With all due respect, you’re looking for an excuse here, Bone, and hardly for the first time, sadly. Questioning the reason for making a post is *not *a “personal insult”. There are precious few ways that we mortals are still allowed to use to suggest that another poster is attempting to derail a thread, by various forms of JAQ’ing and sealioning, without also being accused of junior modding by mods who refuse to moderate those who are doing so. So what rhetorical devices remain on the acceptable list, and can we see it?
I’m actually okay with such moderating–as long as it is consistent. If people have to back up their claims that someone is arguing in bad faith, then that should include another trend that I have seen Bone himself employ: accusing posters of being unable to accept that other points of view–often made political by directing it towards liberals.
This argument is made without any actual evidence that such is occurring in the thread, and avoids actually making the counterargument so that it can be left to scrutiny. It’s just a way of going after the posters because you don’t like their argument.
I’m not a big fan of these short, pithy replies that contain no actual argument, and I don’t think they have any place in GD. But it needs to be consistent, and not just the argument mentioned in the OP, which is more often directed towards conservative posters than liberals. It has to go both ways to be fair.
I totally disagree. The board is lousy (as in lice-ridden) with posters who participate in threads with “ill-intent.” The mods allow them to do so despite years of protests. What exactly would you suggest we do when afflicted this way?
I see nothing wrong with Elvis’ epiplexis in that thread. On the contrary, I think in the future Bone should direct his demands for “enough” towards the people whose behavior warrants it more.
This is a horrible idea. It is absolutely vital to be able to point out when someone is interacting in bad faith in any debate. Someone using bad tactics will win every time if the other side can’t point it out.
We have a case study with the alt right: they’re clearly wrong with their bigotry and racism, but they use bad tactics to push their agenda, and it works, despite everyone knowing that racism is wrong.
The issue where I agree with the moderation is that such a claim requires evidence. You should not be able to just attack the character of the poster. You should have to show evidence of their bad faith arguments.
That is, as long as such goes both ways, as I say in my other reply. You can’t outlaw the form of this informal fallacy that is used against conservatives most often, and leave out the ones used against liberals most often.
You want to accuse someone of not arguing in good faith, you need evidence their arguments are bogus. Not just character assassination.
If you have a case to make, I don’t see why you need to make it in public versus by private message to the moderators (or the report function).
Except in the Pit, I suppose. I’m not sure if such accusations are fair game there.
Then again, I haven’t been here but for a few months, so I don’t have the wisdom with regards to the moderation that you and other posters have earned.
Funny, when I read the moderated comment, I thought it was a great way to elicit an interesting counter-argument.
If someone says, “You do think finding the facts is important, don’t you?” that potentially leads into a worthwhile response. For example, “Of course I do, but what you are suggesting is not going to uncover the facts, because…” Or perhaps, “You are missing the point; upholding procedures take precedence over fact-finding in this situation because if we destroy precedent, then …”
Whatever. If someone said that to me, and I had genuine beliefs and arguments contrary to those of the person directing the comment at me, I’d be genuinely motivated to respond constructively. (To be fair, though, I personally virtually never participate in debates here, so what I would think or do is not much of a data point.)
For years, women protested against the misogynistic comments that far too many men casually posted without consequences. Then the women figuratively stood up, took center stage, and yelled loudly. Surprise, surprise, the mods did a total turnaround and began, shock, moderating those comments. The Usual Suspects, and yes, they were indeed those and everybody knew their names, whined bitterly and were told to stuff it. Some were banned, some left, some got careful, and the board got a bit better, though not perfect.
We all know who the other set of Usual Suspects are. I’ve reported posts and received no reaction from the mods. Others have as well. Not only do the mods not take action against them, they protect them and call out those who oppose aloud. This is behavior extremely similar to what the women of the Dope long despaired about.
If you’re new enough not to understand the coded language I’m using, then this post may be gibberish. Code is all that is allowed in ATMB. I’m betting that the mods can decipher me. You there, in the mod loop, can you hear me now?
I appreciate Bone’s efforts to reduce the snark index of threads in fora that are better served being low on that scale.
It wasn’t even a warning; it was a heads up that continued similar snark in that forum would get one.
That said even Elections cannot be completely free of snark and that specific bit on its own seems not over any reasonable line. I’m not tracking the op’s ourve though … if the poster has a record of skating close that would be another circumstance. A mention of thin ice ahead would be appropriate.
This here is revealing of the motivations for the types of posts I was referring to. Rather than trying to find clever ways to get as close to the line as possible, I suggest arguing the merits. If you continue to try and push the line, you will step over it from time to time.
So to answer your question, there is no list, so you may not see what doesn’t exist.
Ultimately the issue is one of personal insults. Trying to avoid sanction by recasting an insult in the form of a question is no defense to violating the rule against insults. ‘You’re not a liar are you? You’re not stupid are you? You aren’t dumb enough to believe that right?’ All of these are of similar form, though of course a hair less subtle than some of your other offerings.
So while the rule against insults remains unchanged, I’m giving you the courtesy of letting you know that the aforementioned tactic to attempt to offer insults will also receive sanction. If you are not insulting other posters then there is no behavior modification necessary. Though given 6 of your last 7 warnings were for personal insults, take this as a caution that behavior modification may be necessary.
I’m on board with that! They make those candy wafers that taste like chalk, right?
Oh, wait no, that’s Necco. I don’t advocate bombing Mecca until I know how bad their candy is.
On a serious note, I imagine a statement like that could get a warning or note if it is part of a pattern of disruption, was a threadshit, was used in a particularly insensitive way (say a poster is expressing grief over the death of a close Muslim friend), or so on. But considering that a potentially incendiary remark like that is not going to be a personal insult this kind of gripe is a non sequitur.