I dunno, I haven’t seen the mods take much of an interest in silencing you, even though you do little else here but complain about their efforts and decisions. Really, you should get a new fucking hobby; this one is gonna give you an ulcer.
Sure.
There is no factual basis for either of these statements. Tbone2 might have had his fingers in his ears, but unless you were with him when he posted then it’s very unlikely you could have determined that. OK, so you didn’t mean that literally. Well, then by definition it’s a non-factual statement. Neither of those are insults per se, and probably wouldn’t draw a second look in GD, but this was GQ.
It’s simple really. We don’t want political debates in GQ. We have a whole nother forum for that. You may have heard of it.
If there’s a thread in GQ that you think should be moved to GD, you can always contact the mods and ask that it be moved. In this case, I’m not sure if I would have moved it. Speaker for the Dead asked a question that could have been–in the best of all possible boards–answered with facts. Indeed several posters came through and did provide facts about the timeline, the court decisions, etc., all without inserting their personal beliefs about who should have won the election.
Opinions are not always forbidden in GQ, but opinions that are likely to lead to rancorous debate, are not appropriate there. Political opinion is especially prone to lead to trouble. And while it is true that GQ is the forum for facts, presenting disputed facts as if no reasonable thinker could possibly disagree with them is not appropriate in GQ either.
I will reiterate that as long as a thread is in GQ, you should not engage in debate there. Even if you are convinced the thread will soon be moved to GD, you should stick to the facts, or at the very least, to purely innocuous opinions, as long as it remains in GQ. Think of it this way: This thread started in ATMB, but you wouldn’t call somebody a “fucktard” in anticipation of its being moved to the Pit, would you?
Well, thank you bibliophage for confirming my fears.
I’m not sure why you think it is important for me to know about the protocol for moving threads, but it seems you really thought it was important. You certainly devoted enough space to it. Maybe it was because some other poster suggested the thread be moved? That would actually be consistent with some other poster engaging in politicking, and your thinking that, because some other poster was doing it, you better throw around the warnings to random names in the thread. After all, you can’t be expected to actually read the thread and make decisions as to who was actually at fault.
Chinatown.
The sad thing is two posters here were even clever enough to give you an easy out. I may not have been politicking, but I was trading insults. That is true, and the criticism is appropriate. But you chose to dig in your heels, ramble on about things that have no relevancy, and insist that I was, in fact politicking (in addition to secretly wanted the thread moved?).
Your entire post has only a single sentance that even arguably pertains to me:
Of course, the statement is ridiculous on its face. In the entire universe only a single organization went through the time and energy to count every single one of the 175,010 balots that were not counted. They had a meticulous methodology where every single one of those balots were examined by three separate people who were separated as to influence each other. They classified the balots into different catagories ranging from a dimpled chad to a clean punch. They then provided the data to the public, allowing anyone with access to statistical programs to run their own scenarios. What is disputed here? Who has conflicting data? What other organization classified every single ballot as being in one of nine different categories? How can any “reasonable thinker” disagree that this happened? Or are we saying that a “reasonable thinker” can also believe the world is flat? Are you arguing that facts do not exist?
After analyzing the data, every single scenario came out with Gore getting more votes than Bush in the entire state of Florida. Contrary to Beagle’s suggestion, one of the scenarios counted ONLY those ballots that had a clean punch. In other words, even if you take the most restrictive standard (only including ballots that were unquestionably filled out correctly and were simply not counted due to irregularities with the voting machines, having nothing to do with the voters) Gore still won. What is disputed here? What facts are up for debate? Can a “reasonable thinker” make a rational argument that correctly filled out ballots that, due purely to mechanical error, were not officially counted should not count as an indication of voter intent?
I even went on at length (contrary to suggestions made here) about why the declaration that Bush was the winner was based on the information available at the time and was legally binding. It is a fact that the SCOTUS decision was final and unreviewable. It is a fact that they did not have all the information available to them. It is a fact that an organization took months and months to analyze the ballots in order to determine who actually received more votes. It is a fact that the data the organization produced shows that ANY SCENARIO (from dimpled chad all the way to clean punchs) shows Gore received more votes.
Those were all verifiable facts. Here is my opinion: bibliophage refuses to acknowledge her mistakes and is either stupid (which I don’t think is the case), careless (which is entirely possible) or simply a bully (which is what my money is on).
What was that you said about digging in your heels and rambling about things that have no relevancy?
PP Fact: bib is a guy.
Bib would be the Mod chosen least likely to be a bully by a poll of 3000 random Dopers.
Careless probably isn’t a word you would use about bib. Anyone can be careless on a single occasion, but if you chose 500 random bib posts, the word wouldn’t occur to you. Stupid would be even less likely to be a word used about bib.
Any other theories?
I don’t think so. But last time I checked, every staffer was a human. Humans being so…um… “human”, it is hard not to view dudes who you agree with in a better light than someone who holds strong opinions that are opposite yours. That’s just human nature. Some seem to be better at being neutral than others, but they all do a nasty job for no pay.
Preferably one that doesn’t involve anything that rhymes with “peek” or “pick”.
Pencil Pusher, CrazyCatLady seems confused as to who is who in that other thread. Specifically, she seems to think you started that thread, when in fact it was Speaker for the Dead.
From the way Medea’s Child framed her response, she appears not to have been confused to thinking you were one of the two posters. However, Zebra was definitely confused.
Now, as for what constitutes the politicking you were doing:
While you did post a link, the statement is disputed, and appears to be an opinion. You think that you are stating a fact, a summary of the results from the linked site. This is arguably an ambiguous case.
Your addendum post is framed the same way - remarks that you seem to think are summaries of fact but others dispute and regard as opinions.
After this post, the discussion stops being about the reasons why people think Bush didn’t win fairly and starts to argue the validity of the reasons. That becomes a political thread.
A factual answer is to say “people think the methods of counting were biased, that eligible voters were illegally kept from voting, that minorities were pressured to prevent them from voting, that recounts were not fully conducted and aborted before they were complete, that they feel SCOTUS overstepped its bounds and played favorites”. Any discussion of the merits of the above claims begins to cross the line from factual presentation to debate.
That is why you were cited for politicking. You were arguing the validity of the recounts. Given that, you owe bibliophage an apology.
Also, it is not necessary to interpret bibliophage’s reiteration of the policy about thread content prior to moving the threads as being directed at you. It could easily be directed to everyone reading this thread. That is how I read it - a restatement of policy about the topic for everyone. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps bibliophage thought the reason you were engaging in politicking in the other thread was because you were like the other poster and thought the thread was going to be moved soon, so why not? Apparently that is not the case, you just didn’t realize what you were doing was debating the merits of the points, which is a political debate not a statement of the facts. If so, then bibliophage made a mistake in understanding your motivation, but it is not like that is a malicious attack. As opposed to your response.
Pencil Pusher said:
Note that any thread discussing the validity of a moderator decision belongs in the Pit. This does not mean that you must hurl insults. Rather, this is a concession to the fact that any thread discussing moderator actions will inevitably draw out the losers with nothing better to do but engage in a moderator pile on. Of course, your OP was a rather strong criticism of the moderators’ behavior (accusing them of “dropping the ball” and of arbitrariness and playing favorites), so that in itself is fairly close to a Pit post anyway (even if not questioning a particular moderator decision).
One comment regarding an appearance of unbalance in response to posters - you are not privy to every exchange between moderators and posters. Email is used, and you probably haven’t read every post by the people in question to know if they have a habit of certain behavior. If a moderator responds to a poster in one thread you see and it seems harsh, you might just be missing out on previous instances of the same behavior by that poster, giving the moderator a reason to come on stronger than you might feel warranted by the specific incident in question.