-
Where do you see that? Quote, please.
-
Scroll up.
That is all.
Yeah; I’m missing that one as well. I’m not seeing anything that personal about any of us involved.
Not seeing it either.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, that’s a pretty terrible mod call.
It’s one of those mod comments that reference possible impending doom if things go the way they appear to be headed.
Remember, we did this before here and many felt these comments were preferable to waiting until things went sideways and warnings flew.
YMMV.
You posted (emphasis added):
JC said you can’t criticize other posters, which is EXACTLY what you said you were planning on doing.
But it seems like Shayna’s reply was worse, and maybe missed due to the time of posting. Junior Modding, without a doubt. Even written in the style of moderation here:
Is there some special rule in Elections that says you cannot criticize posters?
If the criticism gets “personal”, yes. In that post, Elvis is threatening to criticize her if she helps the GOP get their candidate elected. Criticize her, not her ideas. And not just criticize, “severely criticize”.
I guess what I’m asking is whether that is supposed to be the ordinary GD rule forbidding attacks on the poster, or if it’s some more protective Elections variant.
If it’s the former, then I’d be a little surprised. If I say, “your ideas and preferences will cause our country ruin!” am I out of line in GD? I wouldn’t have thought so.
I think GD and Elections are pretty much the same. Your hypothetical is fine, because you didn’t say “You are ruining the country”, you said “your ideas are…”
Things have been like this for as long as I can remember. As JC said, don’t make it personal.
I’m surprised this is so controversial. Imagine this exchange in GD or Elections:
Poster 1: We should raise the minimum wage to $50/hour.
Poster 2: You’re crazy!!
Poster 3: That’s a crazy idea!!
Hasn’t it been SOP that poster 2 is out of line while poster 3 is not?
I think we can take it as read that he meant her ideas and not her hairstyle or dress sense.
You’re probably right. That doesn’t make it not one of the stupidest SOPs in the world. There’s no effective difference in the level of insult between posters 1 and 2 and this is a rule that certainly would not be obeyed in real-life discourse, so why bother with it here.
You can argue, if you want, that when someone says “you” they mean “your ideas”, but this has been the rule for as long as I can remember, and it’s going to continue being the rule. Criticize the post, not the poster. Especially if you are going to literally use the word “criticize”.
Please point out the part of “You can go on helping the Republicans take back the White House if you want, but don’t expect not to get severely criticized for it.” that means “If you don’t stop, I’m going to criticize you.” To me, it’s so clearly on the order of “Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas” in both meaning and severity that I find it absurd that it’s being modded and that anyone is defending it.
I guess I had thought that while we phrased the rule as attack the post and not the poster, what we meant was that you are entitled to attack a person’s ideas (however phrased) but not their character.
So I thought we could say, “Your opposition to gay marriage makes the world a worse place,” but not say “Your opposition to gay marriage is because your heart is black with hatred.”
Entirely possible that I never properly understood the rule though.
I would say you understand the rule as we all did circa 2007 but there’s been a wave of moderation rulings that reveal it’s specific words and phrasings that are insulting. “You’re mistaken” is an insult of the highest order but “This post wins the least connected to reality prize of the day” is completely inoffensive and appropriate in any forum.
Keep in mind that this was a mod note, not a warning. Mod notes are often given when a moderator thinks a poster is approaching the line, even if he hasn’t crossed it. I don’t know whether this was the case or not here, but you don’t have to break a rule to get a mod note.
One thing I have learned here, and it is pretty simple.
The rules are whatever a Mod says they are. End of story.
Nobody on this board is going to individually, single-handedly give the White House back to the Republicans. The only way that I can see to take that remark seriously, “You can go on helping the Republicans take back the White House if you want, but don’t expect not to get severely criticized for it.”, is to read it as:
You [meaning all of you, collectively] can go on helping the Republicans take back the White House if you want, but don’t expect not to get severely criticized [meaning publicly criticized collectively] for it.
Compare with Ralph Nader’s reception last time he ran for president: He was widely and publicly criticized for handing the White House to the Republicans (GWB specifically), or one could have taken that as being: All the voters who voted for Nader were, collectively, criticized for that.
The comment under question here seems to be of that same form. Much as I dislike ElvisL1vis from what I’ve seen of him in many threads, I have to defend him here. I didn’t see anything personal in his remark. All I can see in it is “[All of] You [collectively, who that that position] . . . get severely criticized.”