# Hank Beecher's warnings and suspension are bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 23, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876 "2016-04-23T05:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/61 "2016-05-06T09:14:57Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I haven’t seen the report - I don’t get them for ATMB, just GD and Elections - but I’ll say that the central thesis of the ‘liar’ rule remains the same, at least as far as I’m concerned. Don’t do this: > > 1. Post that someone is telling an untruth > 2. Post that they’re doing so intentionally > > Context is extremely important, of course. > > I have no interest in parsing out theoreticals and examples. If the line is vague it’s a safe bet I consider that a feature, not a bug, and posters should adjust their posting accordingly. > > Best practice, as always? Address the post, not the poster. And don’t be a jerk about it. It’s not a thread about the liar rule though is it? It’s specifically about two of Hank Beecher’s warnings (and subsequent suspension based on them), and you’ve dodged talking about both of those. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/62 "2016-05-06T14:04:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I opine that the underlying phenomenon could encompass “Willful denial” depending upon the context. I don’t know, but go back and read the specific context I was talking about and tell me what you think. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/63 "2016-05-06T21:46:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know, but go back and read the specific context I was talking about and tell me what you think. I did that earlier. I did that just now, then dug into the thread itself. Honestly, I can read it both ways, though by way of full disclosure I tend to read such things with a generous interpretation, and react strongly when accusations of lying are explicit. That’s my bias. Can I pivot to a more general point? Wolfpup captured the fundamentals of the issue in a past ATMB thread: > [@Does "Deliberately Distorted" = "Lied"](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-deliberately-distorted-lied/722598/72): > > The first point is of interest to me, too, relative newbie here though I am, and I offer my opinion that it’s quite different from accusing someone of lying. The prohibition against accusing someone of lying or being a liar is something that I think most of us can live with because it’s unnecessarily insulting and hostile. But when we start outlawing anything that can even remotely be considered possibly synonymous, then IMHO we start to seriously impair the ability to communicate on this board. Which is my answer to the basic question in the OP – it may or may not be equivalent to an accusation of lying depending on context, and the mods can make that call, but we don’t need any more rules that impair the ability to communicate basic ideas. There are some psychological issues that arise when someone trusts science and medicine with their life, but decides that 98% of all climate scientists are wrong. Such phenomenon are valid grist for GD. What would have been best practice to communicate such valid ideas? “Willful ignorance” could have included a link to wikipedia, but frankly on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance would arguably be read as more offensive. “Willful blindness” is another alternative. But frankly I think “Willful denial” sounds mildest to me. On a first reading, I gave it a generous interpretation (but recall my bias). At any rate, here’s my point. We want to keep pit-worthy stuff out of GD. But we don’t want to discourage clear communication. I think direct accusations of lying serve no purpose and are inappropriate as they are essentially about the poster. But “Your post expresses symptoms of denial”, seems appropriate in some discussions of climate science. Of course everything can be trolled and line danced. Which is why the mods need to look at general patterns of behavior. By way of further disclosure, this post expresses my preferences for board policy on this topic: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161) ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/64 "2016-05-07T03:40:47Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I did that earlier. I did that just now, then dug into the thread itself. Honestly, I can read it both ways, though by way of full disclosure I tend to read such things with a generous interpretation, and react strongly when accusations of lying are explicit. That’s my bias. > > Can I pivot to a more general point? Wolfpup captured the fundamentals of the issue in a past ATMB thread: There are some psychological issues that arise when someone trusts science and medicine with their life, but decides that 98% of all climate scientists are wrong. Such phenomenon are valid grist for GD. > > What would have been best practice to communicate such valid ideas? “Willful ignorance” could have included a link to wikipedia, but frankly on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance would arguably be read as more offensive. “Willful blindness” is another alternative. But frankly I think “Willful denial” sounds mildest to me. On a first reading, I gave it a generous interpretation (but recall my bias). > At any rate, here’s my point. We want to keep pit-worthy stuff out of GD. But we don’t want to discourage clear communication. I think direct accusations of lying serve no purpose and are inappropriate as they are essentially about the poster. But “Your post expresses symptoms of denial”, seems appropriate in some discussions of climate science. Of course everything can be trolled and line danced. Which is why the mods need to look at general patterns of behavior. > > By way of further disclosure, this post expresses my preferences for board policy on this topic: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161) By this line of reasoning, I take it you are in favour of Hank Beecher’s warning for lying being repealed? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/65 "2016-05-07T04:07:58Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > By this line of reasoning, I take it you are in favour of Hank Beecher’s warning for lying being repealed? Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/66 "2016-05-07T04:33:23Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > By this line of reasoning, I take it you are in favour of Hank Beecher’s warning for lying being repealed? I perceive Hank Beecher’s level of intensity to be substantially higher than wolfpup’s. Whether a mod wishes to note or warn both or either of them is a matter for calibration. But consider this criteria: _Is it straightforward for the poster to make the underlying substantive point_ without running afoul of GD rules? In the case of Hank Beecher, I considered his pit-worthy remarks to be gratuitous. (Comparisons to Nazis usually are, as are uses of the N-word.) In wolfpup’s case, I struggled to tone his remarks down without changing his substance. Even adding softeners would have been challenging. (I happen to think wolfpup muffed the substance as it happens, but that’s not either here nor there.) Wolfpup’s remarks touched upon the science of science communication, albeit tangentially. I admit that “Making stuff up” is a phrase that I have used in the past, but stopped when I found it was _verboten_. I didn’t use it often though and that was during era 1 or 2 anyway (defined in my link - we are now in era 3). I’d probably draw the lines a little differently than the staff if I was God-mod, but that doesn’t mean I see cause to whine about their choices. I’ve adapted to era 3, mostly. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/67 "2016-05-07T05:37:15Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Maybe you mean it like that, and certainly there are circumstances in which that would be its primary meaning. But that is _not_ always the case, and this is a great example of when it isn’t. Like I said before, if someone was to tell me that they knew my motivation behind something was, for instance, laziness, and I told them they’re making that up, it’s not an accusation of lying. I’m not telling them that they know it isn’t my motivation and still claim that it is. I’m just reminding them that it is their assumptions that tells them I’m lazy, not their knowledge. This is not at all a deliberate accusation of falsehood. It is very easy to believe your own thought processes to the extent that you blur the line between actual fact and your model of the world. Being told which of those two your statement belongs in doesn’t include a presupposition that you know which one your statement belongs in as well. All you are describing is coming to an incorrect conclusion about someone’s motivation. There are other ways of making that claim without implying willful action by using a word like “make.” You could say they are “reading something that isn’t there,” or “misunderstanding where I’m coming from,” for example. As for the specific use in your OP: HB’s post also mentions “selective listening”–which means actively ignoring that which you don’t want to hear. Hence the word “selective”–you are selecting something. He also mentions desperation in turning everything into a racial issue–not that BG actually sees them as being racist, but that he’s desperately looking for any way to make it racist. The entire post is an accusation that BG is doing this willfully, not that he is mistaken. You can’t really attack someone like that for being mistaken. Plus, well, he should have been Warned for his blatant race baiting using “nigga eat a watermelon,” anyways. Unfortunately, the mods here care more about the “liar” rule than racism, so they prioritized that one. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/68 "2016-05-09T12:59:32Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Jonathan Chance, can you please comment on the first of the warnings. There are several people in this thread that think that a comment about perceived unfairness in your moderation does not equate to a personal insult. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not looking for a safe harbor. I asked 2 specific questions about 2 specific posts. > [@bldysabba](#): > > It’s not a thread about the liar rule though is it? It’s specifically about two of Hank Beecher’s warnings (and subsequent suspension based on them), and you’ve dodged talking about both of those. Paging Jonathan Chance. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/69 "2016-05-09T20:37:25Z")
OK, I’m going to reply one more time, here. 1. While I warned him for the ‘stormfront’ line in that post, I could have easily dinged him for failure to follow direction. That post was his third in a row in that thread. Each of the three took issue with Tom providing some guidance in an attempt to end what looked to be derailing the thread. In the first one, HB simply took issue with Tom. In the second one, HB accused Tom of abusing his moderation powers because he was ‘losing’ the debate and accusing Tom of hijacking the thread. In the third one, HB drew the parallel between Tom’s style and that of the moderation on Stormfront. Remember, now, that all of that happened without any intervening reply by anyone. HB escalated himself to a level commensurate with a warning with no one else egging him on. Also, as an aside, while it’s customary to refer to moderators here as ‘jackbooted thugs’ and such it’s generally in a joking manner. HB was deadly serious there. That’s an insult, clear as day. 1. I thought I’d answered this before. Remember, almost all moderator decisions are extremely context sensitive. Words or phrases that may cause some form of sanction in one example may not in another. I am always reluctant to try to provide some form of clear guidance on specific words and phrases because of this. Sure as shootin’, as soon as that’s done some enterprising soul will come up with some means by which to break the spirit of the rule while staying within the established boundaries. 2. Hank’s real offense - other than piling up three warnings in six months (which is never a good sign) - is an inability to let things go. In the ‘stormfront’ warning he built himself up to a warning where if he’d just made the one post, possibly even just two, he’d have avoided the warning. In the warning he received from Colibri, he determined that he wasn’t finished arguing about something even after being told to knock it off. A failure to follow direction led to that warning but it really boils down to not being able to let something go. In the most recent one in April he invoked the ‘liar’ rule with ‘making crap up’ and followed it up with several negative characterizations of the poster in addition. Following that warning, HB took issue in the thread with the moderation, similar to his behavior pattern with Tom in point #1, above, and then a few posts later with his intent to find and exploit holes in our rules. This can be interpreted as an intent to troll. In short, following the third warning he spent 9 of the next 20 posts in that thread arguing with the decision instead of participating in the thread. These actions didn’t win him any friends while the mod loop discussed his situation. That said, I think that’s all I have to say on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2016, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/70 "2016-05-11T15:28:38Z")
I don’t know about the others, but I thought that cleared up things nicely, **JC**. The only question left is why BG’s post didn’t even seem to be close to the line (enough to get a mod note). ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/72 "2016-05-12T06:38:19Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > But consider this criteria: … Ah welll, since this is the Dope … you mean, of course, criterion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/73 "2016-05-12T15:03:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The only question left is why BG’s post didn’t even seem to be close to the line (enough to get a mod note). I hope you’re not holding your breath. **JC** already said he wasn’t going to answer that question. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/74 "2016-05-12T16:36:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I hope you’re not holding your breath. Kinda fun to imagine that he is, though. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/75 "2016-05-12T16:38:26Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Kinda fun to imagine that he is, though. I wear on a stack of Bibles, that thought never crossed my mind… Nope. Not for one second. No one can prove otherwise!! ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/76 "2016-05-12T16:39:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I hope you’re not holding your breath. **JC** already said he wasn’t going to answer that question. Of course not. I don’t expect JC to respond back at all, given that he said he wouldn’t. I do hope, but not expect, that whoever made the decision that JC is refusing to defend will come in and explain their reasoning. (I mean, since when do the mods not give the logic used in the mod loop?) But, even if not, I couldn’t very well say JC wrapped up everything when there’s one question still left unanswered. Just because I like to compliment the mods sometimes because I know the job is hard and to encourage the things I like doesn’t mean I’m gonna pretend that I wouldn’t prefer better. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/77 "2016-05-12T18:42:49Z")
I think you guys expect way way too much. I’m also surprised that there’s a loud call and cry for clarification on why posts dripping with Nazi comparisons and race baiting would be modded. This seems like one of the planet’s lesser mysteries. As I noted upthread, there’s no comparison with regards to post intensity between HB and his attentive interlocutors. ## To pick on John Mace (an entirely reasonable poster) I don’t see his point. John’s posting style tends to stay a safe distance away from the problem-line. And if his point is prescriptive, I’m not sure whether he wants a higher or lower civility bar in this instance. And if he’s implying mod bias I’d suggest that, as a rule, comparing moderators to genocidal maniacs and advocates of the same or adopting the language patterns of white supremacist race baiters (presumably as a joke - ha!) is a less than wholly effective method of fighting ignorance. (I had entirely forgotten about even the existence of the word criterion. Huh. That was a helpful correction actually, as I use criteria all the time. The word I mean.) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/78 "2016-05-12T19:04:54Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > To pick on John Mace (an entirely reasonable poster) I don’t see his point. John’s posting style tends to stay a safe distance away from the problem-line. And if his point is prescriptive, I’m not sure whether he wants a higher or lower civility bar in this instance. The point is consistency, and predictability. These are valuable. When there is treatment that seems uneven questions get raised because they offend these ideas. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/79 "2016-05-12T19:27:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The point is consistency, and predictability. These are valuable. When there is treatment that seems uneven questions get raised because they offend these ideas. Yep, but fairness above all. Inconsistent and unpredictable rules are going to lead to sense of unfairness. As for the rules themselves… I’m fine with quite strict rules in GD, because I’d like to think that was our place for, well Great Debates. Looser rules in the other forums makes sense, as they are more for chatting, and I’d be fine with no rules at all in the Pit. That’s if it were up to me. But it’s not, so whatever rules we do have, I’d just like to see them enforced the same for all posters. I don’t think the mods are politically biased (at least not in an overt way), but we do see that some posters get whacked and others not. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/80 "2016-05-12T20:26:47Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > (I had entirely forgotten about even the existence of the word criterion. Huh. That was a helpful correction actually, as I use criteria all the time. The word I mean.) And then there’s “the Criterion Collection,” which… I mean, surely there must be more than one in the collection, right? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/81 "2016-05-12T20:28:46Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > And then there’s “the Criterion Collection,” which… I mean, surely there must be more than one in the collection, right? There has to be more than one. That’s the only criterion for it being a collection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=5)