In which Miller oversteps his bounds...

[Onomatopoeia]

@Miller

That said, I certainly should have been more specific in my initial mod note. I don’t regret the tone, or the content, except insofar as I should have been more elaborate about the problem than I was.

@Stink Fish Pot

I’ve seen worse in threads. So from a hijack POV, it’s not that exciting. However, **Miller’s ** comment to **SA ** certainly seemed a bit strange. Why did he have to put /moderating around the “Shut up” remark? If he put anything, he should have indicated it was coming from him as a poster, not as a mod.

I quickly went through this thread, so please pardon me if someone else brought up my specific point; I think** Stink Fish Pot** comes closest in the quote above.

I don’t have a problem, at all, with moderators taking a situation in-hand. In fact, I applaud the work they do here, especially of late; it seems a number of moderators have been taking pages from tomndebb’s playbook and asserting their authority more frequently in order to maintain appropriate standards of decorum, and that’s a good thing.

I also don’t have a problem with Miller admonishing SA in the Susannane pit thread in an attempt to nip in the bud what could very easily have evolved into the commonly termed Starving Artist Show.

The problem I have is how Miller employed his official capacity to address SA in a manner I feel unbefitting a moderator. Had Miller, as a regular poster, said “Starving Artist, shut up,” or, in his official capacity, something like “Starving Artist, your contributions in this thread are a clear hijack of the topic. Continuing any further may result in a warning,” I wouldn’t have batted an eye, but I have to say I was a little taken aback by the ‘shut up’ and ‘mod hat’ combo.

I’ve always felt that Miller applied his mod stick fairly, so perhaps that’s why his “I don’t regret the tone, or the content” in the part of his post that I quoted above, struck me as it has.

Think what you will about SA, he deserves the same level of respect from management and its proxies as all other posters. Communicating with him in an official capacity, in a demeaning, somewhat disrespectful way, seems to send a message that certain posters, because of their posting habits as well as being royal pains in the neck, can be singled out for special treatment. I’m sorry. I just don’t think that’s right.

I have probably taken this a little farther than is appropriate for this forum, so I’ll stop here. Thanks for reading.

[Bosstone]

@Onomatopoeia

Think what you will about SA, he deserves the same level of respect from management and its proxies as all other posters.

I contend he has and it’s all those other posters who get nicey-nice warnings and admonishments who are getting more respect than they deserve. I demand equal abrasiveness for all!

Okay, I think I’m done. I’ll stop now.

[Miller]

@Shodan

I suspect that on some level, Miller recognizes this, which is why he is so chary about explaining his position. simply saying it is a hijack without explaining how it is, or how it differs from the regular hijacks/derailments of Pittings of posters with which he disagrees less vehemently.

What about my position is unclear? As I’ve explained, Starving Artist was hijacking the thread into another rant about his politics. We usually allow a lot of latitude for topic drift, particularly in the Pit. However, SA displays a regular pattern of hijacking threads to be about his own particular politics. This sort of behavior is a problem, because it makes every thread in which he participates into copies of each other. So, I instructed him (in perhaps not the clearest language possible) to stop the hijack.

This isn’t the first time I’ve explained this in this thread, so I’m not sure why you think I’ve been reluctant to explain my position. Remember, not liking an explanation is not the same as not receiving an explanation.

@magellan01

Plus, fifteen minutes before Miller offered up his post, SA had politely said he was backing out of the discussion.

And if I’d believed for one minute that he’d stick to that, I wouldn’t have bothered. But another feature of Starving Artist’s hijacks is a constant repetition of, “I’m done with this thread,” followed (often within a few minutes) of another lengthy post continuing his hijack.

[CannyDan]

I read the thread. Hijack by SA, and each **SA **post was yet another repetition of the same old, same old. I was just skipping over them because I’ve seen it all before. It was a distraction, but then, that’s a common result of SA’s postings – distract the thread, make it all about something or some things else, and leave the OP hanging out to dry. I was pleased to see him stifled before it got any farther out of control.

Plus what he actually said was

@Starving_Artist

<snip> Well, since it’s you, and you asked nicely and all, I’ll back out for now.

(emphasis mine)

Anybody who thinks the above indicates that **SA **actually intended to leave the thread, or was making some kind of honest commitment to cease his hijack, hasn’t read many threads wherein **SA **participates.

[El_Kabong]

@CannyDan

Anybody who thinks the above indicates that **SA **actually intended to leave the thread, or was making some kind of honest commitment to cease his hijack, hasn’t read many threads wherein **SA **participates.

Right, as established, the incessant hijacking, and the false promises to cease posting, are two of the things that SA does that seem to antagonzie other posters, and apparently at least one Mod. A third relates to this:

[Quote=Starving Artist]
There is not (or at least there never has been) a limit to the number of words a poster uses to get his point across on this board. I go into a lot of detail in my posts to try to make it clear what I’m saying and why I’m saying it, and yet as the thread regarding “Starving Artist’s good old days” illustrates, things still get grossly misunderstood. This in turn causes me to go to even greater lengths to try to make myself clear.
[/Quote]

So, people “misunderstand” (i.e. fail to agree with) the point SA believes to be making, so he restates the same information over and over again, at ever-increasing length, until people, presumably, start crying uncle. This may be the primary reason threads in which he participates tend to turn into such trainwrecks.

I fully recognize that SA has political views that are accusatory and antagonistic to persons less conservative than he, and that numerous posters wish he would go away due to those views. I’ve said before, however, and I’ll say again here, the things that most annoy posters here have nothing to do with his politics, but with his repetitious posting style. I contend that if he had the politics of, say, der Trihs, people would still be tempted to root for a mod to say, “shut up”.

[magellan01]

@Miller

And if I’d believed for one minute that he’d stick to that, I wouldn’t have bothered. But another feature of Starving Artist’s hijacks is a constant repetition of, “I’m done with this thread,” followed (often within a few minutes) of another lengthy post continuing his hijack.

Well, it appears your clairvoyance needs a tune up then, doesn’t it. As he didn’t post again.

Seriously, don’y you think that as a Mod you should give a poster the benefit of the doubt that he will do what he says? If you didn’t feel that way then, do you feel that way now? Miller, I think you’re generally a really good mod. Two of the reasons, I think, are your temperament and sense of fairness. So, as I said earlier, that post to SA seemed uncharacteristic of you. Given what many have written in this thread I would have though that you would have chalked it up to a mistake. It’s not really that big a deal, but it seems like you have a tin ear on this one. I still like you, though. Flawed as you might be.

[Miller]

@magellan01

Seriously, don’t you think that as a Mod you should give a poster the benefit of the doubt that he will do what he says?

Not if he has a proven history of not doing what he says he’ll do, no.

[Starving_Artist]

What’s all this stuff about me saying the same thing over and over? In the first place, every comment I made after the first was triggered by comments other posters made. They directed the conversation, not me. And how many different ways is a poster supposed to describe the benefits of spending reduction or refute accusations of selfishness?

How many times around here do we read on this board that Bush/Palin/Republicans/conservatives are stupid, selfish and evil? Easlily a thousand times more than anything I post, and in the same overall way - and that’s not an exaggeration. I could not begin to post as much repetitive stuff about liberals as goes on around here about conservatives if I posted twenty four hours a day. Repetitiveness isn’t the problem. If I was posting in the exact same manner against the right, and I’d be a hero around here.

The real problem is, I talk about liberals in exactly the same way that posters here talk about conservatives. I began posting this way precisely because of the way posters on this board talk about conservatives. And typically, the hive mind can’t bear it.

This includes Miller, who has made no secret of his dislike for me based upon what I say about liberals, of which he proudly is one. He takes personally the generalized criticisms I make and has told me so more than once. So he gets a report that I’m hijacking a thread, comes flying in in high dither, scans mostly only what I said, concludes I’m hijacking the thread, and flies off the handle, exercising his moderator powers in a manner that I think we can all agree is atypical of both him and mod practice in general, and which clearly crosses the line into abuse and insult, which is supposed to be against board rules when it comes to moderators.

Again, there is nothing I do - not repetiveness, not aggressiveness, not generalizations about the other side, not anything - that doesn’t go on around here in spades when it’s coming from the other direction and no one even notices.

Another point I want to make about the repetitiveness issue is that just because an established poster has read it before, that doesn’t mean new posters or readers have. So when liberal posters new or old start spouting their usual anti-conservatiive bullshit, I counter with my usual pro-conservative or anti-liberal rebuttals just to make it clear to both them and new readers that their bullshit is not accepted fact. Neither side is posting anything new, it’s just that one side wants to be the only voice.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Whether or not it’s deliberate, IMO there’s no doubt that as a practical matter the Miller attitude has the implication of differentiating between “hijacks” by holders of minority opinions and parallel “hijacks” by holders of majority opinions.

Because posts which express minority opinions will in general tend to attract far more response, opposition, and debate than parallel posts which express majority opinions. As a result, if you have two posts which are hijacks to precisely the same extent, the one which will result in lengthy debates resulting in obnoxious put-downs by the PTB are those in which a minority opinion is expressed.

[Which is besides for the broader problem that if you have a troublesome situation in which one person is at odds with many, there’s a natural tendency to see the one person as the “troublemaker” simply by weight of numbers, even though in actually it may be due to the pre-existing makeup of the participant group.]

[El_Kabong]

@Starving_Artist

What’s all this stuff about me saying the same thing over and over? In the first place, every comment I made after the first was triggered by comments other posters made. They directed the conversation, not me. And how many different ways is a poster supposed to describe the benefits of spending reduction or refute accusations of selfishness?

Once should be enough. I mean, every post remains there permanently in the thread, doesn’t it?

The real problem is, I talk about liberals in exactly the same way that posters here talk about conservatives. I began posting this way precisely because of the way posters on this board talk about conservatives. And typically, the hive mind can’t bear it.

“Hive mind” is a slogan, not a fact, and it’s insulting besides. I’ve just told you as clearly as I can that there are people here who don’t particularly care about your politics and yet still think you behave in an obnoxious manner. There are certainly posters here who find posting habits of the type you practice to be obnoxious when they are based around religion, left-wing politics or conspiracy theories, to name a few subject types. Do you deny this?

Again, there is nothing I do - not repetiveness, not aggressiveness, not generalizations about the other side, not anything - that doesn’t go on around here in spades when it’s coming from the other direction and no one even notices.

I see. So the sole response you can think of to what you perceive as bad behavior is to behave badly yourself. What ever happened to the concept of leading by example?

“He hit me first” is, frankly, childish and unworthy as a rationale for one’s behavior in life. I really wish you would take that bit of suggestion on, but no biggie if you don’t. If not, you will simply continue to be the relative laughingstock that your persona has become here.

[magellan01]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Whether or not it’s deliberate, IMO there’s no doubt that as a practical matter the Miller attitude has the implication of differentiating between “hijacks” by holders of minority opinions and parallel “hijacks” by holders of majority opinions.

Because posts which express minority opinions will in general tend to attract far more response, opposition, and debate than parallel posts which express majority opinions. As a result, if you have two posts which are hijacks to precisely the same extent, the one which will result in lengthy debates resulting in obnoxious put-downs by the PTB are those in which a minority opinion is expressed.

[Which is besides for the broader problem that if you have a troublesome situation in which one person is at odds with many, there’s a natural tendency to see the one person as the “troublemaker” simply by weight of numbers, even though in actually it may be due to the pre-existing makeup of the participant group.]

Good points, very well said.

[Starving_Artist]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Whether or not it’s deliberate, IMO there’s no doubt that as a practical matter the Miller attitude has the implication of differentiating between “hijacks” by holders of minority opinions and parallel “hijacks” by holders of majority opinions.

Because posts which express minority opinions will in general tend to attract far more response, opposition, and debate than parallel posts which express majority opinions. As a result, if you have two posts which are hijacks to precisely the same extent, the one which will result in lengthy debates resulting in obnoxious put-downs by the PTB are those in which a minority opinion is expressed.

[Which is besides for the broader problem that if you have a troublesome situation in which one person is at odds with many, there’s a natural tendency to see the one person as the “troublemaker” simply by weight of numbers, even though in actually it may be due to the pre-existing makeup of the participant group.]

Excellent post and right on the money. Wish I’d thought to put it that way.

@El_Kabong

Once should be enough. I mean, every post remains there permanently in the thread, doesn’t it?

It remains there but so does the post it addresses. Then when someone comes along later, skims the thread and only sees subsequent posts (which again, are repetitive as well or aimed at me because of something I’d said earlier) then I think a new response is called for. Besides, it’s my impression that it’s the repetitiveness of my overall style and message that people are objecting to rather than individual threads.

@El_Kabong

“Hive mind” is a slogan, not a fact, and it’s insulting besides.

I regard it as a descriptor, and a fairly accurate one. People on this board are pretty much of the same (hive) mind when it comes to political issues, and they detest and vigorously attack anyone who disagrees with them. Like I said already, even Sam Stone and Bricker get derided as stupid, and assholes to boot. So when it comes to how the board attacks dissenting opinion, the behavior is hivelike as well. Thus “hive mind” is indeed an accurate label, and in two ways.

And why should I care if people find the term insulting when they don’t hesitiate for an instant to insult me?

@El_Kabong

I’ve just told you as clearly as I can that there are people here who don’t particularly care about your politics and yet still think you behave in an obnoxious manner. There are certainly posters here who find posting habits of the type you practice to be obnoxious when they are based around religion, left-wing politics or conspiracy theories, to name a few subject types. Do you deny this?

I deny that it goes on to any appreciable degree, and with certainly nowhere near the condemnation for it that I get.

Really, there is a very simple solution to the problem of my behavior on this board: stop attacking people for their political beliefs, and behave in a considerate and respectful manner toward those with different viewpoints or have moral objections to what you support.

Now, having said that, it’s a simple solution but one that is pretty much impossible, wouldn’t you agree? And the fact that it’s impossible is what has brought us to where we are now. You people are insisting on a huge double-standard, wherein you can stomp and curse and yell and behave hatefully toward me and others who think like I do, yet where I’m expected to use tact and be respectful and strive not to be insulting or post too much. And the reason for that is that you people are so utterly and absolutely convinced that you are right about everything that anyone who thinks differently has to be wrong and not deserving of respect, while at the same time feeling that your perfectly obvious righteousness demands to be treated respectfully and with consideration for your feelings.
But guess what? It doesn’t work like that. You get your own behavior reflected back at you, no matter how right or wrong you may happen to be, and if you want to behave arrogantly and beligerently and insultingly, then you deserve to be treated just the same in return.

[Implicit]

@Starving_Artist

But guess what? It doesn’t work like that. You get your own behavior reflected back at you, no matter how right or wrong you may happen to be, and if you want to behave arrogantly and beligerently and insultingly, then you deserve to be treated just the same in return.

Sure. So your treatment* by Miller is nothing more or less than your behaviour reflected back at you. Five different people in that thread told you to get your own thread or that the thread wasn’t about you or that they weren’t going to respond to you, yet you continued to post your rants. The only behaviour you can change is your own, so the reflection you should be concerned with is the one in the mirror.
*the moderator note itself was understood perfectly by you, sometimes a stop sign serves the purpose better than an essay

[Bosstone]

What I don’t get is: how can we attack someone for a reason other than their political beliefs when the chip on their shoulder is so enormous that they regard any attack as being due to their political beliefs?

Sometimes a poster is just an obnoxious asshole because he’s an obnoxious asshole, not because he’s a liberal or conservative. The fact that a poster is being an obnoxious asshole while espousing political beliefs does not automatically mean any attack is because of the beliefs.

[Starving_Artist]

@Implicit

Sure. So your treatment* by Miller is nothing more or less than your behaviour reflected back at you. Five different people in that thread told you to get your own thread or that the thread wasn’t about you or that they weren’t going to respond to you, yet you continued to post your rants. The only behaviour you can change is your own, so the reflection you should be concerned with is the one in the mirror.

No, Miller’s behavior was exempt from having his behavior relflected back at him by virtue of his mod hat.

And you couldn’t count the number of times when I’ve posted in a polite, reasoned and respectful tone to someone only to be offensively attacked by them in return or by other posters who read what I said.

@Implicit

*the moderator note itself was understood perfectly by you, sometimes a stop sign serves the purpose better than an essay

How many times am I going to have to say this: NO, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND MILLER TO BELIEVE I HAD HIJACKED THE THREAD!!!

If you want to know what I did think about his behavior, I would suggest you look up the posts I’ve already made explaining all about it.

And no, opposing posters don’t get to decide for themselves that a thread is being hijacked. I’m sure they’d love it if they could. Then there’d never be dissent and the board could proceed with being a happy liberal hatefest aimed at conservatives, free from all but the most scant opposition. It would be paradise.

[Starving_Artist]

@Bosstone

What I don’t get is: how can we attack someone for a reason other than their political beliefs when the chip on their shoulder is so enormous that they regard any attack as being due to their political beliefs?

Sometimes a poster is just an obnoxious asshole because he’s an obnoxious asshole, not because he’s a liberal or conservative. The fact that a poster is being an obnoxious asshole while espousing political beliefs does not automatically mean any attack is because of the beliefs.

<I’m going to be repetitive here>

It doesn’t matter how polite or obnoxious a person may be. If he or she expresses any disagreement with the liberal view or argues against liberal beliefs, he or she will come in for a load of abusive shit on this board.

<more repetition to follow*>

Even Sam Stone and Bricker, in my opinion the two most calm, reasonable and dispassionate advocates of conservative (or more likely, libertarian) beliefs, get called stupid and get called assholes and all the same names I get called, for no reason other than they disagree with what the board’s liberals believe. The primary reason they don’t come in for as much as I do is that they don’t post as often or on as many subjects.

• Bosstone’s and Implicit’s posts and my answers are almost perfect examples of why I so often find it necessary to repeat myself. They clearly haven’t picked up on what I’ve already said, so it becomes necessary to say it all over again, both for their benefit and for any of a number of other posters who have shown time and again even in this thread that they haven’t read what I’ve already said.)

[Bosstone]

Well, no, I understand what you say. I just disagree strongly.

I once thought that anytime someone disagreed with me, it was because they didn’t understand me the first time. Then I turned 13.

[Implicit]

@Starving_Artist

How many times am I going to have to say this: NO, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND MILLER TO BELIEVE I HAD HIJACKED THE THREAD!!!

Your second post in this thread says otherwise:

@Starving_Artist

And it appeared to me that I was being warned to stop the alleged hijack and forbidden to post further to the thread.

You didn’t like his message, but you understood it perfectly.

[zoid]

@Implicit

Your second post in this thread says otherwise:
You didn’t like his message, but you understood it perfectly.

Exactly. To pretend otherwise is silly.

And Bosstone sums up the true gist of this thread quite nicely:

@Bosstone

What I don’t get is: how can we attack someone for a reason other than their political beliefs when the chip on their shoulder is so enormous that they regard any attack as being due to their political beliefs?

Sometimes a poster is just an obnoxious asshole because he’s an obnoxious asshole, not because he’s a liberal or conservative. The fact that a poster is being an obnoxious asshole while espousing political beliefs does not automatically mean any attack is because of the beliefs.

SA acts up, gets called on it and then shouts “I’M BEING CENSORED BY THE HIVE MIND FOR MY UNPOPULAR VIEWS!!!”

Repeat ad nauseam.

[magellan01]

@Bosstone

Well, no, I understand what you say. I just disagree strongly.

I once thought that anytime someone disagreed with me, it was because they didn’t understand me the first time. Then I turned 13.

Excellent. I look forward to further the improvements in your debate style when you turn 14.