Seriously. WTF is this about? I did not even call a poster a gun grabber. I used the term in an obviously generic sense, in much the same way as others might use “Gun Nut” “God Botherer”, “Anti-Abortion”, “Bleeding Heart”, etc.
Kindly explain exactly what warranted moderation there. Or retract the instruction, which would be the better choice.
Well, it’s a slippery slope.
And I don’t see how the “stupidest thing” comment gets a warning either, since it’s an example of “attack the post, not the poster.”
(Note: I actually agree with Oakminster here. That’s actually fairly mild)
I also agree with Oakminster here. He was not directing his remark towards any poster. Gun grabber may be a one-sided term but so is gun nut and plenty of people regularly use that with no problem.
He requested you keep things GD appropriate. Hardly a horrible request, why exactly should that instruction be retracted? Do you wish the ability to post things that are not GD appropriate?
People use “gun nut” in GD all the time.
“Gun grabber” and “stupidest thing read this week” aren’t violations of the Great Debates rules, they’re just rude and tend to drag threads downward. I was hoping that by intervening on your use of “gun grabber” I could prevent that thread by following suit. Other than a few uses of the word “anti” I had seen little of the typical mischaracterization and nonsense that usually pops up in gun control threads; if I’d seen “gun nut” I would have moderated that, too.
So you political bias once again affects your actions as a mod? Because I have not seen you take a similar stance on other pejoratives routinely directed at your political opponents, such as “Tea Bagger” or “Gun Nut”.
And, if it is not against the rules, and you are not issuing a mod instruction against the use of the term, then there is no reason for the use of the mod tag.
I trust that there will be no further unwarranted mod intervention over my use of the term “gun grabber” in any thread I feel so inclined to use it?
I’m not sure what to tell you. I have moderated plenty of posts that contained generalities insulting to gun owners and groups of people who aren’t popular with the left. In the thread we are talking about I moderated someone for calling a criticism of gun control “stupid.” Not that I’ve ever counted, but I think gun owners get insulted here more often than gun control proponents do. I acted here because this thread was short and had not (to that point) been dominated by a lot of ridiculousness about “gun grabbers” and “gun nuts,” so I attempted to keep it that way. It’s not going to happen in every thread; in the last few weeks there have been far too many of them for me to even think about it. You could, of course, refrain from using deliberate overgeneralities on your own, but if nobody else is doing it either, you don’t have to.
So how am I supposed to know whether I can use a term in a thread or not?
And why have you never made a similar attempt with a left wing insult, such as “tea bagger”?
Bad ruling, bad precedent, bad call. Pick the flag up and let the boys play.
If the thread is on the high road (in relative terms), consider not being the one to drag it down. And if I tell you not to do it, don’t do it.
Why are you re-asking a question I have already answered? I’ve modded terms like this when applied to people of any and all political persuasions, although “Tea Bagger” is a lost cause.
That’d make me some kind of flag-grabber, wouldn’t it? 
Seriously, it’s a mod note for tone. You’ve seen plenty of them. My actual instruction was a little too vague because I was trying to address both posters at once. I could’ve said to you that nobody in the thread had proposed grabbing any guns or suggested that gun owners be punished instead of murderers so your entire post was an off-topic broadside and I could’ve said to Ludovic that his comment was insulting even though it was nominally about the post, so explaining why the post was bad would have been better than just calling it stupid. Instead I made a more general note because you’re both longtime posters who are capable of staying firmly within the rules.
What you should have done was nothing. By your explanation, any post is subject to mod whimsy, with no rational or predictable standards. It’s a massive overreaction to a very mild term. I can freely refer to any generic group of people as “cunts”, but if you happen to be in a pissy mood, I have to be careful about using “gun grabber”? That’s silly and you know it.
We’ll never come to a consensus through rational debate if we’re prohibited from using appropriate terminology: “gun grabbers,” “Glocksuckers,” “pistol pussies,” “Shotzis,” “pansy-ass freedom-hating liberal faggots”— these are all irreplaceable terms of art. It’s like placing arbitrary limits on how many thousand cases of shells per day you’re allowed to buy for your condominium defense arsenal. If they only knew things had gotten this bad, the Founding Fathers would dry-heave a cloud of baked bean dust.
“Gun Grabber”? News to me. But after we do grab the darn things, can we melt them or do we have to put then up for auction?
BTW, I see nothing to mod about in this case. Gun Grabber that I am, I think it’s kind of cute.
Red, the “Gun Grabber.” Kewl.
In this thread, Marley23 explains his banning of the term “Paultard” on the basis that they are offensive to the disabled and people who work with the disabled.
When asked to clarify, he says
and
Can you see where people might think that this is a new rule?
As always, there’s an easy way to avoid this sort of mod note: don’t be obnoxious in GD. Terms like “gun nut” have no place in a rational debate, and GD should aspire toward rational debate. Terms like “gun nut” are not clever or funny or original, and GD should aspire as well toward cleverness, humor, and originality.
The OP’s complaint is petulant. Step up your game, Oak, and make rational arguments with wit and panache, and you won’t get such mod notes.
While I believe the solution is Oak not using this language in the more civil forums, and while I don’t really disagree with the original note you could have done without this last sentence. It reads as if it’s ok for Oak to do it if other start but not ok to be the one who starts it.
I don’t believe this for a second.
Here’s something of a counterexample. I was already modding this troll for insults, but look at point 2:
That’s as much time as I plan to spend on “I bet you wouldn’t moderate that!” claims - especially with regard to stuff I’ve been moderating for ages.