# 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:** 5
**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, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/82 "2016-05-12T21:34:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > There has to be more than one. That’s the only criterion for it being a collection. A collection with only one would be quite a phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/83 "2016-05-12T21:50:18Z")
An empty collection is valid also–logically, if not phenomenononologically. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/84 "2016-05-12T22:49:00Z")
A collection of criteria is a criterion collection, the same way a collection of stamps is a stamp collection. It doesn’t imply a single entity in the collection. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > A collection with only one would be quite a phenomena. I’m not sure this is the right media for a comment like that. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/85 "2016-05-12T23:26:56Z")
> [@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. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, but fairness above all. Inconsistent and unpredictable rules are going to lead to sense of unfairness. Fair enough: consistency, predictability and fairness are virtues. I’d argue though that the first two also have their downsides. Bright line rules lead to line dancing, gaming, and rules lawyering all of which are problems on this message board. Which is why the prime directive here is Don’t Be a Jerk. So I’d argue that the optimal lines are somewhat fuzzy, but not too fuzzy. As for fairness, there is a bias against problem posters. Up to a point, that doesn’t concern me all that much. Frankly I think that posters who continually cause moderator headaches without caution or regret are probably acting like jerks. There’s a _cumulative_ effect that could be reasonably considered. There’s also a bias against unpopular posters, or rather those that are reported often for dubious reasons. That’s a more difficult structural problem. ## Also life isn’t fair, an old adage that remains as true as it is typically irrelevant. Noted for completeness. Tricky plurals: https://communications\_resources.nrel.gov/style\_guide/criterion\_datum\_memorandum\_phenomenon\_and\_their\_plurals\_0 > **[Tricky Plurals](http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000039.htm)** > **[Be Careful with the -a Team - The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation](https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/be-careful-with-the-a-team/#comment-78904)** > > I enjoy GrammarBook.com because it raises some excellent questions; but I have my own questions about some of your “answers.” | The first letter of the alphabet is also a common English word that is virtually synonymous with one. As a word, a is the... Oo! > **[Guide\_to\_Common\_Writing\_Errors.pdf](https://faculty.uml.edu/rsiegel/Guide_to_Common_Writing_Errors.pdf)** > > 31.50 KB Respect for proper and prescriptive grammar has gone to the dogs. I blame the [medium](http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/be-careful-with-the-a-team/?replytocom=78904). ---
**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 13, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/86 "2016-05-13T00:26:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, but fairness above all. Inconsistent and unpredictable rules are going to lead to sense of unfairness. Not really above all, IMO. If a rule was, you couldn’t write the name “Tabitha” in any form because it was a trigger for the site owners, and someone posted that word and was warned for it - I’d say that’s not really fair because the rule is arbitrary and doesn’t make sense. But as long as it’s clear, consistently enforced, the result is predictable. We could live with that. I don’t know, maybe the distinction is too fine. I’m okay with unfairness if it is consistently applied and predictable. That way everyone gets to decide if that’s okay with them. Consistency can be judged based on the history. So can predictability. Fairness is subjective by definition. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’d argue though that the first two also have their downsides. Bright line rules lead to line dancing, gaming, and rules lawyering all of which are problems on this message board. Which is why the prime directive here is Don’t Be a Jerk. So I’d argue that the optimal lines are somewhat fuzzy, but not too fuzzy. I don’t think the board has a problem with rules lawyering, line dancing, etc. and even if it did, I’m not opposed to those things. ---
**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 13, 2016, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/87 "2016-05-13T00:48:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think the board has a problem with rules lawyering, line dancing, etc. and even if it did, I’m not opposed to those things. Ah, I see. Noted. Realize though that your preferred mode of operation involves the creation and enforcement of a large number of rules. And that would lead to complaints that there are enough formal rules already. I say this because such complaints have been made in the past. Realize also that since the beginning that path was considered and passed over. This is formalized in the registration agreement, penned by Cecil’s assistant little Ed: “We have one guiding principle: Don’t be a jerk.” Also: “Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever.” Don’t get me wrong. We’re here to fight ignorance and there’s a case to be made for calibrating moderation decisions in one direction or another. So I’m not trying to shut you down. I’m just saying that detailed rule making has been at odds with the moderating strategy of this message board from the beginning. And that detailed rule making is an implication of your stance, though you haven’t explicitly advocated it AFAIK. ---
**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 13, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/88 "2016-05-13T01:10:49Z")
Detailed and voluminous rules are not necessary. Take the rule against accusations of lying. Right now there is some guidelines and some grey area. If the rule were interpreted more discreetly like Miller moderates in the Pit, that’s the same or less quantity of rules and it adds clarity. As it stands, “you made that up” or you are “deliberately misleading” or saying something is “deceitful” can earn warnings. Or not. That’s not clarity. If X then Y. Not if X then maybe Y or maybe Z, and these are different depending on who is responding. Clear and discreet rules allow for consistent application. ---
**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 13, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/89 "2016-05-13T01:23:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. Let me be explicit. There were widespread calls by conservatives a couple of years ago to raise the civility bar in GD and presumably Elections, so as to drum Der Trihs out of those fora.[1] So they ushered in Jon Chance. [2] The problem is that Der stuck to the letter of the rules during the old era. The standards that replaced him were necessarily more vague if they were not going to be encyclopedic in length. Currently I perceive complaints about the moderation of those making racially and ethnically provocative posts which basically wouldn’t be tolerated in a rough bar, never mind someone’s living room. Well, tastes vary. But am I understanding things properly when I perceive requests by conservatives to lower the civility bar somewhat? Because I’m not buying the false equivalents between Hank Beecher’s posts and those of others. ## For completeness, I don’t have issues with or preferences for recent or past standards. I do think ref gaming should be recognized as such, though to be explicit I’ve seen none of that over the past week or so. ETA: Bone: Valid point with your example. I’m not sure how general it is, but I concede it’s pertinent to this thread. [1] (I added Elections to that list mostly so that I could fit in the plural form of forum.) Yee-ha! [2] This is an exaggeration. John Mace has correctly noted that lots of mods were thinking of raising the civility bar at the time. But giving the new era a name is a convenient shorthand. ---
**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 13, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/90 "2016-05-13T01:33:40Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Let me be explicit. There were widespread calls by conservatives a couple of years ago to raise the civility bar in GD and presumably Elections, so as to drum Der Trihs out of those fora.[1] So they ushered in Jon Chance. [2] Just to be clear, I’ve never understood why people quote that as if it were documented history. If it is, can you point me to where it’s documented? Otherwise, I’ll say: yeah, if that what you want to think, fine. ---
**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 13, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/91 "2016-05-13T01:44:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just to be clear, I’ve never understood why people quote that as if it were documented history. If it is, can you point me to where it’s documented? Otherwise, I’ll say: yeah, if that what you want to think, fine. Well I can point to this thread: [Curious when enough is enough? [Der Trihs] - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=691074) Der accurately posts the standards of the time: > [@Curious when enough is enough? \[Der Trihs\]](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/26): > > Because I do “knock it off”. And I have gotten two warnings over the years; one for personal insult (that I don’t think was one), and one of which was just a misunderstanding on the mod’s part (confusing “you” as a inclusive term for people in general, for you as in the poster I was talking to). > > People get banned on this board mainly by getting in mod’s faces and not backing down. Not for being unpopular. John Mace argues for raising those standards: > [@Curious when enough is enough? \[Der Trihs\]](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-when-enough-is-enough-der-trihs/658461/27): > > No. You may “knock it off” for a day or two, but then you’re back posting the exact same stuff (often even using the exact same wording) that got you the mod note in the first place. Over and over and over again. Posters get banned all the time for repeatedly ignoring mod instructions. > > n.b.: I’m not suggesting that you be banned from the MB. But 12 mod notes in the last year alone for the same basic thing in GD should tell us that GD isn’t the place for you. Der would always obey in-thread mod instructions immediately, unlike most problem posters. The issue was that he didn’t tone things down across different threads, absent explicit advice to do so. That sort of explicit advice came during the Jon Chance era, at which point he was effectively drummed out of GD. To be clear though, I mocked and pitted Der when he was active in GD. It’s not like I agreed with him. I’m just reporting how things went at the time. More gunning for bannings etc. here: [That wasn't "theadshitting" Marely23 - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=702962) ETA: John: I see that your request for documentation could have covered different material. If I haven’t addressed it adequately, apologies. ---
**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 13, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/92 "2016-05-13T01:50:56Z")
And I get that bright lines are chalenging because they don’t allow for flexibility. The rule for lying could be that no implication that a person is not arguing in good faith is allowed. That is also clear and is on the other end of the spectrum. ---
**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 13, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/93 "2016-05-13T02:08:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And I get that bright lines are chalenging because they don’t allow for flexibility. The rule for lying could be that no implication that a person is not arguing in good faith is allowed. That is also clear and is on the other end of the spectrum. In another thread I noted that the board has gone through 3 eras with regards to accusations of lying. 1. It is permitted in GD. It is a claim that can be evaluated like any other. (I think Gaudere advocated this at some point.) 2. Accusations of lying or calling somebody a liar in GD are considered insults. 3. Claims that imply #2 may receive moderator attention. I fully support the transition between 1 and 2 because calling someone a liar is a) personal and therefore belongs in the pit and b) needlessly hostile. Number 3 _potentially_ interferes with clear communication though. So I have cold feet with regards to defending it in general. And I have to concede that era 2 had the advantage of clarity. (Of course it’s never been the case that you could string together 6 consecutive synonyms for lying and say that you are actually within the rules. But nobody here was advocating rules-extremism.) ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/94 "2016-05-14T18:58:16Z")
Would it be so bad to allow calling someone a liar? If inappropriate and to often you could just kick the offender out for being a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/95 "2016-05-15T01:59:34Z")
Without linking to it, let me note that there is currently a Pit thread where one participant is calling another a liar. It’s ugly, and distracts from the real issue, and, worst of all, it cannot really be demonstrated one way or another. It gets into “I believe X.” When, in a more reasonable forum, someone says, “That statement is not true,” there are ways to show this. Links, cites, real evidence. But if someone says, “You’re lying,” we’re at an impasse. The thread dissolves into microscopic analyses of word usage, and, in the end, personal character. From, “No, Neptune isn’t the planet that’s tilted on its side” to “No, you didn’t just make an honest mistake when you said that, but you deliberately lied to try to promote a false agenda.” It stops being, “Here are the facts” and turns into “You poopy-head.” The rule against lying is a good thing. Otherwise, other forums would resemble the Pit. (Ick.) ---
**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 15, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/96 "2016-05-15T04:11:44Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Would it be so bad to allow calling someone a liar? In GD? Yes. Can we not have one forum where posters are supposed to debate ideas and not descend into personal attacks? If we had only one forum, then I’d agree, But we don’t, and if you really feel you must call someone a liar, we have a place reserved specifically for doing so. > [@](#): > > If inappropriate and to often you could just kick the offender out for being a jerk. And then we’d argue endlessly about when it’s “inappropriate” and how often is “too often”. ---
**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 15, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/97 "2016-05-15T19:00:32Z")
The question is, is it worse than having people who can lie and argue in bad faith with impunity? Because that’s the other side of the coin. Barring rules against lying or arguing in bad faith, the only other way to stop it is to call people on it. We can’t even call out the argument in this case, unlike the racist one. Because pointing out that a statement is a lie is calling the person a liar. And we apparently can’t even imply it. So you get it happening all the time. Personally, I gave up on GD as an actual debate forum long ago. It’s just IMHO for stronger opinions, with extra rules (that are poorly defined as a feature) that are supposed to keep the higher tempers better contained. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t stick around in the threads where it doesn’t. ---
**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 15, 2016, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/98 "2016-05-15T21:33:21Z")
Calling someone a liar is not in any way a guarantee that he will stop lying. You’re offering a false dichotomy. Besides, you can call them a liar in the Pit, so you offer a false premise as well. There is no lack of shameless people on this MB. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/99 "2016-05-15T23:11:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > . . . Barring rules against lying or arguing in bad faith, the only other way to stop it is to call people on it. . . . You can currently call them on factual untruth. You can say, “Whoa, pardner, that ain’t true.” That’s all that’s really needed. You don’t need to make it a personal failing of the person in question. That leads to vendettas and name-calling. When someone says something that isn’t true, you just say, “Not so: here are some cites that contradict what you just said.” This happens all the time, and is perfectly sufficient for our purposes. ---
**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 15, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/100 "2016-05-15T23:36:27Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Barring rules against lying or arguing in bad faith, the only other way to stop it is to call people on it. As noted, there are other ways. But, from the registration agreement: > [@RA](#): > > You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of U.S. law. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/101 "2016-05-16T03:01:35Z")
The moderators categorically refuse to enforce that rule. IMO, it should be removed from the RA, due to lack of enforcement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876.md?page=6)