Oh, I don’t know. I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the rules around here. You just lean well on one side of their application that I do not. I can’t deny the listed warned posts were meant to be insulting, they clearly were. But I was indeed following the board credo of attacking the posts. I didn’t think Slackerinc made any effort in his post, I thought ralph displayed rank ignorance in his posts in that thread, and I thought Jackmannii ascribed the ugliest emotions to people thoughtlessly. Those aren’t personal insults. I’m complaining about their posts’ contents.
How the hell are the bolded bits not personal?
“Attacking the post” is stuff like pointing out factual errors or disagreeing with the actual content, not comments on the motives or abilities of the posters making the post. Which is what all 3 of your examples are.
“Your post displays rank ignorance” is different from “Your post ignores the following stuff…”.
So for the record, you’re agreeing that “XXX doesn’t know what he’s talking about” is a legit warnable insult? Because that’s what I actually said and got warned for.
In GD or GQ, yes, I’d take the knock. I’d only mod-note it, not warn, if* I* were a mod, but if I were warned I wouldn’t consider it shitty modding, just a difference of degree.
Every notable infraction can be a warnable one at the mod’s discretion, is my understanding.
Well, I complained about the warning but I think my posts above make clear that I realize it’s a matter of degree and discretion.
I checked CarnalK’s info and, to my surprise, discovered that he is a very long term seasoned veteran of the SDMB. He knows very what is acceptable and what is not, which makes it hard for me to understand why he feels justified in complaining about something that he has known for years to be unacceptable.
If one member of the debate doesn’t know what they’re talking about, it’s not really a useful debate. Carnalk’s post was a longwinded equivalent of “Dude, I know you can do better.”
I strongly disagree with this. I literally never criticize moderation here, but let’s get real: there are a substantial number of posters here who post on topics that they literally know nothing about. Calling out another poster on their lack of even basic understanding of matters they are talking about isn’t so much about making an insult, it’s often about warning others that they should be aware that disinformation is being spread in a malicious way.
Take for example all the bogus “studies” about vaccines causing autism: I think it’s perfectly fair to call out that a Hollywood actress’s assertions of nonsensical science is a farce. Being obligated to argue point-by-point (“No, that’s not how thimerosal works, let me write 500 words explaining the precise mechanism”) as opposed to a broad-ranging (“Everything you wrote is nonsense and doublespeak because you have shown no basic grasp of the field”) criticism can be a very reasonable point, and can serve as a warning to others not as expert in the issue to not believe everything they read on the internet, because some of us are dogs.
If this board took a different approach to posters who just gratuitously pull things out of their ass, rather than leave it to other members to knock down each point of nonsense spewed by a relatively small population of this board who revel in having strong opinions that are completely at odds with easily recognizable facts, that would be different.
But no, there are definitely cases where posters whip up posts intended to push an agenda yet having no understanding of the basics of the topic – so the moderation wants to have other posters who are debating in good faith argue with one hand tied behind their back?
That’s absurd. That’s placing more value on the feelings of irresponsible posters than it is on promoting informed debate.
Please note that this line of discussion is around a warning in 2015. The current warning that is the topic of this thread was about a different statement.
That being said, I think you have a point and we’re talking about it.
And I should add: I see a big difference between, “You have gotten all your facts wrong so it’s clear you don’t know anything about this subject” and “If you were not so lazy you could do some reading on this topic which you don’t have a clue about.”
I’m 100% on board with the latter being a warning. I feel very strongly that there not a damn thing wrong with the first.
Well, let’s address that:
**
**
You described his behavior as “very negative”, “mean spirited”, and “cynical”. You described him as “distasteful”, and you stated that he did not express himself “intelligently”. Your defense for all that is, in essence, a matter of semantics and not meaning.
There are many ways of insulting people without actually using the words, “you ARE” … very negative, mean spirited, cynical and unintelligent.
It reminds me of an old Joke:
Me: Hey, Jack, I stood up for you the other day when Jill was dissing you.
Jack: Really? Wheat happened?
Me: Jill said you like to eat shit sandwiches, but I adamantly told her that I knew for a fact that you don’t like bread.
Now, did I just stand up for Jack, or did I make him the brunt of a nasty joke?
I think I agree with Ravenman. There are a few topics where I’m an expert, and when I’m arguing with someone who’s bloviating and saying what’s “common sense” to them with no expertise, I think it’s appropriate to point that out. If I came into a thread about, say, petroleum extraction and started telling people what was common sense to me, without citing any claims, absolutely someone could tell me that I didn’t know what I was talking about. It’s not an insult, but rather an observation of my level of ignorance on a topic.
Where science is clear the approach you advocate makes sense. Someone argues that the earth is flat doesn’t know what they are talking about. When the subject is complex and the science is not precisely settled or is impossible to precisely settle it’s too easy to shut down someone’s opinion by those form of ad hominem attacks.
There is some gray area, definitely. If I post (just as an example, please don’t let’s debate the point here) a well-sourced argument claiming that universal health care will lower the average American’s annual health bill, it’d be inappropriate for someone to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But if I post, “Clearly the average American’s health bill will go down, because insurance companies won’t be taking their cut,” then it might be appropriate for someone with greater knowledge of insurance company practices and/or government health care practices to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I don’t expect mods to notice which side of the line every argument is on. That’s a pain in the ass. I’d rather them err on the side of not handing out warnings for gray area offenses, though. If someone is using “you don’t know what you’re talking about” or variants repeatedly and in obnoxious ways, the note-warn-ban escalation seems a good way to handle it.
If people are arguing about actual science, then I think that usually comes through.
The types of things I’m talking about are a long-ago argument I had with someone in GQ who claimed something to the effect that the Federal Aviation Administration is not allowed to regulate the use of consumer drones, because the FAA regulates airplanes. And drones are kewl!!!
(I’m probably not getting that exactly right, but that was the general spirit. In GQ, no less.)
You misunderstood i complained about the "you don’t know what you’re talking about " warning, not this one.
I’m going with this. Even without a track record I think it should stand.
I support every bit of this.
I’ll note that in the 2015 thread a poster said
to the same poster that CarnalK was warned over.
The dividing line is, as usual, attacking the post not the poster. You can say that this post is completely wrong, but you can’t say the poster doesn’t know anything and we shouldn’t bother discussing the topic with him.
The nice thing about having a (somewhat) bright line dividing the two is that it removes the topic itself from the moderation decision. You and I may agree that we should be allowed to insult anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers, but we may not agree on insulting eco-warriors or gun-lovers. Now the moderation depends on the topic, and the waters just get muddy.
Which is dangerous ground for moderators.
Honestly, as I recall correct in the earlier warning, it was the combination of ‘don’t know what you’re doing’ and ‘no one should talk to you’ that really got me there. The first, depending on phrasing, is questionable and could or could not earn a sanction. But telling other people they shouldn’t debate with him? That’s no good at all and needs to be smacked down.