I’ve noticed more and more as I’ve been lurking that your jumps into the fray to “moderate” have become more and more unnecessary, premature, and biased. The last point goes to the how you seem your moderation seems to always shut down one side. Guess which?!!! But that’s a small issue for this particular baffoonish confusion as to what would make for good moderation. To refresh your memory, here is the litany of the exchange.
You may want to go back and read the past few pages of the thread to appreciate how ridiculous your input was and how misdirected. But that’s just a bonus. Here is what transpired:
And here we have our hair-trigger Jackboot doing what he views is helpful and fair moderation:
So let me start with a simple question. Since when is it against board rules to politely point out that someone is being emotional? And since when is an apology that a poster issues because someone took offense for something that wasn’t intended to be an insult, ignored?
Marley, you blew it. Big time. Again. You are making this place worse. Not better. Not that I expect you to really give a shit. As long as you get to keep your finger on the scale.
I didn’t say there was a rule against saying someone is being emotional. Taking a cue from your reasonable post - which I appreciated - I said it was time to stop discussing GIGObuster’s supposed emotional state. There had already been enough posts about that:
Along with GIGObuster’s posts in response each time it was asserted that he was being emotional, and your more recent post (which I quoted in my note).
You seem to think I was criticizing you, but I wasn’t. I appreciate that you acknowledged that perhaps your comment was taken in a way that was not intended. I was echoing that and saying it was time to continue the discussion without the comments about GIGObuster’s emotions. I didn’t say anyone had done wrong, and I didn’t put my finger on the scales.
Have I misused the term “ad hominem”? It’s possible. I meant the way that you were writing off GIGOBuster’s argument on the grounds that it was based on his emotional response. Whatever logical fallacy that is, is the one I meant.
Not only was neither Chen nor I out of line, the other two were MUCH more less civil. And what I;m sure you DO understand, is simply by moderating the way you did, you are putting your finger on the scale.
I kept thinking a mod was going to step in and have Gigo or Kobal town down the attitude, but not only did that not happen, either you decided to place your finger on the scale on your own or Gigo doesn’t have half the backbone his bluster might indicate.
If you thought their posts were inappropriate, you probably should have reported them. The posts I did see were not out of line.
I’m still wondering how I did that. I said you and Chen019 should stop commenting on GIGObuster’s emotional state. I made no other comment on your behavior or the arguments you were offering.
I didn’t write anything off. You said you read the thread. Did you not notice the numerous point-by-point rebuttals of his posts? (All with zero snark, I might add.) I pointed out I thought he was being emotional, but that was an additional observation, not something I offered in lieu of one.
Regardless, it is not an ad hominem. It’s not even a fallacy. It’s an observation.
I chose to not distract from the weakness of their actual arguments, and not bother the mods with minor snark. Snark very much like that which I’ve been slapped by mods before. So, you read the thread and the worst offense you could find from anyone is my pointing out that I he was emotionally invested in the immigration issue—after he had shared that he is an immigrant?
If that’s the case, I think we might have found the problem.
You make it sound like something I was harping on, which if I had might have given you some justification. Plus, you had the benefit of my apology which showed that 1) I did not intend it an an insult and 2) was more than willing to leave that issue behind.
So, of what possible benefit was there to you coming in an Moderating the way you did? To the issue and the discussion thread—none. The only thing it did is allow a weak, emotional poster to feel protected and think others agree that he was being unfairly attacked.
Tell me, did you opine on your own or was the post reported?
See my first post in this thread. I quoted three posts in which Chen019 made reference to how “emotional” GIGObuster was, in addition to another post from you. I’d say that is something like harping on the issue.
I did not assert that you intended to insult him. I’ve already made this clear.
Which was why I took advantage of the opportunity to make sure everyone else also left the issue behind.
I think this criticism of GIGObuster undermines your “apology.”
Sorry, I don’t answer questions like this. You’re going to have to either defend your own behavior or explain why I unfairly slanted the debate by agreeing with you that it was time to leave the “emotion” issue behind. Whether the post was reported or I stumbled onto it isn’t your business.
The point I made was that my “emotional” mentioning of being an immigrant was the only thing replied for, in reality I pointed first at the reasons made by the environmentalists on why immigration is not an important part of the environmental and sustainability issues. Those reasons in the quote in the same post were not touched at all by the posters that just concentrated on the emotional well being of others. (The points made by the environmentalist are still not touched, poor treehugger.com guy, I can see it is not easy being green )
I guess even if they are the experts, they are also emotional and so their points can be ignored.
Geeze…is this “Make a Bogus Complaint about a Mod Week”?
Looks to me like **Marley **was just trying to calm things down before having to go all jackboots. Good mods tend to do that, and Marley is pretty good. Except, of course, when he disagrees with me.
I don’t think that environmentalists need to crack down on immigration to cite problems with population control - because it’s urban sprawl, water waste, and the couple thousand empty square feet of retail space per person that’s an issue here. But it can be part of the problem and solution. So that’s my disclaimer, lest anyone think I agree/disagree with any group.
But I do think that retorting with cries of ‘nativist’, ‘race’, etc., are emotional and not warranted. Those are ad hominemns, and it seems when someone takes an unpopular (eg conservative) position, cries of ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘big feat meanie-ism’ are allowed. That’s just the same as calling someone emotional imo.
I don’t think what they pointed out was unfair, it was just maybe unpleasant and maybe echoed racism (hints of who has more babies than others and such). And the longer the argument went on, the more hostile it got.
**So. I think calling someone shortsighted and irrational because of a supposed bias is just as bad as calling someone irrational based on their mental state. **(I understand Chen has a history of being inflammatory, but kill his points, not his username.)
But Marley also asked others to town it down, so I think all relevant ticked off posters should recognize that.
You are suggesting that the opposing side in a debate might be “allowed” to feel protected and supported by others? (Yes, the words are different, but the meaning is not changed.) You can’t control someone else’s feelings, you know.
You seem to be under the misguided opinion that an appeal to the emotions is somehow weak. Everyone who learns how to debate should be proficient in knowing how to appeal to the emotions. It is a gift, not a weakness. It is not the opposite of being logical. Only an illogical person would think so. It is particularly useful in political debates.
If the person debating becomes very, very emotional herself or himself, it is up to those witnessing the debate to determine if that person is “overly emotional.” “Cold logic” can sometimes be off-putting too, depending on the topic.
In the linked thread, the repeated references to the other person’s emotional state were irrelevant. It was as if two of you kept reminding us that he had red hair. Yeah…so? Why did it continue to be brought up? Why was it linked here with weakness?
This one goes to Marley for helping to keep the linked thread on topic and relevant.
)
