The first of these warnings was completely bogus, IMO. The next two are borderline.
I don’t think so. It’s about your having a long history of this type of thing, and your having become unpopular as a result. Each of these factors puts you on a shorter leash.
Der Trihs is one of my favorite posters and I really think the board is a better place for having him, so I hope he’s not banned. Of course, I felt the same way about Diogenes, so… good luck!
Huh, so the very vocal get-DT-banned collective is getting some traction with at least one mod. Yet we still have our board racists despite a, I’d daresay, much more justified opposition to them. So it’s true, this isn’t a democracy - I knew that, but it’s a nice reminder.
This.
You mean, you hope he can restrain himself, right? Because that’s all it takes. 99.9% of us don’t get banned. It’s not that hard.
Well, that’ll jinx things!! 
Der, seriously. I’d hate to see you banned. I appreciate reading different points of view. Unfortunately, your posting style has put you on the mod radar, and that may prevent you from getting the benefit of the doubt when they review what you post. Your best defense, just add a walk around the block every so often and reevaluate your pending post before hitting the post button.
I for one miss** Dio**, and the controversy he brought to the board with many of his posts. He never figured out the benefit of taking a short break and returning to his posts before hitting the post button. Please don’t make that same mistake.
I agree with Fotheringay-Phipps about the first and 3rd warnings but think the 2nd was pretty bogus as well.
DT,I say this as someone who enjoys reading your posts and agrees with you a lot of the time. You would do well to back away from the broad brush and content yourself to pointing out individual instances instead of using broad categories. Don’t yell about “Republicans” but rail against “Senator Big Britches (R)”. Follow up your statements with a “because” of some sort which provides insight into your reasoning.
Situation is under discussion. We’ll get back to you soonest.
Well, yes, he’s constantly making insulting, unsupported, broad-brush statements against groups of people. That’s the sort of content that should be moderated outside of the pit. And sometimes, even there, if it rises to the level of hate speech, and much of what Der Trihs says would reach that level if applied to a different target.
It’s the difference between, for example, saying that people who want to ban abortion are wrong because of the suffering and death they will bring to many women, and saying that those against abortion are evil, and want women to suffer and die.
FWIW, I think the mod action in this particular was uncalled for (Republicans, intransigent). On a DT scale of 0 - 10 that’s maybe a 0.5. Better we stick to the 7s and above. There is no shortage.
I’m not sure what I’m more surprised about, the warnings in question or those who have an overall positive view of the posting history in question. Studies need to be done.
What’s the real difference between this exchange:
*Poster A: I am a republican.
Poster B: You are a lying hatefull jerkface who wants to murder children and brown people and revel in their blood and misery.
Or…
Poster A: I am a republican.
Poster C: Republicans are lying hatefull jerkfaces who want to murder children and brown people and revel in their blood and misery.*
Poster B’s post is verboten, but is Poster C’s post really kosher?
Who is the board racist and how long has s/he been posting…and can you give some examples of egregious behavior by this racist? Because it’s pretty hard for me to believe that any poster has or could get away with as much as Der has in the time I’ve been on this board. He’s one of the most vitriolic posters I’ve ever seen and it’s amazing the shit he has gotten away with in the past. However, if you have some counter examples of this board racists (I seriously have no idea who you guys are talking about) I’d love to see them and perhaps we could start another thread on him or her similar to the one that probably (finally) sparked this rash of making Der responsible for his posting and taking him to task (finally) when he decides to go off the deep end.
Seriously. There’s probably plenty of posts which are worthy of** DT**'s banning, and I only say “probably” there because I don’t know the mod’s minds. But I don’t think these are those posts.
And the results are in: Jonathan Chance has been banned and Der Trihs is being promoted to moderator. What a twist!
I do love surprise endings.
Please, for the love of all that’s holy, DO NOT bump an Oakminster thread! The conspiracy collision could rip the time-space continuum!
reported spam
True, and I think it is unfortunate that the focus is on these instead of the many, many other posts where he says things like -
or that the great majority of Americans kill Muslims for fun, or that Republicans want to starve poor people to death and then machine gun the rest, etc., etc.
It’s hate speech, quite obviously. I hope the focus is not dragged away from his multiple, ban-worthy posts by the presence of one that is marginal.
I hope, that is. I have given up trying to figure out how much is going to be too much, or if there even is such a thing (coming from the Left).
Regards,
Shodan
Obviously there was some sort of transporter accident.
Why does everyones’ avatar have a goatee all of a sudden? :eek:
I had no idea ATMB was so entertaining. You people are fun!
The problem with that particular DT quote is not that it is inflammatory, but that it is unsupported opinion (unless you left out the part where he cites evidence). If that came from a GD thread, then a better response would be to ask what is his evidence for his supposed knowledge of the motivation of (most) people who oppose abortion and contraception. If he replies with one if his “It’s obvious, everybody knows” screeds, then the readers of the thread would know enough to ignore his opinion as stated.
This is the problem I have with many of Der Trihs’ posts, which is that they come across as so much frothing at the mouth which contribute little or nothing to the discussion. Not that he doesn’t have interesting posts sometimes, but so many of them are like this that I tend to just scroll past.
However, I don’t think that frothing at the mouth generally deserves any moderator action. When he is imputing uniform motivations to huge groups of people, it is just simplistic twaddle, easily discounted.
And by the way, deeming these things as simplistic twaddle does not necessarily mean that I am in any way opposed to his general viewpoint. I too dislike the effects of religion on daily life and on political discourse, for example; but I prefer to read posts that contain actual content instead of angry froth.
Roddy