Laugh now. You know where he’ll end up if he gets banned from this board.
The same place as Diogenes, I suspect. 
Boxed. 
And nobody saw that coming.
Dammit, I’ve been trying to post this for two hours and clients are on fire. My apologies.
So, here I am (to quote Firefly).
The important takeaways here are two things:
First, that I don’t wish Der Trihs to limit himself from posting on any topic whatsoever. I don’t care about what he posts and want to offer no restrictions on topic at all.
Second is that I believe he can be an immensely valuable poster for Great Debates provided he can learn to control his knee jerk reactions and his temper.
I strongly encourage him to follow the advice upthread to take walks around the block prior to making any of his sort of bomb-throwing posts.
In truth, most of his posts are worth respect and hearing out, but the minority of them that are over the top distract from the other 99%. Not only that but they tend to refocus threads away from discussion and towards his over-the-top posts. That damages debate and that’s counter to the goals of Great Debates.
An example of the posting style I see - where Der Trihs makes blanket assumptions about those with whom he is arguing - can be seen in the OP here. Der Trihs accuses me of ‘political bias’ and seems to believe (I’m prepared to be corrected) that my politics are right wing. In truth, I’m an actual registered member of the Democratic Party and quite lefty (moreso than most) on many, many issues. I have both run campaigns and been a candidate as well as managed outreach programs and fundraised for D candidates. These days you don’t get more true blue than me.
Measure for Measure, for the record I felt a need to check the bushes to see if you were lurking there based on your analysis of my politics. It’s creepy.
Now, this doesn’t apply to just Der Trihs, and note: this thread will NOT turn into a bash DT thread or bad things will happen, but to all posters. It should not be too much - in a forum dedicated toward debate - that tempers will run high. But too strong an invective only harms the mission, and thereby harms other posters.
It is perfectly possible to say “I hate all X” with words that don’t accuse all of a group of being some sort of horrible whatevers. It’s not only possible but easy. Rhetoric and debate and communication is a muscle, the more one uses it the stronger it becomes. I encourage all to do so.
Also, I haven’t worn a goatee since college and don’t plan to start.
I disagree - part of the problem is that it is inflammatory, as well as that it is unsupported opinion. But mostly because it is stupid.
It stretches the bounds of proper debate (IMO) to pretend that someone can come up with evidence for statements of this sort. And when people ask him for cites, of course he never provides one - it isn’t possible, because every reasonable person knows perfectly well that his unpleasant rants are nonsense. So he either ignores the request, or leaves the thread. Until the next time.
That was the whole point of an earlier ATMB thread about his behavior, linked to above. He was doing then what he is doing now - wander into a thread and post some hate-filled rant. And he was getting away with it on an average of once a week or so. But it never escalated from Mod Notes to Warnings. Now it is. So much the better, IME - let him either clean up his act, confine it to the Pit where it can be responded to as appropriate, or let him find another messageboard who wants to hear that kind of thing.
Debate is one thing. Hyperbole is another. But spewing hate like a demon’s semen is something else entirely, and something I would prefer to see confined to the Pit.
IMO, as I said.
Regards,
Shodan
True.
He wears a soul patch.
I have pics.
In Great Debates it should be “discussion good, debate good, well thought out argument for your position is great.”
“Vitriol, bashing, trolling … not allowed.”
If this thread is any indication most people know the difference between these things.
And it’s possible to be heated in your defense/argument and not be Pitworthy.
It’s our responsibility to keep the debate civilized and on point as appropriate.
That’s because I admitted to having run a call center once in that 'Devil pays for souls" thread you started all those years ago, isn’t it?
Exactly.
When i saw the thread title, i thought to myself, “Here we go. Der Trihs has made some ridiculously offensive remarks again and is now going to complain about being moderated.”
But those posts were tame, tame, tame. Had i seen them from any poster, about any issue (right or left, conservative or liberal), i would not even have raised an eyebrow, let alone thought they needed an official warning. They were no more problematic than dozens of posts found in GD on a regular basis; they were not insults, they were not even particularly controversial, especially the one about Republicans.
The warning for the first linked comment was bullshit, pure and simple; an awful, awful call. If calling Republicans intransigent is unacceptable in GD now, you might as well shut down the forum altogether.
Yeah if I say to a poster “You seem to be intransigent on this issue” will I get a warning for personal insults?
Having read that first linked thread, I’m inclined to agree. I didn’t see anything moddable in that particular comment by Der Trihs.
On the other hand, Jonathan Chance in one of the other threads gave a pretty good summary of what’s wrong with Der Trihs:
When Der Trihs makes these sorts of comments, I’ve learned to just sort of shrug them off, but I can’t help wondering what happened to him psychologically that caused his hostility to overcome his common sense. Because he is smart enough to know better.
Sometimes I think the solution would be to force Der Trihs to share a house with a person who represents all that he abominates (Republican, religious, pro-life, patriotic American): Every week, twenty minutes of wacky sitcom hijinks would ensue, followed by a heartwarming reconciliation and a lesson that “maybe, deep down, we’re not so different after all.”
I hesitate to jump on the bandwagon since the moderators are in discussion, but will weigh in anyway.
For the first example, numerous comments of the like and far stronger had already been posted by numerous posters. However, Jonathan Chance had already dropped a thread-wide Moderator instruction in post 71 for everyone to tone it down. That is what lead to him moderating Der Trihs in post 79 more than anything - for failing to follow moderator instructions. Now I’m hard pressed to think anything said by Der Trihs in the quoted post rose to the level that violated those instructions, but I think Jonathan is attempting to rectify some long-complained about behaviors. This case seems to be starting at the bottom of the list rather than the top.
I agree with what Half Man Half Wit said.
He did not approve positions they took in the thread or arguments they made. He approved their actions with respect to the moderator instructions. He congratulated Bricker for reevaluating what he posted and deleting it, rather than say something in response to Der Trihs. He praised Karrius for opening a Pit thread to continue the hijack in the forum in which it belonged. In other words, “this is how you should respond”, not “this is the right belief”. I have no problem with that part of the action.
Your point is valid. Uncooperative Republicans certainly isn’t an insult, and to the best of my knowledge intransigent has a similar meaning. Perhaps uncooperative shaded with stubbornness, but still, I fail to see an insult.
And i agree with that general point. I’ve been plenty critical of Der Trihs in the past, and i think there have been times when he’s gotten away with stuff that should have been moderated.
But if he makes problematic posts, then moderate those posts. Don’t try to make up for lost time or past indifference on the part of the moderators by jumping on innocuous posts.
Perhaps if there’d already been a mod note in the thread to avoid such assertions about other posters, yes.
Der Trihs, would it compromise your integrity, every time you make a claim, to back it up with some evidence? If you want to claim that Republicans hate women, find the strongest evidence for that claim that you can, evidence that disposes of alternate theories, and link to that evidence. Want to claim Republicans are intransigent? Cite it.
If you prove your claims, they’d be a lot less objectionable.
With the types of things he posts (frequently broad claims about motivations) and the type of evidence that he has (“what other reason could there be for …”) that’s not very practical on a regular basis.
Several others have also suggested that DT could alleviate things along these lines, but it’s not realistic, and not an approach that anyone else takes for themselves. What everyone else has going for them is that their opinions are not as extreme or as incendiary as DT’s are. But looked at purely in regard to the structure of his arguments, I don’t see him as being out of the ordinary here.
So, is this still “under discussion” or did JC’s post give us the output of that discussion?
I won’t share anything on the mod loop, other than to say that everything is always under discussion in perpetuity ad nauseum.
My post stands on my own, of course. I have little extra to say about the issue other than what I have already written.
I perceive a railroad in process and opine that the moderators should take their time. JC is moving the line of acceptable behavior and fairness dictates that those caught on the scrimmage should receive multiple warnings, many more warnings than those who violate bright and well established lines. I advocate slow movement (many quarters, not a few weeks) towards what I see as pretty much the inevitable. Others have different opinions: I’m stating mine.