So it’s "not appropriate’ to make it clear which specific poster is being called a racist. So posting “monstro is a racist” is appropriate, right? Or are you trying to get him to break the rules?
Regards,
Shodan
If you read the full quote that you posted rather than focusing on the second half of the sentence, the meaning would be obvious. So I’m going to have to give this complaint a D-minus. I’m just not seeing a lot of effort here.
Oh, so you’re trying to get Shodan to put more effort into his complaining, thus lengthening his post, thus increasing the risk that he will inadvertently break the forum rules. Entrapment!!
I read the full quote.
The part about it not having any context is pretty silly, since it was part of a thread.
So I don’t see how it affects the question - would it be appropriate to name a specific poster as racist? If not, why did tomndebb try to get OMGABC to do so?
Regards,
Shodan
I think you are reading too much into this. Just because one thing is inappropriate doesn’t mean being more specific would make it appropriate.
Are you sure?
He didn’t. He said that the post - which lacked context and was evidently not in response to anything or anybody - was not appropriate. He did not ask Omg a Black Conservative to explain who he was talking about, he didn’t say he should name names in the future. He did not say ‘posting that someone is a racist without naming them is inappropriate.’ That’s a goofy reading of the post, and as I said, it appears to be a response to a couple of the words in the sentence rather than the whole thing. If I moderated a post like this:
Would you start a thread to ask me why I instructed someone to “accuse another poster of trolling in this forum?”
So, OMGABC is allowed to call me a racist, but I"m not allowed to call him a troll for his obvious trolling comment accusing me of being a racist? 
No, he’s not, and no, you’re not. Not unless you’re posting in the Pit.
Yes.
He did.
And he gave the reasons why it was not appropriate - it lacked context, and it did not mention “a specific poster as its target”.
Yes, he did.
Here is the quote -
No, I would not. But that is not even remotely analogous.
If you moderated a post like this -
It is not appropriate to make accusations of trolling with neither a context, nor a specific poster as their target.
Then yes I would.
Because tomndebb did not say “it is not appropriate to accuse a specific poster of being a racist”. He said exactly the opposite - that it is not appropriate to make accusations of being a racist unless it is clear what specific poster is the target, either from context or by naming a specific poster.
Regards,
Shodan
So, counselor, I take it you’ve advised your client not to cooperate in this investigation? Or is OMGaBC still convalescing from the injuries he incurred during his non-warning?
If the latter, please pass along my best wishes and prayers for a speedy recovery.
It definitely should be against the rules to post a complaint without a link to the thread or the post.
Well, I can see the argument. Shodan is bothered by the logical implications of tomndebb’s original statement:
The implication, if this statement is logically true, is that the inverse is also logically true. So, “dropping this turd into the thread with both a context and a specific poster as its target is appropriate.”
See the following principles of logic, where p = “dropping this turd into the thread with neither a context nor even a specific poster as its target” and q = “[this] is not appropriate”.
Statement: If p, then q.
Inverse: If not p, then not q.
So, not-q = “[this] is not not appropriate.” If you disagree that the inverse (“dropping this turd into the thread with both a context and a specific poster as its target is appropriate”) is logically true, then tomndebb’s original statement cannot be logically true. And I think that’s where Shodan’s discomfort comes from.
Whether it was worth making a thread about, I leave as an exercise to another reader 
This seems wildly inconsistent. Given that posters like Der Trihs and Gonzomax could be bots who post almost nothing beyond “OMG Conservatives/religious people suxxor”, or “OMG–Republicans are all racists!” have gotten away with it for years, I don’t see how there can be a rule saying that what OMGABC did was any different.
It’s always been ok to insult people posting, as long as you insult the group they belong to, and not them directly. Why is this different?
It wasn’t moderated as an insult. It was moderated because it was an off-topic, inflammatory comment, which is what the mod note says. Omg a Black Conservative didn’t even bother to connect the post to anything anybody said. I might have just called it trolling.
Uh, Marley, I don’t think that post says what you think it says.
To my reading, Shodan has a point. tomndebb did not just say “Dropping this turd in this thread is inappropriate”, he added rationale “with neither context nor even a specific poster as its target”. That implies that by supplying context or a specific target, the comment might have been appropriate in the thread.
But if OMGABC had named a specific poster, that comment would have been an insult - unless that thread is in the Pit, which I can’t tell because there’s no link, but I’m assuming is in GD.
Now if I were to guess what tomndebb meant, it was “That was a giant non-sequitur and a pretty rude comment. An accusation of racism without any context is a complete wtf, and without any hint what remark set you off, you’re not engaging in conversation, you’re just shitting in the punch bowl.” Of course he also probably would expect the remark to be more along the lines of “Wow, this remark seems pretty racist”, which might get a pass, where “You, [poster], must be a racist” would not.
I don’t think tomndebb was trying to encourage an insult, but rather moderating the insertion of a nasty remark without any context or hint what prompted it to make it on topic.
Of course, tomndebb could have been trying to instruct Omg a Black Conservative the proper way to make an insult, so he could be sure what Omg meant and thus Warn him for the correct violation. But that’s a bit machiavellian.
I give you a D for reading comprehension, and Shodan a B for reading comprehension and a B for stirring up unjustified outrage. I can’t give him an A for that, because tomndebb’s wording does have a bit of ambiguity, but he earns a B because, really, this is a pretty lame complaint.
(On preview, I bump your grade to a C for post 14. You’re correct on that, but mangled the essay and analogy in post 6.)
I understand that Marley, but I still don’t see how it’s different from a “What do you think of the Repub Candidiates” thread where Gonzomax pops in to say “Anyone who votes republican is a bigoted racists!”
I understand that the rules permit this-I don’t think they should, but they always have. How is the hypothetical above (and if you’d like, I’ll dig up non-hypothetical examples) of Gonzomax making off-topic, inflammatory comments different from what OMG did? That’s the part I’m not getting.
With context and relevance, yes, the post might have been appropriate and on-topic instead of coming off as a lame attempt to stir up outrage. And I don’t think I’ve ever moderated “you are a racist” as a personal insult. Discouraged as a personal comment, yes, but on its own I wouldn’t consider it warnable.
Right. I think that’s the obvious interpretation of the post, and I’m skeptical that you can get to another reading without a lot of squinting and eye-crossing. The point of the instruction was to stop Omg a Black Conservative from making comments that were off-topic, not directed at anybody or anything in particular, and not coherent. Not to tell him how to properly insult people so we can warn him for it later. :rolleyes:
I’ve moderated people for posts like that when I felt they were irrelevant or pointless.
I don’t think the thread under discussion was ever linked to, but it was this one. It seems to me that tomndebb addressed this in the thread anyway:
Ah–ok, the link does make the moderation much more clear. Thanks! 
Incorrect. Technically, you’re misstating modus tollens. You’re mistakenly affirming the consequent, which is an invalid form of modus tollens. (The only logical “inverse” of modus tollens is [~q > ~p], but that’s not what you expressed here.)
The statement [If ~p > ~q]* is true IF AND ONLY IF no other causal factor can give rise to q. It might be the case, for example, that j might also give rise to q, in which case, q could still be the case, even in the absence of p. In other words, ~p actually has nothing to say about q being or not being the case.
Applied to this particular argument, it might be the case that it’s still inappropriate to do what OMGABC did, but for some reason other than tomndebb stated.
- Recall that in formal symbolic logic, the symbol ~ means “not”.