No, continuing to make that demand is just annoying. If Bricker doesn’t want to respond, he’s a big boy and can make that decision all on his own.
Sure.
Oh, come now. Don’t you have 8,000 other threads to moderate? This is penny ante bullshit. Go smell some flowers or pies or whatever. But “badgering”? Really? This is just sad. Bricker’s a big boy - if he had an issue he’d raise in-thread. If you really want to hold hands, go volunteer at Big Brothers.
At which point, that aspect of the discussion is closed. Asking once is fine. If he chooses to not answer, you will not continue to interrupt the thread with repeated demands.
Any further demands for a directed response are badgering, Munch’s whining notwithstanding.
[quote=“Irishman, post:8, topic:550738”]
Hamlet said:
What does coleslaw have to do with spanning?
:rolleyes:
Welcome to the Lincoln-Douglass Boards. While on one hand that’s a fantastic idea, the other hand realizes the mods are so unbelievably incapable of the task, it makes one’s head explode.
Seriously - you guys can’t stay on task long enough to respond to the 10 ATMB threads going on each month, why the hell should we think you’ll adequately moderate each and every GD thread, to the post? Answer: You won’t. If you continue on this new mindset, we’ll see more ATMB threads along the lines of “WTF, tomndebb?!?” with about 2 responses from you, 3 of which will involve both dismissal of the issue and a misunderstanding of the issue, per your delightful performance in this thread.
Which orifice did you pull this one out of, tom? Almost a decade on the board, and I 've never heard of this rule until just now.
So now, I can only ask a question once, and if the poster responds with a non-answer, I can’t ask it again? And I can’t point out that the response was, in fact, not an answer to the question? Is this a special rule just for Bricker and I, or is it going to be stickied for the whole board?
Patently ridiculous. Right now in GD there a dozens of posts where posters are pointing out that other posters aren’t really answering the questions asked. You best get on your high horse, strap on your shield, and save those poor posters from having their non-answers requestioned. Best of luck with that.
If a poster specifically and explicitly states that they will not answer a question and requests that people stop asking, I could see how further questions along the same lines would be considered harassment. But this is a DISCUSSION BOARD. Where we, you know, discuss things. So if I feel like someone is weaseling out of a question, sidestepping it, giving a non-answer, or answering a question I didn’t ask, I’m damn well going to keep asking it until they do or until they tell me it ain’t gonna happen.
I find your attitude frustratingly paternalistic and ham-handed.
Pardon my language, but bull-fucking-shit. This kind of thing happens all the time on the SDMB–people avoid answering awkward questions. We should be allowed to chase after them unless they have the balls to come right out and say they’re not going to answer, or until, through mutual discussion and rephrasing (as appears to have happened in this case), we arrive at a question that they can answer.
Like I said upthread: if you’re going to create out of whole cloth a new rule that you can’t ask a poster the same question more than once when they’re trying to avoid it but haven’t told you to stop asking, you’re going to have to ban half the board.
Lamar Mundane said:
You don’t like coleslaw with your spam sandwich?
No, the thread died because you insist that everyone on the right must believe, and therefore must be forced to express, your personal (prejudiced) opinion of what “the right” believes. My take on reading that thread was that you believe everyone on the right ‘hates queers’, and wants to oppress them. Since Bricker is on the right, he therefore ‘hates queers’. He must be backed into a corner and forced to admit it. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your prejudicial opinions of “the right” are wrong? That maybe we aren’t all “Pat Robertson clones”? That in fact Pat Robertson is not at all representative of the majority of us righties? Perhaps you should examine your prejudices, before trying to corner someone on the right in a debate about the right’s prejudices. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re speaking out of ignorance rather than ill intent. Maybe it’s because you haven’t been here too long, or maybe it’s your own mental projection on the situation. But you’re dead wrong.
I know Bricker does not “hate queers”. I’ve known it for a long time, long before you got here. He’s consistently stated he is against discrimination against homosexuals, that he supports civil unions, and he’s against the very kind of bigotry that would result in the laws we were discussing in that thread. He may believe that they are sinners, but he’s not in support of trying to punish them through the law, whether it is sodomy, adoption, or same sex marriage.
Bricker and I disagree about the role the law plays in dealing with these issues, and sometimes, like in that thread, he can be quite frustrating to deal with. But it’s about the law, the interpretation of the Constitution, and the effects his views have on our world. But he’s never given me any reason to believe he “hates queers”.
So, I suggest you take your false accusations and your stupid rolleyes, and pipe down until such a time as you know what the hell you’re talking about.
And if they have answered the question, but you want to insist that you don’t like their answer and you want their “personal” views, then you are going to get smacked for harrassment if you continue.
Bricker answered the questions that arose from his actual posts. Demanding that he give some further personal opinion has nothing to do with the actual debate and everything to do with trying to make the debate into a personal attack.
Your language is pardoned, based on the fact that it clearly describes your expressed views, here.
Bricker had answered the question regarding the topic of the thread. He had simply not chosen to make his personal opinion part of the debate. If you want his personal opinion, open a similar thread in IMHO and, if he chooses to participate, then you can insist on his opinion. Had he posted that there was a clear legal position on the matter and then failed to provide any citations to support that claim, “going after” him would make sense. When the debate is in regards to the law, posting only statutes and case law is more than appropriate, regardless whether some poster wants to catch out another poster in a “personaL” error or inconsistency.
Anyone can challenge any other poster for remarks they have made. Nothing I have posted infringes on that time-honored tradition.
That does not give anyone the right to expand the discussion to make another poster a target when that poster has not volunteered any personal information.
For the latter scenario, you have the BBQ Pit.
This is simply not true. I don’t know, nor do I care to know, what kind of bizarre mental filter you have, but you’re simply wrong.
I asked a question, here it is again, just for you: “Under your legal analysis though, it would be “Constitutional”, wouldn’t it?”
Bricker responded by giving a short discussion of the caselaw, but nothing to do with HIS legal analysis.
But that happens on message boards, so I clarified my question. Here it is, once again, just so you can follow along: “I asked about YOUR view of the Constitution, not prior caselaw.”
Once again, Bricker responded with an answer that didn’t speak to HIS view of the Constitution, but rather what prior caselaw (stare decisis) required. So I clarified it once again:
“No. As I already said: “I asked about YOUR view of the Constitution, not prior caselaw.” Ignore prior caselaw and tell me YOUR view.”
Then, I got a one sentence kinda answer, and I asked him to expound on it.
So he then presented a request for more information, we developed a hypothetical and finally got to an answer and then we debated the answer.
THAT’S the reality of what happened. Your excuses now for your admonishment have little to nothing to do with that reality.
Wha? Huh? This could be the singlemost inane sentence in this thread. His personal opinion isn’t part of a debate? How can you have a debate without personal opinions? His personal opinion on whether or not the law should or does allow gay people to parent wasn’t part of the debate on whether gay people should be allowed to spawn? Damn, tom, you’re going to throw your back out reaching that far.
Well, if you overlook the fact that you admonished me for challenging another poster for remarks he made. But that involved me and Bricker, so, apparently, it doesn’t really count.
Personal information? What the hell are you on about now? I didn’t ask for his social security number, his home address, or about that funny discoloration on the back of his leg. I asked him if he thought restrictions on allowing gay people to parent was Constitutional.
Normally, I can follow your logic whenever you post. But in rationalizing this moderator decision, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
So, your defense that you were not doing what I said you were doing is to re-post a synopsis in which you do what I said you were doing?
OK.
I don’t think it will help, but maybe repetition will help: “Idon’t know, nor do I care to know, what kind of bizarre mental filter you have, but you’re simply wrong.” I posted what happened, HE DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION, and now you have a bizarre take on it, one untouched by the blemish of reality.
Whatever.
You reach your conclusion, fine. You’re wrong, but it’s really not worth it for me to try and point out, yet again, how you’re wrong. The thread speaks for itself.
Feel free to warn me, hell, ban me if it will get your mod rocks off. I honestly have so little regard for your decisions involving me and Bricker, that it matters not to me.
Posting your error in all caps does not correct your error.
Bricker’s post #15 answered the question posed by the OP. It did not give you the warm fuzzy feeling that you wanted from his personal views, but it was, indeed the answer to the thread, as he noted in his response to you in post #16.
In post #24, you made a point of demanding that he give his personal views, even implying that his response had been dishonest.
In post #26, he responded, giving the precedent that he would use.
In post #29, you ratcheted up the badgering. At that point, you were already out of line and any later concession by Bricker to your irrelevant demands was simply graciousness on his part. He had already answered the question from the perspective of the debate as posted in the OP and anything beyond that is not required of him. Your implications that he was “hiding” an opinion (that you have no right to demand), and your persistent emphasis by capitalizing the word “your” is not appropriate.
I am not looking to ban anyone; I am simply working to get the unnecessary heat, (generally sparked by personal antagonism), out of Great Debates.
It’s entirely appropriate that a debater make a point about his opponent’s evasion of an issue, and to keep returning that point as long as he encounters tactics he considers evasive. Why not tag Hamlet with some kind of scarlet letter (PE for “Persistent Emphasizer” maybe).
“Your implications that he was ‘hiding’ an opinion (that you have no right to demand), and your persistent emphasis by capitalizing the word ‘your’ is not appropriate” would be funny if it weren’t sad. Get a life, Tom. **Bricker **was evasive, **Hamlet **called him on it, and readers of GD can decide for themselves if Hamlet’s point was on-target or not. No need for your involvement, but then when is there a need for your involvement? Very rarely, in my view.
I wonder if this is the latest development in the rules protecting the mods.
Now all discussion of mod action is supposed to take place in ATMB, to spare the mods from name-calling. I see the justification for that. However…
Given that it is not exactly unheard of for the mods to engage in what might be called either “stonewalling”, or else “refusal to answer a loaded question”, depending on your point of view, perhaps this new and unacknowledged rule is going to be used to shut off mod criticism, even that phrased in ATMB-appropriate ways. This could be useful if the mods cannot, or will not, answer a question regarding their actions.
So either some Doper asks an unfair question, gets a response, and persists in re-asking the question. The mods can then threaten to drop the Ban-hammer on him to shut off the discussion (and lay the basis to get rid of a troublesome poster). Or else some Doper asks a question that the mods cannot answer fairly, because they were in the wrong. The mods then stonewall (as samclem mentions above). The Doper persists in trying to get the situation addressed and will not accept the “The mods are always right” point of view. The mods can then threaten to drop the Ban-hammer on him to avoid admitting a mistake and lay the basis to get rid of Dopers who threaten this ethos of “the mods are always right”.
It will be interesting to see if this is another one-off rule that gets used to indulge the ego of some mod or other and then dropped (“no misleading thread titles”, “no using the word cunt”, ’ you cannot respond to a mod warning in the Pit unless you open a new thread", "no calling another post ‘a steaming pile’ in GD, etc.) or if is the start of a new trend towards simply outlawing criticism of mod action altogether.
Regards,
Shodan
Hamlet’s posting in the thread seemed like harassment and borderline stalking/hijacking. If Bricker didn’t mind it there’s no real harm, but IMO it seemed more personal than intellectual.
Misunderstanding what I said does not correct yours. He didn’t answer MY question. That was kinda the entire damn point, tom.
Finally, I think I understand your point, assuming there is one in there somewhere. Once a person gives an answer to the OP, no one may ask any follow up questions, call them on it when they don’t give an answer to that question, or ask the question again. I’ll be fascinated to see how you make this rule work in practice.
And, again, he didn’t answer MY question.
And I can’t ask a follow up question? Is that another one of your new rules? I’m having trouble keeping track of all these changes to your rules. Maybe we could get a little handbook. Make sure you put in pop ups. Maybe a little moderator who jumps up and shouts “Harassment!” when you turn the page.
Of course he didn’t have to answer, but he did give a non-answer. It’s ridiculous to think that I can’t then point out that he didn’t answer the question I had asked.
That’s YOUR view. You seem to think that, since he answered the OP, any follow up questions are verboten. Personally, I think it’s a load of bollocks you came up with for on the fly, but, hey, I’m not a mod.
If you want to work to get out unnecessary heat, it might be a good idea not to trot in AFTER he finally answered my question and after we had further debate, to admonish me and make an incredibly inane ruling. There wasn’t really a problem at all until you made it one with a brand spanking new made up rule.
But at least now I think I understand what you’re saying. It’s still pathetic, but at least I understand.
I do not recall anywhere in the Regs that says that a poster has a right to demand answers to off-topic questions. Bricker did not offer a personal view of the issue, so he was under no obligation to respond to a question about his personal views. You were perfectly fine asking him what his personal view might have been, but his response in Post #19 indicated that he considered his post #18 to be sufficient answer.
Well, not in the manner that you chose to pursue.
You did not simply ask a “follow-up” question, one that would have examined what Bricker posted and then asked for how a different court ruling might have changed the the answer provided or cited a different case that might have provided a different logic. Instead, you changed the topic from what was constitutiuonal to what did Bricker think ought to be the law. You also framed that question as a personal accusation that Bricker lacked integrity:
Bricker then went ahead and answered your question, anyway:
although not to the satisfaction of your personal grudge
At that point, you were clearly out of order.
Later, you dug yourself deeper:
You were not “following up” on anything in the thread, merely demanding that another poster provide you with a personal opinion which the debate does not call for. Since Bricker had not offered or introduced any personal views, you were out of line to question the views not offered. As a one-off post, I would not pay any attention to it. As a pattern of behavior that included multiple posts of snide remarks, you were guilty of harrassment.
Posters who stalk other posters are already told to stop and if they choose to continue, they are Warned. If one badgers another poster for irrelevant information, making snide remarks and insulting implications, one will be told to stop and if that poster chooses to continue, he or she will be Warned.
:smack: I got it now tom. Sorry it took me a bit to parse your responses.
You’re convinced I have a “personal grudge” and “stalk” Bricker. So by asking him to answer a relevant question about his view of the law regarding the topic of the thread, and then having the audicity to point out that he didn’t actually answer the question, I get a mod warning.
Damn, you could have save me a lot of time and consternation if you had just come forth immediately and said that. Rather than making me wade through all those posts about “not being owned an answer” and “unnecessary heat”, you could have been straightforward about it and told me from the getgo that I can’t be anything less than deferential to Bricker and his views. Would’ve saved a lot of ill feelings I now have toward you.
Next time, I suggest you just tell me that the rules are different because you are convinced I “stalk” Bricker. That way, I can make sure I don’t actually ask him any tough questions and simply accept whatever he says as truth. I won’t dare to follow up at all. I can simply nod my head and agree with what he says, lest I get a warning. And I’ll never, ever say that he didn’t answer the question I asked, even though he didn’t, because you won’t like it.
See how much honestly can help us reach a resolution!! Now I know the rules tom. I’m ever so glad we could work that out.