Yes, actually, I have. And you’re right that I have changed. But I’m not saying that Carol Stream (or anyone else) should not be pitted. I’m saying that Carol Stream (or anyone else) should not be pitted when they cannot respond. After his/her suspension, have at it. But in the meantime, isn’t there something else for the pariahs to gnaw on?
Some people might object to being discussed while they are in exile. I don’t think that Carol Stream is one of them. (Just my opinion.) CS doesn’t strike me as being all that defensive – just persistent. I could be mistaken. If Carol were away on vacation for a couple of weeks, we wouldn’t hesitate to continue our comments, would we?
The comparison was not anonymous name calling with torture. The comparison was with the mindset of people who would attack defenseless people. Whether that mindset is applied to a message board or to a torture chamber is a matter only of degree (and possibly opportunity). The mindset itself is the same.
In any case, it is moot at this point since Gfactore rightly put a stop to it. The point of this OP was to praise him for his decision, and to stress the unseemliness of such practices.
The fact of the matter is that Carol Stream notified me by PM (if you check his/her profile, I am his/her only friend) and asked if I felt the same in this instance as I always have. I even defended Badchad (whom I despised for stalking and harassing Polycarp) after he was banned. I also have received one other PM from someone who supports the OP, but is reluctant to post here since moderators are allowing Pit-like posts and pointless insults.
I have reported the OP and asked the mods please to insure that this discussion is civil. Calling Carol Stream a troll in this thread is not civil, and even breaks the rules of the board. So, either Dex hasn’t gotten the message yet, or he doesn’t care. My ten bucks goes on the former.
So if the person being actively pitted gets suspended or banned, we’re supposed to stop the discussion?
On what planet is this a reasonable action?
Carol Stream deserves every bit of vitriol thrown in her (or his) direction. Especially now that they’ve been given a time out for bad behavior.
Don’t you have something, you know, valid to talk about?
Or, more truthfully:
The point of this OP was to praise him for his decision, to stress the unseemliness of such practices and to try to get yet more rules instituted to stop you from possibly being even slightly offended by seeing words you disagree with.
Oh, and to insult everyone who disagrees with you.
If you’re so butthurt about not calling assholes who get themselves banned* assholes, perhaps you can also be concerned with not insulting posters in good standing by saying stuff like: anyone who disagrees with you on this issue has just the same mentality (if not the opportunity) as Abu Graib guards who beat tied-up prisoners and spit on them and stuff.
*Note, Carol Stream was not banned, hence not covered by this sentence-I’m talking in the general, not the specific here.
Planet Liberal.
Somewhere…and a quick search hasn’t found it, Lib once spent a few months trying to classify all pittings as like a “type 1”, a “type 2” or a “pile on” (or some-such…I don’t recall the actual distinctions). And (IIRC) he wanted one of the types banned. It was a pretty screwball idea and roundly mocked.
(You can see people pointing and laughing at these ideas here but I can’t find the original thread. )
Well, I didn’t disagree with your part 1. Just your part 2–the way you post has everything to do with how you are treated. You seemed not to believe that. You seemed to argue that the “Pitizens” don’t have the right to complain about Carol Stream’s attitude when posting, because they showed themselves to not have the moral high ground. My argument was that it works both ways: Carol Stream lacks the high ground to get mad about this sort of thing, due to his/her contemptible actions in the recent past. And, as far as I know, saying someone threadshits does not count as insulting them, and it is quite important to be able to talk about the behavior of posters in ATMB.
You seem to find the behavior shocking: I don’t. The Pit is specifically for posters who want to say mean things about other posters. Giving them a chance to fight back seems to be more of a concession for keeping the place somewhat civil, rather than a feature that the people actually like. So when a loophole around that concession is found, I am not surprised that some posters will take advantage of it until it is explicitly disallowed.
People who are angry don’t behave rationally. They tend to go overboard, saying or doing things they wouldn’t if they were thinking correctly. I think that’s why Gfactor is as lenient as he is. Even if you got the rule you want codified, I don’t think it would be enforced any differently. For all intents and purposes, the rule already exists.
Dex does not get reports in ATMB because he is not actively modding ATMB at this time.
I have received all reports, and am monitoring this thread.
-xash
Administrator
Oh, and found the actual thread, my memory was only sorta correct.
An Arky, calling someone a troll outside of The BBQ Pit is expressly forbidden. Please do not do this again.
From the FAQ - Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards:
Liberal, you say you would like everyone in this thread to be civil, yet you make a comparison in your OP that some people find offensive, and make a couple of other posts that are not entirely civil. If you would like to engender a civil discussion, especially if you are the OP, it should start with you.
Fenris, may I request you to please be civil when addressing Liberal.
To the rest: While I understand that discussions of this nature tend to get heated, please remain civil while posting in ATMB.
Thanks.
-xash
Administrator
You might want to pop your knee back in socket there, cowboy. The poor widdle wepwessed conservative malarkey is as tiresome as it is imaginary.
Xash, I’ll certainly comply but could you clarify?
Despite Lib’s repeated assertions about ATMB being for “civil” discussion (ie: civil=discussion agreeing with him 100% hence his obnoxious and insulting OP) , the actual rules don’t support Lib’s assertion that there’s a civility requirement in ATMB.
The rule as I understood it was no personal insults were allowed and that this is a bright-line rule. Smarm and being dismissive of the other person’s posts–even nastily so, is fine in ATMB but no personal insults. You can get riiiiight up to the edge as long as you don’t insult the poster.
I’ll certainly comply with your request, but Dex point-blank said that snark/sarcasm and nastiness were fine as long as it didn’t cross into personal insults.
So…have things changed? Again, I’m happy to comply, but this “civility” requirement Lib keeps referring to doesn’t seem to exist anywhere officially except in his ongoing assertions that it exists 'cause he wants it to.
My knees are fine, thank you. This kind of thing is what makes debates with some kinds of posters both easy, and entertaining. Post #2 to a thread makes it clear that my description is correct, followed by a denial that it is.
Proactive self-refutation - only on the SDMB.
:giggle:
Regards,
Shodan
I’d like some of what you’re smoking!
Anyway, again, it’s not about conservatism, it’s about two-trick ponyism; bitching about modding and irritating lefties. Not one single post about anything else.
You contribute much to this board, and while I disagree with your politics, I don’t think it’s trolling, obviously. You post about other things, too.
This is my big annoyance lately. Lib said “good job” to the mods, and a bunch of people came in here and started arguing about all kinds of things that are mostly tangent, like conservatives or how person X is a troll/sock (neither of which are allowed in here anyway).
Look, if you want to be “snarky, sarcastic, and nasty”, go to the pit, or go to GD. This is not the place for it, even if it is technically allowed.
And on that note, it shouldn’t even be technically allowed. ATMB is about the rules on the board, the decisions mods make, etc. If you can’t contribute without getting overly emotional and can’t think of a way to make your point other than being “snarky, sarcastic, and nasty”, it might be best if you didn’t make it at all. That was the reason all discussion of mods was moved here out of the pit. It’s why you get in trouble for excess snarkiness in GQ.
Furthermore, the policy regarding closing threads about a poster who can’t respond has been around for a long time. I am surprised that so few people are aware that it’s the norm rather than the exception.
There may be something to what you say, from the POV of some Dopers. Certainly I’ve seen a few rational arguments dismissed as ‘trolling’ because they did not conform to a particular mindset. (I’m remembering an incident that I hope Liberal won’t mind my bringing up, in which he called me a thief for holding it to be ethical and appropriate for government to fulfill our corporate responsibility for ensuring the poor and needy are taken care of – at the time, while a tenet of liberal thought, anathema to Lib’s libertarian principles. (We’ve since dealt with this and are the best of friends, which makes me comfortable using it as an example.)
Certainly if you, Bricker, or Sam Stone advances a rational argument why, e.g., single-option government-sponsored health care is a bad move, this will be offensive to many liberals, and provoke some nasty responses.
However, distinguish between such posts and those of certain Pitizens who appear to do nothing but carp at others. Let me hold up as an example curlcoat, making clear that I am not insulting nor pitting her here, but demonstrating my thesis by example. In some forums, such as Cafe Society, curlcoat posts interesting, on topic comments that provide valuable insight into the topic under discussion. But curlcoat’s Pit posts seem to portray her as a oerson who holds that the only values worth discussing, the only issues worthy of consideration, is how a particular topic impacts a fairly well-to-do Orange County (CA) couple with conservative values and a dislike for Hispanic immigrants, with the wife drawing disability but apparently opposed to all other forms of social service aid. Her posts appear to refuse to contemplate that conditions elsewhere or affecting others might give them a different perspective on what is proper or a worthwhile goal. Hence she comes across as “threadshitting” – which I suspect is not her intent, though her tone suggests she could not care less whether she is so perceived. (Please note that I am using her, where I can get a handle on where she is coming from, as example of someone percevied as trolling and threadshitting, not attacking her personally, contrary to forum rules. It’s because I think I grasp what her stance is and how others react to it that I’m pointing her out as example. Some of her comments have angred me and made me suspect her of trolling, but with a level head, I can grasp her position, even though I strongly disagree with it, and see both good and bad in what she posts.)
It’s in this context that I see the issue with Carol Stream. While she may post somewhere I don’t frequent (SD Chicago, Game Room) with valuable and pertinent comments, most of what she puts in the Pit seems to me to be pure snark done for the purpose of insulting and angering others, i.e., trolling in the strict sense, with a particular animosity toward Broomstick. I have personally never seen one post of Carol Stream’s that contributed anything useful to a discussion. Sam Stone takes intelligent and intelligible positions I strongly disagree with – and he’s welcome to argue them, for all of me. His viewpoint is a necessary ingredient in what makes the Dope a worthwhile venue for the exchange of ideas, “Iron sharpening iron” as it were. I frankly don’t see any of Carik Stream’s contributions in that light.