But, isn’t this true?
Not remotely. Consider the following two descriptions of folks who support the second amendment:
- The gun nuts who have wet dreams about their next purchase are just blithering in this thread.
- The folks in this thread who oppose gun control have failed to present compelling statistical arguments.
Anyone who is unable to predict which of these two posts will receive a mod note isn’t a positive contributor to Great Debates and should feel unwelcome there.
Of course we should all strive to be more like #2. No one is arguing that point, I think.
The issue is that you’ve got posters who’s every post in GD makes #1 look tame, like Der Thris. He’s allowed to respond to any OP with his standard “All Republican’s are evil baby killers” shtick. Yet, a pro-gun person says “gun grabbers” and gets admonishment from a mod.
The double standard is undeniable.
He’s been moderated and warned for those types of comments when they’re off-topic or otherwise unwelcome. For other commentary about double standards, please see the last line of my earlier post.
No, it’s not undeniable. Frankly I wish Der Trihs would be modded much more often; I find him to detract from GD in almost every one of his posts. However, he generally phrases things in a careful way: rather than saying that Republicans are evil baby killers, he says that Republicans do not care about whether babies die. He makes outrageously stupid claims about the beliefs of his opponents, but he doesn’t generally call them names. (If I’m wrong, I’d love to see a post in which he calls them names, a post that was reported in a timely fashion, and which was not moderated).
Whoa, that’s a mighty high horse you’re riding on there, chum. Should we send you up some oxygen?
Lighten up, would?
As far as “gun grabbers”, I agree with Oakminster, here. No mod commentary would have been the appropriate course of action.
This is an excellent example of the sort of cobbled-together board cliches that are totally unproductive, that barely pass for cleverness even to their writers (and here I’m being charitable; perhaps you genuinely think your post is thoughtful or useful, but I’ll be kind and presume you can see its lack of value), and that I wish would be moderated more heavily.
Sadly, he’s smart enough to know how to twist his words in just such a way so he can call you a liar, and accuse you of terrible things, but skirt the line that will get him warned. I have stopped interacting with him, but will warn others of his “style” of argument, and I am pretty sure he has made the same decision in regards to me, as he no longer comments on anything I say.
So no, he will continue to thumb his nose at the rules, while obeying them to the letter, and he will get away with it.
That all being said, a new person, or a rightwinger who did what he does would have gotten hammered fairly quickly, I’m pretty sure.
It’s only unproductive if the person it is intended for doesn’t take the advice. So if the post in question was indeed unproductive, as you claim, you only have yourself to blame.
It wasn’t advice, it was a little bit of sarcastic obnoxiousness. Given the context of this thread I was trying to ignore it, but you’re making that impossible. Stop it now and don’t do it again. And if the two of you have a personal problem with each other, handle it in the Pit.
There’s nothing in that note that should surprise you. If you want to offer something useful in this thread, have at it. If you want to take shots at other posters, go to the Pit.
Indeed. Which is why I think there should be more, not less, subjectivity in moderation. There should be no option of obeying the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit.
A new person, maybe. But a rightwinger? I think Clothahump, for example, generally posts along the same levels. He’s just less prolific.
Maybe it shouldn’t surprise me, given who is doing the moderating.
As far as something to offer, I opined on your ridiculous moderation of Oakminster and than let LHOD know that I thought he was being to priggish in the tone he was calling for.
So, perhaps you would benefit from the advice I gave him: lighten up. Sheeze.
Which you are, of course, allowed to do.
But not this. He’s not a mod. This is pretty simple.
Say what? If one poster describes what he thinks is the proper tone of debate, another poster can’t comment on that? You’ll have to explain that one a little better.
You didn’t ‘comment on the proper tone.’ You said Left Hand of Dorkness was up on his high horse, which was insulting.
It’s a way of making the point he was being priggish. Which should have been clear from the “Lighten up.” that immediately followed it.
Unbelievable.
But I have better things to do than go through this bullshit.
Enjoy. And whatever you or any prigs anywhere might possibly do, don’t you dare lighten up.
And for some reason you’re not able to understand that you can’t do this in this forum. You are not allowed to insult people here. This is a formal warning.
Dude, you’re losing it. Saying that his position is priggish is not an insult. It’s simply describing his position (which is perfectly valid). He wants this to be a super-duper-polite debate board, which is valid. I think that dehumanizes things and that people need to be able to demonstrate emotion, personality. Both positions are valid. He wants it to be a bit more—and this is NOT an insult—“priggish”…more a monocled professor in a three-piece tweed suit. THAT is not an insult. I want it to feel more natural. I’m not looking to turn it into a barroom fight, I was just making the point that what LHOD had described seemed overly polite, stilted, unnatural.
You’ve made a mistake here. Please rescind you’re Warning.