Most respectfully and unfortunately you are less than clear. And I would request you reconsider this. You have now stated that I cannot refer to someone as a libeler for systematically denigrating the reputation of sources he disagrees with. What is the acceptable way to refer to such practices? Is such a person a serial ad hominist? That might be technically correct also, but it isn’t even in English. Am I supposed to refer to such people as propagandists? Well, that doesn’t cut it, because a propagandist doesn’t necessarily denigrate someone’s reputation. Libel is the exact and correct word. I didn’t put “blood” or anything stupid like that in front of it. The technical word for it is libel when it is in print, slander when spoken and defamation when generally referring to either. Libel and defamation in my jurisdiction (and throughout the US) is a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong. It is an accusation and description of misconduct that injures the reputation of another, not an insult. The sentence you refer to could possibly be more mild, but not without great effort.
Please clarify and reconsider. I will, in the meantime, I will eliminate the words libel and libeler from my usage at the SDMB. As a practicing lawyer who deals with defamation cases as a large part of my practice, this won’t be easy. If I don’t hear back from you, I shall endeavor to do so permanently.
On another note:
Once again, I’d like to call your attention to post 115 in the thread, I was called a Nazi in a way that the SDMB specifically prohibits. I attempted to alert in post 118, seeing no private alert button. But I saw no reference to any of the sort of this is a violation of the rules. It is a clear violation of the rules.
You may also wish to review post 293 in which I am called “monomaniacal” (I seem to recall the particular epithet being hurled multiple times at me by this poster) as well as “This is entirely false. (Perhaps libelous.)”
I have hardly been perfect, but I do try to play by the rules, mistakes being occasionally made.
No one called you a Nazi in post 115. Magiver simply used the word Nazi to refer to the actual Nazis in WW2 Germany. Also, there is a “report post” flag on his post. And there is already a thread about this issue two threads above yours at this post.
Anything that could be construed as accusing another poster of lying should be avoided. It’s one of the basic rules of Great Debates - that one cannot accuse another poster of lying. Changing the wording to get around this rule is not an act designed to endear you to your moderators.
In the post in question, your first use of ‘libel’ (or any of its variants) is allowable. You’re referring to people off-board.
Subsequent uses, such as:
You are specifically referring to another poster as a liar. This is forbidden. I elected to mod note that instead of warning you because - as I said in the thread - it took some time to get the decision right and I think it’s bad to hammer someone after the discussion has moved on.
In GD, attack the post, not the poster. At a pinch, you can describe behavior without attaching a word to it, though frankly personalizing the argument is bad practice.
In the pit posters can call people libelers all they want, but claims should be backed up regardless. Otherwise it’s just smear artistry.
IANAmoderator.
How about saying, Ibn Warraq systematically denigrates the reputation of sources he disagrees with"? Unless you’re needing to say that constantly (in which case you may want to consider the quality of your sources), it’s gonna take you a lot less time to type than it will to engage in the multi-page many-paragraph ATMB bickerfest I predict will occur here. You don’t need a name to call that person other than Ibn Warraq.
No, you were not. And I’m far from Magiver’s best buddy, and I think his posts in that thread were generally appalling. Here’s what he said:
Look extra-hard at sixth and seventh sentences: he’s clearly saying “sucks to be a Nazi” in reference to his total apathy for what happens to Hamas. They’re the ones he’s calling a Nazi.
He says he believes you’re supporting Nazis. That’s very different. If it weren’t, your constant refrain of accusing everyone else of supporting genocide would be getting you in as much trouble as if you were calling everyone else mass-murderers.
FWIW, I do think the “monomaniacal” jab is over the line.
How could it not be? “You’re supporting” is a description of behavior. You do appear to be supporting Hamas, and even if you’re not, that’s not an insult. Magiver genuinely believes Hamas is equivalent to Nazis, and their political/genocidal behavior is highly relevant to the thread. While a flippant namecalling of “Nazi” ought to be against the rules, if you can’t say that someone is supporting a fascist regime (what you repeatedly said), it makes a mockery of the ability to debate politics.
:rolleyes:
You were not called monomaniacal; I explicitly referred to your behavior as monomaniacal. (Attack the posts, not the poster.) You turned every single effort to discern the accuracy of a claimed event into one more expression of your belief about genocide, avoiding any serious discussion about the claim you repeatedly posted. That is a single-minded approach to discussion that merits a label of monomaniacal.
Similarly, you posted a claim about me that was not accurate. I am not guilty of a single claim you made about me in the quoted paragraph, having limited my statements to a single incident about which only one person has ever claimed to have been a witness. You have enlarged that single disputed event into a series of accusations that you could not possibly support with quotes of my posts. Rather than calling you a liar and violating the rules, I noted that the statement was false (and given the insulting nature of the factually inaccurate claim, I noted that your action might be libelous).
I will not further debate you on this topic in this thread, as that would be a hijack, but I will not let your accusations stand without a response.
You did volunteer for this job did you not? You do this willingly right, no gun to your head? So why must you always sigh wearily when doing your job? Any moderation by definition must be dealt dealt with, it’s part of the job description.
Why not just do your job with professionalism and not demean posters in the process. Posts where you sigh wearily come off as douchy, IMO.
You’ve never had a moment at your work that made you think “Seriously?! Again?!”
I know I have and I’ve even had to tell a member of my team that “No, you may not have additional time off and the fact that Shiela took maternity leave is irrelevant. We have discussed this countless times and from this point on the topic is off limits and derailing another team meeting with this issue will get you written up.”
Of course I have but I had the good grace, manners and professionalism to just think it and not be a dick* about it by saying it out loud.
*(referring only to myself, of course).
Good catch. Let’s see if it flies. I’m thinkin’ “Start of Labor Day Weekend. Probably so.”
That said, I gotta say that it might open oneself up to parody, e.g. - “The Moderator Expectorates Vociferously” for some particularly galling and egregious post.
I understand that it goes to state of mind and thus intent, but I imagine a moderator should remain somewhat cognizant of the disturbingly small gap between respect and caricature, and post accordingly.
My carefully couched thoughts on moderator actions, posted here in ATMB.
You might want to try getting over your disappointment in the norms around here, because they’ve been here longer than you have. I understand there are other places you can go where you won’t be given the vapors by moderators who sigh in your general direction.
For me, I generally appreciate the tone of moderation. Complaining about a sigh is a bit absurd, and implying that JC is being a dick, when your own behavior is so execrable, is a bit rich.
MODERATOR SPEAKS STERNLY:
Hey, let’s keep this away from personal jabs at other posters. Y’all know better.
SPEAKING AS A POSTER (WITH HUGE SMILE ON FACE AND TWINKLE IN EYE):
Yes, for sure, use of short-cut words like “sigh” (and like smiley faces and abbrevs like “IMO”) are demeaning, condescending, and unprofessional. Much better would have been to say: “This has already been asked and answered, 7 times in the last two days in the prior column, here are the links link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5,link 6, and link 7.” And then, five or six posts later, he could say, "“This has already been asked and answered, 8 times in the last two days in the same prior column, here are the links link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5,link 6, link 7 and link 8.”
Yes, much more polite, but a li’l wordy, don’t you think? Not to mention the amount of time it would take to track down the repeated refs. (Oh, damn, sorry, I shouldn’t use a short-cut like that, I meant “references”)
Thanks for giving me a laugh of the day, this has to be the biggest mountain from molehill EVER.
