Thank you Scylla, you are, of course, right. I should investigate the past few years of December’s postings before I respond so indignantly to his being banned. Sorry.
But in the interim… What could this man have done to be banned by a board that professes to want to free all men from misinformation and the tyranny of ignorance that can’t be stated in clear, simple, words by those complicit in the banning.
It must be real subtle but real bad.
What part of “he was a troll” do you not fucking understand?
Well, Milum one of the few times I directly tangled with december, it was when he started a thread asking why the women’s movement had been silent on the treatment of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. They hadn’t. They’d been making noises about it long before the events of two years ago, but those noises hadn’t made the headlines. I tend to stay out of political fights because they do tend to devolve in to a “Us right! Them wrong!” mindset, but that was one I knew enough and saw early enough that I felt I could contribute something. From what I saw of december, he didn’t fight ignorance; he promoted it.
Shodan, no problem. I was a bit cranky in general yesterday, and I’m sorry you were on the receiving end of it. Definitely friends. :extends hand:
CJ
DanielWithrow and andros:
Since you bolded some sections of the sticky that had qualifiers I will go ahead and bold the actual statements of why he was banned.
My original statement that andros took issue with: december was banned for using dishonest cites seems right on the money. The administrator said “taken out of context, distorted, misattributed, etc” and I guess I paraphrased that to “dishonest” which isn’t off base. The fact that it was a pattern of behavior over a long period of time doesn’t make my statement incorrect either. It’s not like I said “december was banned for using dishonest cites once or a couple of times.”
So, sure, decembers cites (or “quoting” as the sticky says) were a long term problem that let to his banning. Which leads to my idea. The conservative posters should start reporting to mods when certain liberals post quotes that are taken out of context, distorted, misattributed, etc. After we establish a long term pattern of this they will be warned by the mods and they will acknowledge this warning. Then, if the behavior continues, they will be banned.
Of course, this all hinges on MHO that there are some liberals who post cites and quotes as poorly as december ever did. You can disagree with this, but it’s really clear that that is what led to decembers banning. At least according to the explination given by the mods.
My comment about no cites at all by some posters wasn’t a reason for decembers banning. I never said it was. However, I felt it was close enough to the reasons given for his banning for it to be mentioned. If quoting “taken out of context, distorted, misattributed, etc” is a reason for banning over a certain time period, then I would think not giving cites at all would qualify. My $.02. YMMV.
Of course, none of this will ever fly. It’s to prove a point. A rule was invented, used to ban december and then never will be used again.
** Silly me. when you make a statement, such as you did, about the ‘liberals here’ since I self identify as a liberal, it would seem peculiar for me to not think you referred to me. But that’s neither here nor there. However, your statement as it stood was absolute nonsense, and cannot be supported either - unless you’ve managed to take a poll of people here self identifying as liberals and the results show what you claimed.
however, if you make a statement, such as you did, about how a particular poster here who self identified as liberal was treated by other liberals here, to the extent of attributing a motive to them, well, once again your stance as posted was bizarre to say the least.
I don’t care why you mentioned him. What I’ve repeatedly asked for is evidence, by virtue of links to threads that substantiates your claim, made here, about why Ace was banned.
only if ‘addressed’ means “when asked for a cite to prove my assertion, I made some statements about some threads I saw that showed something that I think supports my position”
You’ve not proved your assertion to date. You know the drill. I can hardly ‘add to the discussion’ until after you’ve either provided the requested proof or retract the statement.
Saying that “he was a troll” is a reason for his banning is like saying “he was a criminal” to explain why someone is in prison.
A little low on substance. It just leads to the next question. What law did he break? Or, in the case of the SDMB, what rule did he break?
A criminal might be imprisoned for stealing cars, robbing banks, and making an illegal U-turn.
A troll might be banned for posting quotes to provoke responses, when the quotes are taken out of context, misconstrued, referring to a different topic, out of time-sequence, mis-attributed, etc.
Which reminds me, manhattan, you goddamn well better have turned in that Chicago Reader coffee mug.
debaser, I see a huge difference between not posting cites (i.e., making it clear you’re blowing smoke out your ass) and posting dishonest cites (i.e., obscuring the fact that you’re blowing smoke out your ass). That was the main part that I took issue with. As long as you recognize that it was december’s repeated and consistent and likely deliberate rectal smoking that was the problem, I don’t have a problem with the rest of what you said.
If I were a moderator, I might get annoyed if you were reporting every post that drew different conclusions from a cite than you drew yourself; were I mod, I’d tell you to knock it off. BUt as long as you’re not suggesting that – as long as you’re suggesting that posters only be reported when they’re distorting and misrepresenting cites as egregiously as december did – then I’m right there with you. It’s best for everyone to have a high standard of honesty in great debates.
Daniel
You’re not the first to say that. Unfortunately, it isn’t a question of YHO, it’s a factual matter that’s easily provable by example, or disprovable by its absence.
So, will you be the first to provide a few choice examples of another poster, liberal or not in your estimation for that matter, being guilty of what you claim? If not, will you be the first to drop the claim?
Re your definition of trolling, that’s exactly what the dear departed did, repeatedly. Shouldn’t be a problem for you.
DanielWithrow, it looks like we are in agreement. I should have been more clear on the “lack of cites” issue.
ElvisL1ves, I’m not going to start naming posters and dragging up old threads. I said that it’s MHO and it still is. It’s not a simple factual matter.
Also, it’s not my definition of trolling. I took that directly from the sticky thread post about december. I don’t agree that it’s trolling. Many do, including every moderator on the SDMB apparantly. It is something tangible that we can discuss at least.
I was just calling DtC on his content free “he’s a troll!” post.
Diogenes the Cynic then said…
“What part of “he was a troll” do you not* fucking* understand?”
I don’t know young Diogenes, how does one “fucking understand”?
[Hey kids! Get your kicks here in the pit, we get to say “fuck” and everything!]
I was cutting to the bottom line of the sticky at the top of this forum. The explicit reason given by the adminstrator for December’s banning is that he was a long term troll who had been given several warnings.
Yes, it’s true, he was a more subtle troll than our typical GI.I. Joe or Stormtrooper types but the bottom line is that the mods felt that he was posting decptive OPs to get a recation, that he had been warned about it repeatedly and that enough was enough.
Personally, I don’t think would have banned him. I’m not convinced he was really a pure troll, I think he just strayed very close to that line in trying to make provocative points in favor of a sincerely held ideology. It’s not my call to make, though, and if he broke the rukes he broke the rules.
Shakes Siege’s hand, and quickly runs back to the bickering.
I’m not aggressive!
OK, it is a counter I have used in the past. And if I expressed it in a way that pointed it at all liberal thought, or all liberals, I was wrong.
But in my own, self-serving defence, I don’t believe it is an illegitimate debating tactic to point out that your opponent’s positions are far out of the mainstream. It would be an appropriate reponse, for example, if someone back in 1988 said that “Michael Dukakis’s perceived strength on national defence will sweep him to an easy victory over that idiot, George Bush.”
And I do think that many (not all) Dopers have positions that are so far out in left field that they are almost incomprehensible. It would not be difficult at all to come up with a half-dozen or more posters for whom George Bush represents the epitome of evil, and whose screeds against him verge on the bizarre.
Which for me, as a Republican, is happy news. If the anti-Bush forces in America is as big a bunch of fruitcakes as some Dopers make them appear, we have little to worry about in 2004 and beyond.
It is rather similar to how many react to the theory of the Clinton murders of political opponents, or many conspiracy theories. They are too wierd to bother much with. And it is difficult to take those who espouse them very seriously.
I have had the same tactic (dismissing the other side’s arguments as too silly to refute) employed against me. I didn’t like it, any more than you apparently liked it when I did the same thing to you. But it does not, IMO, violate the Prime Directive of the SDMB. And, in all honesty, it is not an example of the kind of “jumping down your throat” to which I object.
What I am talking about is stuff like (if he will excuse me for bringing it up) Polycarp using personal insults against december in Great Debates. Or another Doper (who I will not name) calling me a liar, also in GD. Or even (I hope you also will pardon me for bringing it up) your own accusations against december of being a “liar” (admittedly, in the Pit) when he was misleading, but defending the same kind of behavior by Al Franken.
It may be true that extremist behavior, of the sort to which we all (I hope) object, is as common from the Right as from the Left. But left-wingers greatly outnumber right-wingers on the SDMB, and therefore the sheer amount of snarking from the Left is going to drown out that from my side of the bed.
This outnumbering may also contribute to a background buzz of anti-Right sentiment on the board. There aren’t enough of us righties to counter that.
Shoot, I gotta get back to work.
Regards,
Shodan
Last point first: note that I wasn’t inconsistent. Technically, both december and Franken were lying, and I don’t think I ever said otherwise. What I denied was that their lies were morally equivalent. I stand by that assessment. If you want to argue it further, please bump the original thread in which you claimed equivalence for them and address my arguments there (and link here, if you’d be so kind).
If you’re complaining about people’s behavior in the Pit, then that may be changing the subject: I thought we were talking about aggressive behavior in Great Debates. It’s true that I referred to december specifically as a liar in great debates; I believe (and maintain) that that’s an accurate characterization. He was also deceitful and hypocritical. And Polycarp levelled similar charges against him, true; I maintain he was accurate as well. december was such a scuzzy, lying dirtbag that I’d think you’d want to distance yourself from him, not use him as evidence of how conservatives get picked on.
You were called a liar? I’m afraid that, absent a link, I cannot address that. If you don’t want to provide the link, I won’t consider that to be evidence that conservatives get jumped on in great debates. And if you do provide a link, I can provide a counter-link to great debates in which peace protestors who avoided the draft were called “contemptible” and “lower than dogs”, and many, many threads in which current peace protestors are said to be encouraging terrorism. Again, these are far more aggressive attacks based on position than I see going in the opposite direction.
Sam has pointed out that december’s accusations that peace protestors were nearly treasonous is a mainstream conservative argument. Rather than excusing december’s outrageous behavior, I think that points to how despicable much public discourse has become today. If accusations of treason are commonplace conservative tools for shutting up the opposition, that’s a problem with mainstream conservatism, and something that reasonable, respectable conservatives ought to be fighting vociferously.
In any case, december wasn’t banned for his vicious, outrageous insults against his political opponents. He was banned for consistent misrepresentation and distortion. I merely offer his insults to point out that the throat-jumping happened in both directions, especially where december was concerned. If you want to continue the argument, I’d suggest two things:
Daniel
It did. In fact, I don’t think I disagree with your post. There are certain hot-button issues that count more than others. But it remains the case that there are more positions that are anathema here that are typically associated with conservatives (or more commonly held by conservatives) than there are such positions that are more commonly held by liberals. (As mentioned earlier, I consider Ace to be an one of the “extreme examples” that you refer to in your fifth paragraph.)
It is important to bear in mind that we are not just discussing the fact that people will hold you to be a evil or ignorant person for holding the disfavored view. More, the fact that people will judge your debating tactics more harshly than they would similar tactics employed in service of arguments that they agreed with. This will have an impact on whether you come to be viewed as a troll or such.
wring,
Your most recent post is apparently a lengthy exposition on the fact that you failed to distinguish between a group as a whole having a tendency or characteristic and every individual member having that characteristic. I cannot take responsibility for this. In the context of this discussion its pretty clear that group opinion is what we are talking about. You need to keep the distinction more clear in your mind.
As I mentioned before “Why Ace was banned” is something that took place over many many threads. As was “Why december was banned”, and it would be equally unreasonable to ask anyone to provide all the multiple infractions that led to his banning. Live with it.
Scylla,
Can I ask you to address what seems to be a seismic attitude change on your part. Almost schizophrenic. Until quite recently, your consistent opinion in several threads was that december had his faults but that he was better than a lot of other posters and that he was unfairly picked on, and that it would be unfair to ban him without banning several other posters who were worse.
Now you are entitled to change your opinion, of course. But, with the zeal of a convert, you now feel compelled to start threads condemning those who hold to your recently held opinion, and proclaiming that your new opinion is the result of your long-term experience with dozens if not hundreds of his posts.
What’s up with that?
Here are some examples:
(Later posts to that thread):
(BTW Shodan: it is unclear if calling people liars in GD is against the rules. I’ve done it myself and never been called on it, and I put up a thread in ATMB to specifically ask if it was OK and couldn’t get a definitive ruling).
I don’t specifically know, either.
My assumption would be you could legitimately call someone a liar if you could prove with cites that they were clearly lying. The instance I was thinking of was not such a case.
Actually, I think “you are lying”(with a cite) would be OK, but “you are a liar” would not. Attack the post and not the poster is the general rule of thumb.
I dropped out of the thread in question, on the theory that the first person to utter an unsubstantiated insult loses.
Regards,
Shodan
When I say I called december a liar in GD, I don’t recall whether I used weasel-words: I may have said that he was lying, not called him a “liar” directly. In terms of the thread in question, without seeing it, I can’t consider it as evidence.
Daniel
Izzy:
**
Yes. That’s accurate. This is strictly regarding his politics.
Right now Lissener is over in GD talking about how Conservatives are inherently dishonest and selfish, and unworthy of respect.
This is worse than December’s opinions.
He caught a lot of crap from the liberals for his prejudices. It was unfair and onesided.
He caught crap even when he was being reasonable and didn;t deserve it.
Well, they say the mark of a brilliant mind is the ability to hold and maintain two diametrically opposed viewpoints simultaneously.
Or is that the mark of insanity?
Anyway.
There’s two things going on.
He deserved a lot. I think he got more than he deserved.
Banning for #2 does not reflect on #1.
But, actually there was something of a catalyst for change, IMO. I felt it, and apparently the Moderators felt it simultaneously.
That last thread with the false quotes.
And then two days later he does the same thing again!
That made me regret ever sticking my head out on behalf of the guy, and I washed my hands of him.
False attribution is beyond the pale, IMO.
Is this deliberate???
posted by Izzy page two of this thread
which I quoted and asked “Cite” specifying that it was my recall that Ace was an asshole to many posters, which Izzy answered
.
my answer:
and went on to outline general tendencies I’ve seen re: how bannings are handled, that
which prompted Izzy to ignore all of the other sorts of things I noted (public warnings, administrative notes, threads discussing etc) to focus as if I’d only given the one alternative of “some near last post that made it clear”, his response is:
going on to further elaborate
Note “he was despised by liberals for insufficient adherence to liberal dogma on one key issue”. Apparently, conservatives must have despised him for other reasons, perhaps for being a jerk, but the liberals motives is ascribed to ‘insufficient adherence’.
Now, I’ve repeatedly attempted to get you to support either of these statements. Specifically that Ace was banned due to his stance on gays, and defense of Joe (vs. my theory of him being a flat out jerky asshole to many people), AND that the reason liberals (here) despised Ace was his ‘insufficient adherence to liberal dogma’
Prove it – show me where liberals posted “hey Ace knock off the anti gay stuff ‘cause that’s a sacred cow”, Or a comment by a moderator/admin stating that Ace was banned for his anti gay stance/defense of Joe. I doubt that you can.
It may indeed been those last few instances of his jerky behavior occurred in threads w/his defense of Joe but since he was routinely a jerk to others before on other subjects, I would suggest to you that for you to believe that his banning was because of his stance on those issues is more reflective of your own bias than that of the boards.
and your assumption of other folks (which do in fact include me) motives for not liking Ace is yet more evidence of your own self fulfilling prophecy, IMHO. You believe it to be true, so you remember instances where a liberal said to Ace “knock it off asshole” in gay bashing threads, but don’t recall any other instance of it.
But, suffice it to say, that your quibbling about linking to proof of your assertions here have demonstrated to me, at least, your personal bias and agenda more than any other. I’ve lost quite a bit of respect that I’d held for you in this song and dance.
Then you could show us a few prime examples of what in your opinion, are posts equally as bad as december’s without causing moderator action - which is the basis of your accusation. Or is this another example of things you guys just know are true, no matter the facts? That kind of statement is shot down repeatedly here, as it should be in a place devoted to fighting ignorance rather than embracing it. If the mindset that allows such “conventional wisdom” to be believed, quasi-religiously, in the face of facts is more associated with certain political attitudes than with others, as it may or may not be, then examples of engaging in it is going to be pointed out to them more often than to others. That’'s the price, and it’s a fair one.
You have a better definition than theirs? Stand and deliver. Or sit down and shut up. Pick one.
Content-free, you say? The moderators and administrators have chosen a definition of trolling, as you say. december habitually met that definition, as the moderator/administrator community unanimously agrees. DtC reminded you of that, since you’re resisting it. That’s content. Your refusal to accept it, combined with your lack of counterargument, does not qualify as content.
IzzyR, you’re right about Scylla’s apparent conversion, and thanks for pointing it out. It goes along with his newfound aversion to personal insults, occurring at about the same time. Ah, well, if it reflects a newfound realization of a desire for credibility here, perhaps it’s best not to inquire too closely as to the reasons, just to accept it as welcome - just as we’d congratulate and welcome the drunken uncle who throws away the bottle and becomes an alcoholism counselor.