In this threadbibliophage “officially warned” for “politicking.”
Can someone please explain to me what I did wrong? How was anything I posted anything but factual in nature? Nearest I can tell, bibliophage is saying it is my fault that I was being yelled at.
This is not the first time I have seen a mod drop the ball. In my short time that I have been here, I have seen a couple of cases where mods give some people a free pass to insult, but jump all over others who try to defend themselves. I have even seen mods chastise people who made no discernable insult (but who stated a position the mod apparently didn’t like).
In one of these threads, when I questioned a Mod’s decision to ignore one insult and respond to another, someone even told me, “Forget it, Pencil. It’s Chinatown.”
Is it really? Should I just assume Moderators are arbitrary, and just try to ignore them?
If this was a simple mistake, then I would be happy if someone edited bibliophage’s post to remove my name.
If I actually was politicking, then I would appreciate someone explaining what I did wrong so I can avoid it in the future.
If this is Chinatown, then I will reluctantly try to find another intelligent messageboard somewhere that isn’t so arbitrary.
**
You just kind of get used to it after a while. This basically happens because the moderators seem to have a list or lists of favoured and unfavoured posters which are referred to in cases like this.
I think you shouldn’t defend yourself in GQ. I don’t mean this in a “shut up and take what’s coming to you” kind of way. But if what the other poster said was inappropriate, they’ll be reprimanded by someone with authority, and if it wasn’t, then there’s nothing to defend against. However, I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that someone was free to insult. That doesn’t jive with my experience, but it’s possible that people are reprimanded by email, in which case it wouldn’t be clear what happened.
Kat tells me I should have e-mailed the mod and/or this belongs in the Pit. This appears to be correct, and is actually consistent with something I’ve seen a moderator say before (but had, regrettably, forgotten). Personally, I prefer open debate, so of the two I guess I would have opted for a pit thread. I really do prefer civil debate over pit-type insults, but I guess that is where this should have gone. At the risk of inviting more ire from the mods for posting (and continuing a discusion in) an inappropriate forum…
The insult which I thought should not have been ignored was:
*Even though anyone with 30 seconds can figure out who said it and who he was saying it to, I didn’t want to include names.
The first paragraph was in an undeniably condesending tone. Clearly quotes were put around “argument” to indicate derision, and the bolding was done to punctuate an insult.
A couple of posts later, after more evidence was presented, the target of the above responded with
When I asked about the reprimand, the moderator (in addition to the question belonging in the pit – oops again) said
I guess reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the two posts were equivalent in rudeness/insults, or whether the second brought it up a notch. Personally, I think the mod was stretching a bit to justify his actions. Regardless, I simply don’t think the first should have gotten off scott-free.
There’s a sticky thread at the top of GQ - well, there was; I assume it’s still there, but I’m too lazy to check - asking people not to bring political opinion into GQ, since it’s for factual questions.
Well, maybe. But the “facts” were in dispute, and GQ isn’t the forum for dispute. I agree with your position in the aforementioned thread, by the way, but that’s irrelevant to whether it belonged in GQ. I also agree that mods, being ::ahem:: human like the rest of us may have certain likes and dislikes with which they certainly have the power to flail the rest of us. That’s just the way it is. I’d just suck it up and go on, keeping my righteous indignation to myself.
Your position seems somewhat disingenuous to me. You start out asking about the people still objecting to Bush’s election, which I took to mean, “Is the 2000 presidential election still under contention?” (The OP’s a little vague, but I’m assuming you were wanting information, and not just trying to stir the turd.) Then you start grinding your ax about the Florida electoral votes not being cast as the populace had wanted. If you’d said, “Yes, I know how the EC works, but is it still a legal or social issue at this point, or am I just seeing a few loudmouths?” the thread would have gone in a whole other direction.
Either the other posters would have gotten out of hand anyway and gotten warned (but you would have been in the clear), or it would have stayed focused on whether or not the election results are still under legal contention.
But no. You had to start up with the whole schtick about how the will of the voters was being circumvented. You didn’t come across as someone asking a simple factual question. You came across as someone who wanted to debate the election, and you started your debate in the wrong forum. If you weren’t looking for a debate, you had plenty of chances to point out that it wasn’t the debate forum, but you didn’t take them.
Deliberately starting threads in the wrong forums is a jerkish thing to do, so you got warned. Insulting people in GQ is a jerkish thing to do, so the other posters got warned. Fair all around, near as I can see.
Here’s how I see the situation, which may or may not be anywhere near the truth.
P1: Your facts are wrong. (Yes, I know, the use of the word “lie” is pretty rough, but that’s the interpretation I see. At this point it is still a discussion about facts, which is what GQ is there for.)
P2: My facts are fine. You have your head up your ass. (Again, I translate into simple terms. This is no longer about facts, this is a personal insult, which is not allowed in GQ)
Under that interpretation, which I say is a reasonable one without bias or favoritism, Poster 2 definetly deserved a warning, for personally insulting another poster in GQ, while Poster 1 is, at most, choosing to use overly harsh words.
So, in conclusion, discuss facts in GQ, not posters.
The Administration is getting very strict about this sort of thing. I know from experience, as I was one of the people who got temporarily banned earlier this month for politicking in this thread. The ensuing Pit Barbecue can be read here.
Ignore the object lesson at your peril. Even though the answers to some questions do tend to slide into the realm of commentary and debate, it’s not tolerated here.
I would agree that the post with the bolded word lie was a little on the inflamatory side but only a little. Your response was clearly an insult. True you felt that you were responding to a personal insult.
Frequently here you are going to be reading something in GD or GQ and it may feel like an insult. A personal insult. The thing to do at that point is to report the post to a moderator. The thing to NOT do is to insult someone back and especially DO NOT take it up a notch.
The first post in this thread describes the only time I was warned.
CrazyCatLady perceives a political agenda that isn’t there. That actually comes close to answering my question, in a round-about sort of way. Some people are apparently so hostile to the historical facts that they view it as a direct attack on their politics. Fine. I guess I just have to watch out. If someone starts a thread that says “how smart was Bill Clinton,” I know I won’t be able to say “He was a Rhode Scholor” because some yahoo will interpret that as politicking. Whatever. I guess I was hoping that at least moderators were smarter than that.
The second misunderstanding is the belief that the 5th post in this thread describes some I did. It didn’t. Achernar said:
So, I provided an example of an exchange that I observed, and was not directly involved in. I should, apparently, have been clearer so as not to confuse Medea’s Child and Zebra
you know what? You’re right PP. The OP in question specifically asked about the arguements being used to say that Bush wasn’t elected, and you provided them.
:eek: I only go into GQ when I have my shakras in alignment, hormones balanced, and aura cleansed.
Most of the answers on that thread were far too argumentative and opinionated for GQ, IMO. If you are going to write something for GQ it should be less overwrought. PP, you gave a very biased and misleading answer.
What you were saying, if it was not clear to you, is that Gore wins if every “disputed ballot” is counted. I’m not going to go over this ever again, that means you must throw out election law to find a way to get enough votes for Gore. Someone voted for Bush properly, wrote in Gore, and has a mark next to the Libertarian–your system would count this vote for Gore. Election law throws the ballot out for the voter’s intent being unclear, it’s a disputed ballot. Personally, I don’t think a ballot with three votes for one office should be counted.
Pencil Pusher, in my view you were in the wrong in that thread, only because you allowed yourself to be goaded into trading insults with TBone2. The thread itself didn’t really belong in GQ, but you didn’t start it, so that’s not your fault.
In my experience, the rules of this message board are enforced very fairly and consistently. However, there are subtleties about where exactly the lines lie. Some posters are able to skate very close to a line without crossing it, and thus not get reprimanded. This is just because they understand the rules better, both in letter and in spirit, than a new poster. Don’t stress about it – it’s really not that big a deal.
