That’s how I got into this mess. And ix-nay on the iberal atheist board-lay.
There are certain posters in GD who will routinely say things like Conservatives/Libertarians just want people to starve to death or turned into slaves, and I’ve never seen them admonished for it. Maybe I’ve missed it.
Not saying I’m in favor of this type of mod’ing, but my impression is that it is very capricious.
You misspelled something. That last bit should be “…that it is a very, very positive step.”
You can discuss the point – but you have to be civil.
You can’t use a point of discussion as a jump off point to bash a political party you dislike or someone you have an issue with. That goes in the Pit.
The assertion that Republicans were worse than child molestors was also based (more or less) on a specific policy - their alleged obstructionism.
And I suppose it depends on what you find “obscene”.
Obviously it would be a judgment call, but I don’t see any difference in principle between saying “Republicans are worse than child molestors because they are blocking Obama’s agenda” and saying “Republicans want women to die because they oppose abortion”. Both accusations are bizarre, both are based on objections to Republican policies.
Regards,
Shodan
More or less, yes - but it’s a (bizarre) moral judgment, not a consequence of the supposed policy.
I’d say I am comfortable judging the example in this thread to be more obscene.
Have you ever seen me employ similar levels of vile and disgusting rhetoric towards liberals outside of the Pit? (Hint: the answer is no.) And yet, I am able to fully participate in political debates on this forum, and communicate my position quite clearly. Frankly, if the situation here were reversed, and I was the offending party, I strongly suspect you would be leading the charge in calling for my head.
Did you just make this rule up?
You can be as judgmental as you like … in the Pit.
But we do want to keep to some level of civility in Elections. Trash talk is detrimental.
But at what point does criticism become trash talk?
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the incident leading to this thread was, in fact, “trash talking.” It’s still not clear to me how you’re drawing the line here. Nor is it clear, from your comment, whether you draw a line between “trash talking” the party itself, and “trash talking” all the people who support the party.
And does this apply only to parties? What about broader belief systems like “liberal” and conservative"? How critical can one be? And what actually constitutes incivility in discussions like this? Does it require swearing or allusions to child abuse? Is it different if you say “some [members of group] are [epithet]” rather than simply “[members of group] are [epithet]”?
What really amazed me, in that thread, was that Marley included silenus in his admonition. Here’s what silenus said that caused Marley to include his comment as an example of “over the top, vile commentary.”
WTF? I see that silenus, with his habitual good humor, is rather unfussed about thie issue, but if that comment is now considered out of bounds for non-Pit discussions, you better get out a fucking large ban hammer. Der Trihs would be gone in a matter of moments, as would a few other leftists and liberals, and there are also quite a few conservatives who would have trouble passing muster.
Starving Artist has made a veritable career out of broad-brush assertions about how awful liberals are in GD and Elections. Here’s a small sample that took me about two minutes to gather:
And in none of those quotes did he assert that liberals are worse than baby rapers. There is plenty of room for debate without going there.
Right, but my argument was about more than that. I guess i thought someone as smart as you might have grasped that from what i wrote.
As i specifically noted in my previous post (did you miss it, or ignore it?), silenus’s very tame post was specifically included by Marley under the banner of “over the top, vile commentary” when he issued his admonition.
Overlooked or ignored … ?
I suppose it could go in a new thread… but if it was a tangent you were keen to address I’ll bet you could justify doing so.
I think one might be able to make an argument that silenus’ post was included since he jumped on the derailment bandwagon. The earlier post was the point of departure, and Marley wanted to stop the whole bit. And, since no warning was issued, it’s realy no big deal.
But I agree with the larger point you are making, as I said in my earlier post. This new mod rule seems to have come into being like Athena, bursting out of Zeus’ brow. And if it’s going to be applied, I’d like to see it applied consistently.
The administration has previously stated that they have no intent to make any policy preventing moderators from participating in the threads they moderate. If people must give up participation in order to moderate, there will be far fewer willing to be moderators.
I’m not aware there currently are any moderators that span the political spectrum. They had one, once, but he left when he decided the moderators were as a whole too liberal, thereby ensuring that outcome.
Dammit, I thought he was a Golden Retriever.
Tell me how you compare raping babies, on a moral scale, with committing genocide:
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things “better” in this country over the last forty years
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=John Mace]
if it’s going to be applied, I’d like to see it applied consistently
[/QUOTE]
I’d like my pony first, please.
Since there has be no cite of a conservative accusing a liberal of genocide, I decline to dignify that with a substantive response.
OK, you tell me what **Starving Artist **was doing, in your own words, then.
And, pray, make them improbable.
Nah…I’m pretty much done with this conversation. Think I’ll go see The Avengers with my wife instead.