The mods have a dilemma. How far do you let a talented and informative poster with anger management issues go in his apparently irresistible desire to gnaw on someone who has setup a cottage industy in assembling annoying straw man arguments, but is clever enough to always color inside the lines rules wise.
It’s tough to be a mod.
As a representative of the Barn Lobby, you have maligned our clients, Sir. Please retract your analogy or you will hear from our counsel. Our clients(barns) are rather inanimate, and don’t post dumb-shit things to message boards.
Your posters may vary.
Heh Heh Heh.
Tell them to quit making the goddamn six-foot-tall strawmen and pose them in attacking stances (remember moderator trading cards? These are ever so much worse) with cute little piglets and bunny rabbits. Then, and only then, will I retract formally and fully my analogy.
[sub]They’ll never find my flamethrower…[/sub]
Time for December to move on.
What the fuck does that mean?
Ah. So having an expert level of knowledge on a subject is the magical be-an-asshole-for-free card. Excellent.
Next time someone offers an opinion about aviation, I can go,
“Listen, you pin-headed fuckwit. If you had bothered to open your tiny brain and learn some science, you’d know that airplanes don’t blah blah blah…”
Because, after all, I have something valuable to add to discussions about airplanes.
Just like almost every poster on this board has something of value to add on subjects that THEY are expert in. Why is it that Collounsbury’s particular field of expertise gives him a free ride to be a prick to everyone else?
And why do I have this sinking suspicion that if he had the same level of expertise, but an opinion on matters that differed from what the mods like to hear, he would have been banned with prejudice a long time ago?
It’s easy to let up on someone when, after all, they are saying things you agree with.
But Sam, you know I like you and respect you, but in the interests of fairness it also has to be said that Collounsbury is not a prick to everyone else. I honestly believe his target rich environment is less than 4 or 5 posters to be honest.
Certainly, it’s true that he goes for your throat on occasion (which can’t be pleasant doubtless) but also, I see Coll often attempt to be quite magnanimous towards you as well. It’s really only december who I see Coll go totally ballistic over - but I would add that I hardly go searching on Coll’s posts to verify otherwise.
Hey milroyj, after reading Collounsbury’s post,. I must ask, what is it do you find so offensive? Not only was he calm, he was also dead on in describing December’s painfully transparent agenda.
Are you really so offended by this post as to call for his banning, or is it just that you just have a huge hard on for Collounsbury.
Um, no, I wasn’t calling for anyone’s banning. Since this is the appropriate forum for: “…all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB” I am merely questioning why the apparent double standard, when it comes to Col. He was warned by an Administrator, and less than 24 hours later, he repeats the offense, but nothing is done, or even said about it. I am just wondering why that is?
Gosh, maybe somebody should start a collounsbury FAQ.
Here are a few suggested entries:
Why do you find him so annoying
Among other things, he breaks the rules on a regular basis. Specifically, he engages in personal attacks in forums such as Great Debates where such conduct is frowned upon. This makes it difficult to have a civil discussion. Also, it’s frustrating that he can lash out at people but they cannot respond in kind.
But he’s so KNOWLEDGEABLE
Like Sam Stone said, being knowledgeable is not a satisfactory excuse for being a jerk. Most of us here are knowledgeable about a few areas.
His victims deserve it
Nobody deserves to be the subject of personal attacks in Great Debates. The way we engage in such conduct on this board is to use the Pit. collounsbury should feel free to do just that.
Besides, collounsbury has lashed out at people who were debating things civilly and reasonably. So his victims don’t necessarily deserve it. Nobody is right 100% of the time.
But he’s got an anger management problem
That may be so. Clearly, the guy has some personality issues. But if somebody repeatedly flouts the rules – whether it’s because he won’t follow the rules or beacuse he can’t follow the rules – he’s still breaking the rules.
The above is just MHO of course. For what it’s worth, I do believe that as a long-term poster, collounsbury should get extra leniency. Perhaps he should be confined to the Pit for a couple months.
Well milroyj, it seems to me that what** coll** had said isn’t a reason for the Mods to do anything agianst him. In fact Coll was dead on, in his post. What did he say that leads you to believe otherwise?
It seems to me that anyone who posts regularly to this or any Internet message board which encourages open debate would tend to have a very thick skin. Collounsbury’s victims tend to be frequent posters. I hardly think they shrivel up and die under his flaming – if they even notice it. So I wonder if the defense of Collounsbury’s victims doesn’t have some other purpose than simple chivalry – note the political leanings of Collounsbury’s supporters vs. attackers. Political bias rears its head again – I don’t blame the mods for not being moved by these arguments.
It’s because the mods aren’t on 24 hours a day or miss things once in a while. If they are urgent, big deals they will usually get dealed with in a timely manner. I think that if a rule gets broken repeatedly, you should start up a thread about it, in case the mods don’t notice it.
Personal attacks in GD, that’s why:
Another entry for the FAQ:
But you’re just attacking collounsbury because you disagree with him
Even if true, that doesn’t change his behaviour. In any event, there are plenty of people I disagree with on this message board whom I’ve never said a word about anywhere. For what it’s worth, in the recent thread about CEO pay, I was on the same side as collounsbury. Doesn’t change the fact that collounsbury was rude and obnoxious in that thread.
There should be no place for personal attacks in GD.
There should be no place for deliberate obtuseness in GD.
If one were to tackle the latter, there will be a lot less of the former.
The rule in Great Debates is “No direct personal insults”. This covers “you asshole”, “bite me”, “you are stupid”, etc. The term “personal attacks” is, sadly, much too easy to define as “anything that pisses me off is a personal attack”. You may very well take offense at being told your motives are suspect, or you don’t know what you’re talking about, or your logic is poor, or your argument is self-centered, or your reasoning is inconsistent and thus hypocritical. Nevertheless, I do not feel it would be beneficial to the forum to have a ban on such statements; sometimes poor logic or hypocritical reasoning or self-centered motives can and should be pointed out. Do we want a forum where you can’t say to poster SunPower “your argument against having a nuclear plant in Topeka is based sheerly on your immoderate love of solar power”? Where we can’t say “perhaps you should read a biology book before you tell us evolution is wrong”?
Yes, it is annoying to be told your argument is flawed somehow or based on something other than your manifestly superior reasoning and facts. However, I don’t think such statements can reasonably be banned. Collounsbury’s statements are not something would warn anyone else for. I requested in my warning that he better stick to a higher standard tham I require of other posters, but I don’t want you thinking that any of the statements you quoted would get a warning in GD for any othe poster.
Personally, right now I’d like to take the whole whiny, arguing lot of you and dump you in a barrel and weld the lid shut. Personal grudge fights in GD are not unknown, but it’s been a while since we had so many involved and so many who are ready to blame us for not “controlling” the other poster better.
As an addendum, I am not sure why Sam Stone thinks Collounsbury’s views in any way align with the overall beliefs of the administration. CKDext, an admin, has argued fiercely with Collounsbury. David B is Jewish and I beleive he has posted in a somewhat pro-Isreal stance. I don’t post in the middle-east threads at all; MEBuckner may, but not to any great extent. So I’m not sure why he thinks we clasp Collounsbury’s views to our bosom.
Also, I didn’t see Collounsbury’s post because no one used the “report the post” feature, and I hadn’t read the end of the thread. And one more thing: I appreciate it if requests for clarification do not come along with implicit accusations of bias.
I see, the Adminstrator has spoken, and Col can do whatever he likes. No prob, no foul, your board, your rules, etc.
Sorry, I can’t buy it. It’s like when the Repubs were SOOOO upset about Bill Clinton refusing to respond to grand jury questions in ways they thought improper. “It’s not about him being a Democratic President at all! No, it’s just our deep and abiding concern for the propriety of Grand Jury proceedings about blowjobs!”
At some point you have to just stop and ask, “What are the real issues here, and shouldn’t we be dealing with them rather than the tightly constructed notions of rules and rulebreaking that are being set forth as the real issues?”