If someone starts a thread in GQ asking if Obama has the constitutional authority to kill a US citizen abroad, just don’t refer to it as a Bush league tactic!
Do we say that? It sounds rather archaic.
Why are there so many doubters here?
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. It may sound “archaic,” but that’s where the expression comes from.
I’m not doubting the origin of the term. I’m doubting the claim that “we say that” using the present tense. So far as I can tell, we don’t say that (any more).
If you’re not doubting the origin of the term, then why are you picking apart my post?
Do you not understand the question I’m asking?
I do, but I doubt what you say. I think you’re picking apart my post just to be contrary. Anyway, I don’t want to hijack this thread anymore. I made a poll. You’re welcome to participate.
The ironing is delicious!
I second this. Most of my notes and warnings are for “being a jerk” because I can, quite frankly, be a real jerk sometimes. It’s not like notes and warnings aren’t handed out for it. The rule exists, mods do hand out warnings for it, it should be used more often, instead of trying to torture another rule into fitting a specific post. It’s gotten me to re-examine my behavior when I’ve gotten slapped with it, if only to decide to bow out of threads I’ve gotten too worked up over.
I can’t comment on why Colibri cited the political comments rule instead of the don’t be a jerk rule, but I will say that the post actually did contain some political comments that were out of line for GQ as far as I can see, and it’s usually better for us to be as specific as possible. If he’d been less specific people would probably be asking what precisely made this behavior jerkish, and the answer would be that it was unwanted, off-topic political commentary in GQ.
Mods could always say: ‘This is kinda jerkish, and borders on a political jab. I’m not going to try to figure out which is the best rule, I’m just going to zap you for trying (and failing) for a mix of not-quite-violating two rules at once.’ Or some variation on that theme.
ETA: Whenever I’ve gotten a “jerk” warning or note, I’ve always gone back and looked at what I did, and always realized, after the fact, that “yeah, that was jerkish”. Only a total jerk who can’t understand his jerkishness would not be able to do so.
It’s not really jerkish behavior. It’s making a political statement-- ie, environmental protestors are “nutbags”. Jerkish behavior generally means you are being a jerk towards someone, or that you’re hijacking a thread in a way that’s ruining the discussion. And to do the latter takes a LOT more than one post.
Maybe someone can explain why they consider that to be jerkish behavior, because I’m not seeing it.
Ruling: completely and unbelievably ridiculous moderation.
Apologies are due.
End of ruling.
Onward.
Sez someone who most deserves the ruling…
There we have it. Objective proof that the warning was correct and appropriate.
However, you see I don’t think of Ralph124 in any sense at all. I can’t remember any interactions with the person- possibly maybe to dosagree with him a few times..
In that sense I can’t second guess what he is saying and that is why the mode of the warning is perplexing.
Marley has done his best to explain, and the topic has been pretty well aired (and I now know what a bush league is).
Colibri can possibly shed some more light on this when he returns. If indeed, the intervention was due to similar previous acts, perhaps that could have been mentioned rather than saying you have been here long enough to know better. I have been here that long and in forums I don’t regularly visit I am not familiar with posters styles. However, I am there second guessing Colibri.
Thanks Marley for the input and to the posters who participated. No matter what you think of my quoting skills 
More recently, I very much doubt that moderating rulings like the handy ban, the gonzomax finale, or vanilla’s socks, could be posted today.
Not because the Registration Agreement doesn’t exist…its because the necessary pitting, personal impact statements, etc. wold take decades to complete. And you would always have some nutbag group protesting it, even after all the hurdles had been cleared.
Look what happens when you try to reduce political jabs (by building a barbeque pit)-the protest groups come out of the woodwork-and tie you up in ATMB for years.
Speaking of posters whose established political bent predisposes them to one view of this issue:
Heh.
Onward to another post:
You know, in light of these responses, maybe there is something I’ve been taking for granted that could be better explained.
There are environmentalists on this board. Smart, good people, too. It’s bound to be true because there are environmentalists in almost every walk of life. These people are, in SDMB terms, your peers. You’re not supposed to insult your peers outside the pit by calling them nutbags.
I realize that to some posters, environmentalists are these cardboard cutouts, people who “don’t count,” outsiders to be made fun of when you’re with your like-minded ideologues. But they’re peers here.
There are other arguments to be made, but that one right there wins.
Yeahbutt there are also Republicans, Libertarians, and Christian Straight Dope members, and they get called (as a group) nasty stuff too, outside of the pit.
If this were true, there would be bannings left and right from other applications of this interpretation.
Try this rewording on for size:
*There are conservatives on this board. Smart, good people, too. It’s bound to be true because there are conservatives in almost every walk of life. These people are, in SDMB terms, your peers. You’re not supposed to insult your peers outside the pit by calling them nutbags or “tighty righties” or any of the other half-dozen tired oft-used insults.
I realize that to some posters, conservatives are these cardboard cutouts, people who “don’t count,” outsiders to be made fun of when you’re with your like-minded ideologues. But they’re peers here.*
Now replace “conservatives” with “liberals” or “libertarians” or…
Sorry, your interpretation doesn’t work with the rules as applied.
On preview: Mlees–stop being pithier than me!!!