hard.

Before starting from zero, you MUST tell us SPECIFICALLY what “furniture” YOU would bring in. Calling the old stuff “silly” is just more name-calling. Calling the “modern” stuff “better” is meaningless until we know what you mean by “better”.

Actually, I have no dog in this fight because I rarely go to GD. But I need to know that it’s there and that I CAN go there if I want a truly reasonable discussion.

[eschereal]

Just ask “was Chingon being a jerk?” I think that is the general principle upon which the rules are based. It is hard to see that as not being jerkish.

[Chingon]

Yeah there’s no need to try rules-lawyer this. It was against the rules of GD.

[Isosleepy]

Pretty simple- it was against the rules. In isolation it’d garner a note, but as part of a pattern, it earned a warning. Excellent moderating, well explained.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

Not only was it against the rule, but it’s a good rule. Accusations that one’s opponents derive sexual gratification from their position are trite, puerile, vulgar, and add zero to any discussion anywhere. Not to mention, that since they invariably involve male sexuality, they contribute to the keg-party ambience the moderators are trying to eradicate.