Beckdawrek posted the following sequence. The context is that there is a species called the Brown bear (including the Grizzly); and a separate species called the American black bear (or just Black bear). But the latter has brown-colored morphs, and it is common for people who see brown-colored Black bears to mistakenly think that they have seen a member of the Brown (species) bear.
The last line (my bold) was confusing, so I asked for clarification that she was not seriously questioning the fact that the brown (colored) bear she saw was a Black (species) bear, since there are no Brown (species) bears within 1500 miles of Arkansas. In response to posts including more cites and asking for clarification of what she meant, there was this series of responses:
The moderator first Noted me, without any coherent explanation why. The Note pointed out that jokes are allowed in FQ after the question has been answered. Sure, but the post at face value was disputing that answer. I did not remotely suggest that jokes are not allowed, all I did was to seek clarification, since this is a common misconception.
What this poster then did was to double down several times with deliberate ambiguity and serious-sounding claims, talking about DNA evidence and the rediscovery of bird species thought to be extinct. Before eventually in their 4th or 5th post switching tack to talking about Bigfoot and devolving into insults, admitting that everything that went before was all deliberately ambiguous or false as a “joke”. This is not “joking”, this is posting bullshitting nonsense in FQ. The reasons a poster might do that are for another forum and irrelevant to the moderation of FQ, but the fact that they did that has been admitted and are for ATMB.
The insulting comments were moderated, but I could care less about being insulted, in FQ or otherwise. What concerns me is why the moderator did not address the sustained and admitted deliberate posting of misinformation. I’m the last one who would object to joking around in FQ when it’s not going to detract from the serious purpose of a thread, but there’s a difference between joking and posting what could fairly be described as deliberate bullshit.
I won’t be disingenuous about this. One specific instance is not of any great consequence, and it was Noted in a half-hearted manner. But I care about FQ, this poster has in the past received special treatment in other forums, and I’m sensitive to any sign that biased favorable treatment will extend to other forums. There should be no burden on other posters to know that this poster is the kind of person who habitually posts in this manner and to adjust their expectations in FQ downward.
Was it? I understood exactly what she meant and thought you were coming across as having an axe to grind, which was kind of borne out in the subsequent disgorgement of sentiment in the related pit thread.
In plain English, what do “yet” and “with my own eyes” mean, other than to say that even though you concede that what preceded is accepted knowledge, you think that what you personally saw contradicts it? And my response to the post was simply to ask for factual clarification.
I participate in threads because I’m interested in the topic. I’m interested in bears. It’s a common misconception that someone who sees a brown-colored Black bear thinks they saw a Brown (species) bear.
I didn’t Pit the poster for this, and my concern here is with the content of posts in FQ and moderation in FQ. It seems to me that if you have a problem with the Pitting of the poster, the Pit thread is the place for that.
Yeah, I couldn’t tell if it was a poor attempt at humor or a poor attempt at trolling. The fact that some Black Bears are brown in color isn’t that funny.
Seeing as how she said she agreed with the fact and put “brown” in quotes, I thought it was very clearly humor. Not great humor, sure. Maybe it would’ve been clearer if she’s used single ‘sarcasm’ quotes?
I think this got edited in while I was typing. I’ve got no comment on the content of that thread. I’m just saying you seem emotionally invested rather than a disinterested advocate for the sanctity of FQ. That’s not a value judgement at all, just my outside observation.
Perhaps you should reread the OP, since you seem to be making the same mistake as the moderator in somehow claiming that I object to jokes. Nothing hinges on whether that one post was “clearly” a joke. In plain English, it is repeating a common misconception and it was far from clear to me that it was a joke, so a normal response is to ask for clarification, in part to ensure that other people don’t take it seriously.
What concerns me is the sustained posting of deliberate bullshit.
Sometimes a product is a dessert topping, yet also a floor wax. “brown” and Brown are not the same thing. The preceded accepted knowledge was Brown, not “brown” as stated, ergo there is no contradiction.
My dude, I’ve been sitting here watching you repeatedly edit this post in real time. Take a breath. I promise I’m not trying to draw you into a confrontation; just giving my two cents.
I read her posts in that thread as Beck being Beck. It’s not a style I particularly like but it seems a lot of members here do so to each their own.
You seem to think she was doing the same thing in the Bear thread that she was doing in her Teachers Doing Porn thread where when accused of being wrong she explained how she was right in ways (how to put this so I don’t get modded) … ways that many felt did not meet rhetorical standard for justifying a position.
No, not the same. I took her eventual comment about Bigfoot and to “lighten up” that she was admitting that the whole series of posts was deliberate bullshit as a “joke”.
So… special moderation standard applicable to one poster?
I’ve read a lot of Beck’s posts. My read on the post is that it was confusing. Sure, she put the word “brown” in quotes, but the part before it reads like she’s saying that her own experiences contradict the facts.
I did tend to read it as her saying that she knew it was a black bear. But I did understand the uncertainty, and thus the question. And, moreover, I think her response to that was confusing.
I don’t have a problem with jokes in FQ. But if someone is confused by your joke, you should clarify, rather than continue the joke.
But I’m not saying this should be a rule or anything–though a mod note could make sense.
I didn’t take it as a joke. I took it the same way Riemann did, and I agree her words seem to pretty clearly say, “The experts can say what they’d like, I know what I saw.” Also, the quotes didn’t signify much to me. The poster in question is, let’s say, creative in her use of grammar and punctuation.
Also, it’s not a big deal. But I do disagree that Riemann was belaboring it since it was clearly a joke. It wasn’t to me.
Are you asking in theory or in reality? Because one is no and the other is yes. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what goes with which. As for if that’s how it should be, that’s another ATMB thread.
She crossed the line when she called you Boo-Boo. I think a mod could have called her out when she went all Beck-style in her responses as it was a FQ thread.
And that’s what this thread is about. Making an ambiguous joke, fine. Refusing to clarify, doubling down with numerous posts containing more deliberate ambiguity and deliberate falsehood, then throwing out an insult and telling people to “lighten up”. There’s a word for that I can’t use in this forum, so I’m not sure how I’m supposed to ask the moderators to recognize it.
Agreed, 100%. I read her “brown” in quotes as meaning it was a brown bear even though it shouldn’t have been. Then doubling (quadrupling) down on it without clarifying it made it seem even more certain.
To me, it seemed clearly trolling, but evidently it was all a joke.
Yes, it struck me as belittling. I don’t know if it was meant to be.
This message board was based upon an irreverent section in the Chicago Reader. Often funny, sometimes jokey.
The first answers in Factual Questions required a factual answer, after that it could be a joke fest. I miss those days. Now it is moderated, and populated, by people who failed to become hall moniters in high school. It is more than a little sad.
The major, overiding rule was," Don’t Be a Jerk".
Where did all of the interesting posters go? They didn’t all just die, they stopped posting here. It is sad to see the decline.