I do want to jump on this right now. Without wanting to slam you, XT, I need to point out that I was completely unaware of the earlier ATMB thread (the one from May) concerning Der Trihs until it was linked earlier in this thread. I have since read some of it - though reading all of it appears to be a chore I don’t want to undertake - and have seen where it came from and went.
But to infer from this that some sort of vox populi could lead to increased moderation of any poster is incorrect. I would be grateful if that wasn’t the takeaway here as it’s untrue. It will remain untrue for any poster. Posting on the Straight Dope Message Board isn’t a popularity contest and posting privileges are not subject to debate nor vote.
Further, other than his opinion that a railroad is in process - which I assure you is not the case - Measure for Measure’s last post is not entirely without insight in my - and mine alone - opinion.
Lastly, as I said before, this thread should not become an opportunistic ‘take shots at Der Trihs’ event. Such happenings would not be in the best interests of the board.
Then the take away I’m getting is that my own experience on this board for over a decade is in error, and further, that for some totally arbitrary reason NOW the Mods have finally started to take notice of Der Trihs, but that, again for reasons unknown, he’s being modded at a higher standard than other posters. If his past infractions haven’t been an indication as to why he’s being more closely scrutinized today (and the rather obvious…well, to me at least…fact that in the past he wasn’t even held to the same standards as the rest of us), and if it’s not due to the voice of the people a la the SDMB community commenting on this, discussing it and bringing it again and again to the attention, presumably, of the PTB on the board, then he’s absolutely correct in his OP and he’s being unfairly and arbitrarily singled out.
I was going to say ‘we all know that’s not the case’, but perhaps I’m in error here, and only I ‘know’ it, and my knowledge is erroneous and flawed. As to taking shots at him, I don’t think anyone is doing that…I’m certainly not doing that. I think that, in my own case, I’m struggling to understand why this situation has been allowed to continue for years, and why NOW it’s suddenly being rectified, but in a manner that, if we are supposed to ignore past transgressions AND the fact that the community at large seems sick of his antics, would be wholly unfair. Because your post here actually is more confusing to me than it was illuminating to this quandary.
In the third thread cited in the OP Hank Beecher wrote:
He stated that the majority of Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt would have you killed for various religious beliefs or sexual preferences.
Der Trihs replied:
He countered that the majority of Americans kill people for being Muslim, having brown skin, for profit, or just for fun.
In response to this exchange Der Trihs received the only warning, and it was allegedly because he made a sweeping generalization without facts to back it up. Was Hank Beecher ever asked to provide evidence that the majority of the millions of Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt would have anyone killed? Or told that this type of criticism does nothing to help Muslims improve their situation?
I try to stay out of Great Debates in general but to me this appears to be a mod chastizing Der Trihs for his beliefs not his posts. Since when do poster’s words need to be geared toward improving American culture if critical of it? Since when can a poster be warned for “being wrong” or in the mod’s view “wrong headed” in their beliefs? And if they can why would the statement that the majority of Muslims would have you killed for your religious views be passable when 2 posts later the statement that the majority of Americans would kill a Muslim for whatever reason receive a warning?
It has long been my understanding that the moderation staff here does not intervene in factual disputes by demanding a poster provide factual basis for their claims or shut up, which is basically what JC is doing here. In other cases in the past I can recall mods saying that if a poster makes claims without any factual basis they will be proven wrong and/or ignored by other posters, and there is no need for moderators to start deciding whose arguments have more merit than others.
Reading the other 2 threads cited, it does appear to me that Jonathan Chance has either been tasked with, or has tasked himself with, singling out Der Trihs.
Thanks I didn’t go that far back in the thread. Not wanting to drudge up the actual debate in this thread I won’t comment on the validity of such a poll except to say in my opinion it isn’t conclusive support of the claim made. Either way I was mistaken that no cite was provided at all.
The main point wasn’t intended to be the mistaken impression that no cite was provided for one generalization and not the other anyway, but that the reasons given for DT’s warning were not representative of what I understood the SDMB and GD rules to be.
As far as I know someone can make any argument that they want, with or without any supporting evidence, and it’s up to other posters to ignore them, disprove them, repeatedly demand “Cite, cite cite!”, but that moderators don’t get involved in policing the factual correctness of posts. So take away any mention in the warning about the claims seeming ‘to this mod’s eyes - to be ridiculous’. Secondly I was not aware that any criticism made in a post needs to be ‘constructive criticism’ and doing something to better the situation of whatever is being criticized. So take away any mention in the warning about this type of criticism of America not being helpful to America.
After taking those away all that is left in the warning is that it was rhetoric (language that is intended to influence people and is not necessarily accurate or reasonable) and, there again, I wasn’t aware that mods were policing threads for inaccurate or unreasonable statements.
It seems like DT is being held to a higher standard after many complaints were made that he wasn’t being held to the same standard as other posters. An over correction, perhaps, I don’t know. But my impression is that JC doled out a bunch of warnings to DT for his posting style and commentary, not specific rules violations, in a very short time while other posters engage in rhetoric and hyperbole all the time in every forum.
Not sure how I missed this earlier. Who has called black people 'genetically subhuman" without getting a mod note or a warning? Can you link to the post you are talking about?
What I took away was that JC is going to be changing how Great Debates is moderated in general. That’s what Measure for Measure said in that post JC said he agreed with.
Though, in that case, I’d say it’s better to give a mod note to Der Trihs, and let subsequent line crossing get Warnings. It’s not fair to punish someone for new rules before announcing said rules.
I don’t think that is a new rule, though. There has been a trail of mod notes over the year for those types of posts, so it should be no surprise that a warning is finally coming.
The widespread opinion was that the warning(s) towards Der Trihs was justified because he paints with an ‘overly broad brush’, so I think it is germane to this to point out that similar brushes don’t usually get moderated.
:dubious: Every post claiming that blacks are genetically less intelligent is saying exactly that. There are regularly entire threads on the subject.
In fact they almost never do - unless they pick certain targets. I see people post uncomplimentary things all the time about Scientology and Jehovah Witnesses and Communism and fascism and the Democrats and sexists and all sorts of groups not only without being modded, but usually without being lectured to by other posters about “broad brushes” and “you can’t say that about every single one”. It’s only certain groups and causes that get that kind of protection; usually right wing ones.
Republicans are protected, but not Democrats; no one ever lectures me about how I’m “painting with a broad brush” when I condemn the Democrats. Mainstream Christianity gets protected, but not little unpopular Christian sects like the Witnesses or the less popular non-Christian sects. It’s OK to condemn believing in UFOs, Birtherism, psychic powers and “the Moon landings were faked” as being baseless and foolish, but not religion. It’s not about what is said; it’s about the target.
No, it’s about making unsupported, offensive generalisations. For example, you and I agree that religion is dangerous and wrong. You, however, go further and claim that most Christians are evil people. Also, you dump it in threads where it’s neither relevant nor appropriate. For example, the thread where you got the warning for ignoring Chance’s note was not in any way about the Republicans, so any discussion of them was off topic, and a gratuitous insult to them was threadshitting.
And is that any different than as most people do claiming that most racists or sexists are bad people for holding the views they do, except for the fact that Christianity is more of a sacred cow? And I don’t say that most Christians are evil people, I say that you can’t be genuinely moral and be a good Christian; that’s not the same thing.
:rolleyes: "Republican Haters: Do you want a one-party state, or what? " has nothing to do with the Republicans? And calling them “intransigent” isn’t being insulting, it’s a fairly mild term to describe the way they’ve been behaving. You’re just demonstrating my point about how we are supposed to treat the Republicans with kid gloves.
Exactly, I think you get it now. People may be racist or sexist or Christian because they are evil or immoral, or they may just not know any better. Or, about some issues, you may in fact be wrong and they may be right. Your constant, demonstrably false, claim that Christians and right-wingers hate women and want them to suffer is the most obvious example of this.
The thread was about what would happen if the Republican party stopped existing. Any issues you may have with the current party were irrelevant.
I agree. And if I can add one more subjective opinion to the pile, I’ve noticed that the newly-enmoddened JC has been much quicker to warn and to close threads than others in his cohort. I haven’t noticed any particular bias in this application; mostly it just looks like a different tolerance level (or a shorter fuse, if you prefer).
Whether one of the *ad infinitum *administrative discussions needs to be on consistency of approach is one thing, but I’m not seeing JC “picking on” Der Trihs in particular given some of the other instances in which he has wielded his modulatory Mjölnir.
It’s certainly not “demonstrably false”, given that’s the effects their actions consistently have. I can’t read minds; when a group consistently acts in a way that has a particular effect, I consider it the rational conclusion that that’s the effect they are going for.
