And looks to me like someone trying to express himself despite hoards of touchy-feely leftist torch bearers believing themselves to have the God-like quality of perceiving someone else’s intentions. One of the threads, incidentally, was an ATMB thread in which he tried to air a grievance about his thread closings which, as you are aware, is (now) the appropriate forum for doing so. Counting it as one of the “four” is either disingenuous or ill-informed about board policy.
It has been said that we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions, and others by their behavior. I have yet to meet a person who believed he was not well intentioned. How about you? Do you believe your intentions are ulterior? I doubt that mswas is any different in that regard.
It is unfortunate that my posting knocked this one back a page. It deserves to be seen. Fenris is right. The notion of Tuba declaring that one cannot be snarky in ATMB is utterly laughable. She has improved lately, for the most part. But the ruling is sudden, and flies in the face of rulings by other mods and her own standards of behavior for years running.
Do you own a dictionary with the word “irony” in it?
Would you like one?
Indeed, blatant fiction is utterly laughable when presented as fact.
Also, again, you need that dictionary? You’re busily suggesting that snark in ATMB is “goading” and thus shouldn’t be allowed.
I suggest you take a big highlighter and go to town on the “irony” entry.
This is not even approaching anything that’s true. It was not about posting snarky or sarcastic comments, but flaming someone (who happened to be me) in ATMB by saying that they were “foaming at the mouth” and always produced “spittle flecked rants” and so on. That’s Pit stuff, not “snarky and sarcastic” comments.
You have also rather strangely distorted what Dex actually said. He didn’t in fact, post in the original thread, but the second one that leander made. Readers can notice for themselves that Dex posted nowhere in the original thread and in fact bucked up Tuba in the secondary thread. What he actually said was:
And Lib?
You’re currently serving as a very, very good object lesson of both why this whole mind reading schtick fails, as well as why your expressed standards would make any official a very, very poor judge of what “goading” is.
And, of course, why under your system “pointing out bullshit in a Lib post” would get someone a mod warning, because evidently calling you out might provoke some sort of emotional… whatever. It would, of course, were you not so serene and beyond it, as you have now repeatedly informed us.
Evidently pointing out that your post was bombastic and hilariously overblown somehow ‘proved’ your entire argument. I attempted to take the piss out of your truly risible post that was all about DRAMA!!!, and lo and behold your response is to try to turn that into something which is chock full of, yep, DRAMA!!!
I pointed out how your argument was needlessly and absurdly bombastic about this, ahem, “travesty”, but you’ve now ignored me a bit while continuing to talk about me.
Should that, then, be goading? Do you deserve a mod warning?
After all, you obviously are not accurately perceiving my remarks or engaging me in conversation when I try to clear up your ignorance, but you are interested in continually accusing me of behavior that you believe should lead to moderator sanction. You don’t want to talk to me, but you want to keep talking about me and how I deserve to have the mods thump me on the head. So I must demand Mod Justice, due to your unfairly goading me. Right?
I need protection, modly protection. Right?
Should you be banned, or just Warned for this continual ‘goading’?
No, because I have a skin that’s not measured in nanometers and I recognize that your argument is silly and I can still point that out without having to stoop to the truly unpalatable level of blaming you for my own volitional behavior.
One might wonder what failings are required to see such persecution where none such exists… but this probably isn’t the proper forum.
Obviously it doesn’t work on you.
“It” being my attempt to get you to look at your blatant dramafest of an argument and ratchet back the absurd hyperbolic rhetoric about the “travesty” of free-to-post message board moderation.
I tried to point out just how ludicrous your drama-loving and thoroughly overblown post was, and you’re now (lo and behold) trying to make a single mildly snarky line into (who’d a thunk it?)… DRAMA!!! Because I’m OUT TO GET YOU!!!
And evidently all the time I spent trying to talk you down and explain what I was doing is wasted, because all my recent postings are all, also, OUT TO GET YOU!
But no, I wasn’t pointing out that your post was bombastically hyperbolic.
You’re right. I’m out to get you.
I’m goading you, I’m trying to make you go insane, I’m trying to make you flip out, I’m trying to put you off your feed, I’m trying to make you crawl up the walls, really, my time here is all about you. But it’s not working!
My dastardly plans are all foiled, because you are just too hep for my insidious goading to find a chink in your resplendent armor (as you keep pointing out, unasked).
Truly, I am sad.
You are too wise for my nefarious goading to work.
Note that Tom was saying I was lying/being dishonest (‘equivocating’) not the typical brainless-but-legal construction of “Your posts are filled with equivocation” and Dex specifically said that it was legal… Two months ago.
See my previous post. We are miscommunicating and talking about two seperate posts. The quote you had from Dex directly contradicts the ruling he made 2 months ago.
Two months ago, it was just fine to insult a poster here as long as you finessed the words properly. Now? It’s not, so much.
I don’t care which set of rules are chosen, but pick one set and stick with it.
I don’t see any Dex posts about Tuba’s recent Warning of Leander other than the one I just cited. Which are you talking about?
No, it doesn’t. Accusing someone of the fallacy of equivocation is not a personal insult. Accusing someone of frothing at the mouth is. Equivocation simply does not mean lying, it means being inconsistent with how a term is used.
Pointing out, or erroneously clamming for that matter, that someone’s post contains a fallacy (eg. you are equivocating, that is a strawman, you’ve made a false analogy, etc…) is allowed. But accusing someone of spewing spittle or being rabid is not the same as alleging a fallacious argument has been used.
And if I remember correctly, at the time you spoke to me about the issue I agreed that Liberal was advancing an absurd, self-serving argument, but I still do not think that Tom flamed you. We could debate whether or not he was correct in his charge that you’d used the fallacy of equivocation (but I’d rather not), but that isn’t the point. “Your statement evinces the fallacy of equivocation” is simply not on the same level as “you are rabid.”
Not true.
Two months ago snark and sarcasm were allowed, now, they still are (notice I haven’t received moderator intervention for my snarky and sarcastic ribbing of Lib’s earlier drama-laden post, despite his repeated objections of how horribly I am “goading” him).
The rules here, at least in the six years I’ve been posting and the year before that when I was lurking, have always been that you can be insulting (to a point) and that a certain degree of cleverness in your rhetoric would allow you to place your toes firmly on the line, but that direct personal insults have been against the rules.
Meh, it’s a message board, not a codified set of laws under constant review by learned judged who refer to a constitution. I expect inconsistencies in the rules and how they are applied.
Does anyone think this thread is productive right now? It’s time to move on. mswas was making strong efforts at the end of the Pit thread to dial it down, and I can’t imagine that this thread is helping that in any way with him not being able to respond. None of us are having any sort of success in divining the intentions of anyone’s posts, which has been the crux of this current disagreement. Just let it go.
It wasn’t the “liberals” who started in with their sexual fantasies about other posters sucking their cocks, is what I’m saying. mswas chose to make things way personal pretty much off the bat. He wasn’t responding “in kind” to anything.
IF that was what Tuba had done, that might be true. But that’s not what Tuba did. Tuba warned leander for insults in ATMB. leander in his thread about whether or not he was actually insulting people has admitted as how he maybe didn’t really comprehend the difference between insulting a person and making a comment about a particular post they made. I’m not saying he’s totally on board with the idea that Tuba’s warning was fully earned, but let’s at least TRY not to mischaracterize things when discussing them, eh?
You have SPECIFICALLY quoted Dex as saying that “personal insult” is not allowed.
Tuba warned leander for personal insults.
What part of this is inconsistent for you? Are you truly incapable of differentiating a snarky response to a post from personally insulting a poster? If so, you will have trouble in certain forums here, I’m thinking… :smack:
The funny thing is that Liberal has not noticed the drama mongering in his own posts. He’s now accused me of being out to get him for, what, two or three posts now? (Evidently I’ve been out to get him in more than my first post to him). He’s been calling for the mods to protect him from my nefarious designs of being out to get him and still doesn’t seem able to recognize the inherent drama mongering of referring to message board moderation as a travesty. Even my attempts to explain to him why I would point out the absurd dramaqueenery of his post are, too, just examples of how I’m out to get him and the mods should protect him from me. Except, of course, he’s also too strong and wise to need that protection, because despite being out to get him, it’s not working.
But when I point out what he’s been doing, all of a sudden he can recognize drama in someone else’s post.
Luckily “introspection” is rather close to “irony” in that ol’ dictionary.
mswas board-shat, to the point of explosive diarrhea, every forum on this board - with the exception of this one.
It’s no surprise to see that the few, the proud who do most of their posting on this board in the form of complaints about its supervision are trying to fill in that hole for him. Good job, gang. :rolleyes:
I know what you are saying, and it certainly isn’t without merit. Liberal has been and can be a drama queen. That’s a fact. I thought he made some good points on the previous page. But, regardless, I was just commenting on his come back after quoting all you had said. Sorry, it was funny. I would think that you, of all people, would be able to appreciate a hand well played. I was really just commenting on the juxtaposition he used. I had attempted to follow each point made by each of you, but frankly, I gave up. Just too much effort, especially since I find it diverting from the topic of the thread.
Oh, I don’t deny that, it was a good piece of snark.
I just found it funny that Lib can recognize dramaqueenery when I post his own claims back at him, but he can’t when it’s in his own posts.
And the back and forth isn’t hard to follow, really. I pointed out that it was dramaqueenery to talk about message board moderation as if it was a “travesty” even if there was a valid concern somewhere several notches below the bombast. Liberal claimed that I was out to get him and was trying to goad him into some sort of emotional breakdown, but that he was too hep for that to work. I tried to explain that I had no interest in seeing him flip out, but was just pointing out the absurdity of the drama mongering. Then he went on for a few posts to talk about how the mods should protect him from me since I was obviously out to get him and my posts served as the prototypical example of the type of ‘goading’ that should result in moderator action.
It is of course a diversion from the topic of the thread, but it’s been an amusing ball of string for me to play with.
In the first couple of years that the SDMB operated, warnings that a poster was in extremis were pretty much absolute. However, as the board has aged, we have taken a slightly different tack. If a poster receives a final Warning and then goes a long interval without another Warning, we don’t think it is really fair to kick him out with no further recourse. There are at least a half dozen posters who had received “final Warnings” several years ago who are posting in good standing, today, having received no Warnings in the mean time. If one of them steps out of line one time, no one on the staff is going to argue for banning them right away.
When looking over infractions, we look at all aspects of the situation, including seriousness of the offense, frequency of the offenses, and currency of previous offenses.
