# Huh? Mods still not banning Say Two yet? Say what?

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huh-mods-still-not-banning-say-two-yet-say-what/931699
**Category:** About This Message Board
**Created:** [January 28, 2021, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huh-mods-still-not-banning-say-two-yet-say-what/931699 "2021-01-28T17:43:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 60

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)
#### Post date: [January 28, 2021, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huh-mods-still-not-banning-say-two-yet-say-what/931699/60 "2021-01-28T22:13:11Z")

</div>

So, for example, if I want to report that a specific post is factually incorrect, ideally it should be like this:

> I think this post violates rule 7 “[Guesses, WAGs, and speculation](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/general-questions-rules-faqs/447561)” because the topic is one of a factual nature and the post includes a counterfactual claim X contradicted by Y.

But I’ve been reading **SayTwo** ’s posts and he usually doesn’t make factual claims in factual discussions. Rather he weighs in on broader, non-factual topics with broad non-factual claims.

For example, look at the current conversation in the QZ topic “_Am I missing something here? (re: reopening of bars, etc… now)_”.

Post #1314, **SayTwo** writes “I think the science is coming around to a consensus that the closures are no longer worth it.” This is technically a claim about **SayTwo** ’s thoughts, which means it is literally impossible for me to verify. Even extending the claim to “science is coming around to a consensus that closures are no longer worth it”, that is a very broad claim, based on inductive reasoning, very difficult to definitively prove or disprove.

But I don’t think the main problem is the claim, it seems to be the way **SayTwo** defends it. This is an excellent example of his argumentative style:

> Post #1316, **BanquetBear** asks **SayTwo** whether it was wrong for the UK and Sweden to close their schools. This is a clear attempt to poke holes in **SayTwo** ’s argument about scientific consensus. He insists that **SayTwo** answer this question before continuing the discussion, post #1318.
> 
> Post #1319, **SayTwo** writes “I can’t answer it because I can’t find a cite for it. Might you have one I could borrow?”
> 
> Post #1321, **BanquetBear** reminds **SayTwo** that the question goes to the heart of **SayTwo** ’s argument about scientific consensus, and implies that **SayTwo** should have an opinion already.
> 
> Post #1322, **SayTwo** pleads ignorance and admits to having no opinion on whether the UK or Sweden were wrong to close their schools.
> 
> Post #1324, **BanquetBear** points out that **SayTwo** can’t make the general argument in #1314 since he/she is ignorant of the specific contexts in countries like the UK and Sweden.

It’s bad argument form and I think, after pleading ignorance of the specifics, this approaches “wild speculation” that GQ rule 7 is supposed to prohibit. **Is QZ supposed to be a place where laypeople can just speculate about lockdown measures, or is it supposed to be a place where people can receive informed/expert opinions about the pandemic?**

~Max

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/huh-mods-still-not-banning-say-two-yet-say-what/931699)._