I think it was a good call. This was in GD but the offending post made no effort at all to address the argument but simply called it dumb. That isn’t debating, it’s an insult.
So you think that’s the metric that should be applied to all posts now: is the post debating anything? Is there a handy guidebook or something so that the rest of us can know what content is “debating” and what is not? :dubious:
The rules don’t require that every post be “debating” (and such would be little more than an invitation for arbitrary and capricious moderation of the forum).
Did you see what “the argument” was? And, as I’ve said above, this has been something many posters have been doing for years without being mod’ed. If there is a rule change, then let’s make it official before people get warned for it.
But mom, all the kids do it, why can’t I? I bet I could find dozens of examples of rule breaking that isn’t moderated, does that mean anything at all in an argument about moderating fairly? No, it doesn’t.
There was really no change to the rule. The post was one of those shots that occasionally land on the foul line. A call was made. There’s may be a degree of question in the call, but the fact is, it was near enough to the foul line to trigger a call.
The “insult the post, not the poster” rule is an offshoot of the “don’t be a jerk” rule. Is it being a jerk to call someone’s comments full of “dumb.” Does such a comment foster the discussion or lead to a hijack/trainwreck/flame war?
I think it depends on the original post. If it is one that is contributing to the discussion e.g. “I see ALL of Texas electoral votes being cast for people other than Trump.” then the response is inappropriate and maybe deserves a note. On the other hand if the original post is:
“I tried to melt a nail with a lighter … 9/11 … Bin Ladin was a CIA operative … isolated field … how convenient … Bush didn’t act surprised … just asking questions.” for 60 lines then the response is better than it deserves.
For those following along at home, here it is:
If you’d stopped after the first sentence, my guess is you would have been fine. The second sentence is pretty insulting.
Agreed. With compliments like that, who needs insults?
So full of dumb is a debating point now? If the argument has no validity then say so politely. To call it full of dumb is jerkish. In my opinion of course.
Why is anyone seriously arguing to allow insults At All in Great Debates? The point of debate is to argue the merits or lack thereof of a topic and to put forward opposing arguments. Insults are just lazy. If you think something is “dumb” then define what the “dumb” item is and argue why it is “dumb”. I rarely consider someone erudite who can only classify a comment as “dumb”.
Couple points:
- Whatever else you think about Inbred, s/he is pretty obviously erudite. If you’re judging erudition on that one post, that’s insufficient data.
- While I agree that the post didn’t further conversation (and think it’s deserving of a note), “insults” have been IMO too precisely defined around here. Inbred’s post appears to attack the post, not the poster, which is something that’s been allowed traditionally. Make the change away from that, by all means, but do it with notes not warnings.
Though, did you read the comment that was being replied to? The one saying that everyone in favor of nuclear power should keep the waste in a bucket in their house?
How do you even argue with something like that? Should they have explained the dangers of radiation? The dangers of transportation? The dangers of proliferation if everyone’s got a bucket of nuke waste? Do you really think that the post should have been taken seriously, and been given an “erudite” response?
I suppose that maybe dumb wouldn’t be the right word if you decided that it was just thread shitting on their part.
Personally, I thought the response was exactly in line with the rules as written and as followed and enforced up until now. Was it a kind comment? No, but I am sure there was more thought and effort put into it than into the one it was replying to.
People keep saying this, but I’m still not seeing it. Is there seriously a rule that’s about technical grammatical form rather than meaning. Are you guys seriously suggesting that…
“Your dumb-as-shit posts have all the attributes of an immature child’s ranting”
…is not be an insult directed squarely at the poster?
If so, that’s utterly ridiculous, and surely it’s below the level of the SDMB to have a rule that you can get away with insulting someone by circumlocution that’s not even remotely subtle. Either insults are ok or they are not.
For what it’s worth, I think it should be allowed to use somewhat insulting language, provided that it’s backed up by substantive argument about the content of the post. But if all you are doing is insulting someone, that adds nothing of value to the conversation.
ETA: I should have been clearer that the insult in quotation marks in my comment above was hypothetical, not related to the specific instance at hand, but the general principle of the apparent prevailing interpretation of attack the post not the poster.
I challenge you to create a substantive argument about the content of that post. You know, the one where he insists that anyone for nuclear power should keep nuclear waste in their home.
Though, I suppose it may have been better to just report that post for thread shitting, but from what I’ve seen, that rarely gets warned
Well, if a post is effectively content-free like this, if you felt compelled to respond you could note that this kind of inflammatory sarcastic nonsense adds nothing to the debate. Of course, that’s less satisfying than giving the comeback that it probably deserves, i.e. just calling the post asshattery or worse. But I don’t see much alternative if the rules forbid insults. There’s always going to be problem when there is provocation. But if insulting is forbidden, there is no distinction other than sophistry between (say) calling a post asshattery and calling a poster an asshat.
Just like there’s no difference between thinking a book is terrible, and the author is terrible, that a movie is boring, and the actors are boring, that a news article has a fact wrong, and the reporter can’t get facts right.
I don’t know how much this poster has contributed overall, he’s kinda new here, but this particular post had no redeeming qualities to it whatsoever. Does that mean the poster has no redeeming qualities?
Basically, you are saying that it any criticism of a post is criticism of the poster. How exactly does one go about debating if one cannot criticize a post?
Now, I’ll agree that the particular response was not a kind response, and maybe even somewhat patronizing. But, it contributed to the thread by making other readers stop thinking about the inanity of the statement, and allowing them to go on with the thread.
That’s not what I said at all. If we are debating, we address the content of a post on its merits.
But if you say nothing more than “this post is stupid”, without pointing out why the post is stupid by discussing its claims, then that’s just trivial circumlocution that’s no different from just flinging the insult “you are stupid”.
I don’t disagree. And it achieved this by insulting the poster. In this particular situation, in my opinion the insult was warranted. But I don’t make the board rules than ban insults, and it’s sophistry to suggest that it wasn’t an insult.
To clarify, are you saying that’s no different in practice, or that’s no different according to how the board has traditionally be moderated?
I cannot speak from experience about how the board has traditionally been moderated, I have only been around for a year. I was commenting on what a sensible rule should look like.