Okay, mods, circle around Tom

The BBQ Pit
#1

Tom Tom Tom. I’m not shaking my finger at you. My belly is shaking, but that’s involuntary. I want you to know up front that I don’t mind that you’re one of Hillary’s flying monkeys. Yes, it’s difficult to understand. True, there is no sense or reason about it. But I do concede that there are people who, though otherwise decent, support Hillary Clinton.

But Tom. Have you looked at her ass? Why do you think she stuffs all that into those pantsuits? And why do you think they’re always the color of Queen Elizabeth’s hats? She’s not running for president; she’s running for Queen. But let’s set aside objective truth, and examine why you allow your prejudices to influence your mod decisions.

What the hell am I talking about? — you may ask. Nevermind the fact that you closed the Fork Hillary thread the moment there was a stub of a press release alledging that there might be a hint of her apparent willingness to acknowledge Obama’s victory. There is also this.

For whatever reason, you brought your mod powers full bore to silence **Shayna ** and her defense of Obama from the frothing Hillary Whores who have attempted to hijack and dominate every discussion in Great Debates about the primary race. I think that, as our 3rd best mod, you have a responsibility to treat posters fairly, especially our 17th best. You’re both prime numbers, so it isn’t like you have something to prove.

I have two points. I don’t see why citing the rules is junior modding. Isn’t that why you actually publish them rather than just keep them secret — so members can cite them when necessary? And B, is it right for you to justify the jerkish behavior of the thread shitter by saying that **Shayna ** had it coming? Isn’t that eerily like saying that if a pig didn’t want to be raped, it should put on some clothes?

Since when did blasting an infamous public figure become an invitation for spamming Great Debates with personal insults and gratuitous moralizing? What’s next? Will people be allowed to call us liars for condemning Adolf Hitler? Will you discipline us when we resist Stormfronters and Fredphelpsians? Are we to be forbidden now from criticizing Mao Zedong and William Tecumseh Sherman?

If you wouldn’t mind, after all the mods and ass-suckers have chimed in to defend you, please address my complaints. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America.

#2

Oh, pah. And fooey. :rolleyes: He “silenced” Shayna for junior modding. The only political content of his mod slapdown is what you seem determined to read into it. End of story.

Pah again. And double fooey. :rolleyes: She didn’t just “cite the rules”. She delivered a finger-wagging lecture, complete with multiple links. A simple citation of the rules doesn’t normally involve 10 minutes of using the Search function.

I mean.
Really, Lib. :rolleyes:

ETA: Not even hyperbole, just flat-out shrill, spit-flinging soapbox orator hysteria.

Where are the something or others of yesteryear? Free silver! Isolationism! Yoicks!

#3

Which one was that? I can’t find it.

Hah! You’re a funny guy. One of the funniest around, IMO.

#4

I did get the impression that his mod decision was, shall we say, a bit rank.

The mods here seem not to know what spamming is – making up definitions of it as they go along, ignoring violations of rules that clearly state what it is and saying, since someone he (they) likes is being deservedly criticized, it’s okay to spam.

Believing the mods here are impartial. I certainly won’t do that again.

You can check – I don’t have any socks.

#5

I can’t understand Tom’s motivation. I mean, that mouse always outsmarts him!

#6

Nicely written. It’s completely wrong, but it’s nicely written. Tom never used his full mod powers to silence Shayna. He said she was junior modding and explained why she was wrong. And how have the “frothing Hillary Whores,” which I like just about as Obama-ites, attempted to hijack or dominate? There aren’t really enough of them to dominate, and discussing Hillary Clinton in a thread about the democratic primary isn’t hijacking since she was and to a lesser extent still is a part of the process.

Stating that something is against the rules and citing the registration agreement is junior modding, especially when it’s the wrong interpretation. As Tom said, you report the post when you have a problem. You don’t start making citizens arrests and wait for a mod to come agree with you.

On the second point, DrDeth was not being jerkish or threadshitting. Just because he has a different view of the election than you and I does not make him a jerk and his posts threadshitting.

Really? You think this compares? Hokey dokey.

Poisoning the well. No one can disagree with you without circling the wagons or being an ass-sucker. What a nice turd of a cherry on top of an overly dramatic shitstorm sundae

#7

there’s lists??? :eek:

#8

Sure there are, for example I am number 77,409 on the best poster list.

#9

What’s the definition of spam again?

Does that sound familiar to you 5-4-Fighting? :rolleyes:

#10

Besides junior modding in that post, Shayna wasn’t defending Obama - she was taking the opportunity to gloat once again over his win of the delegates, which was exactly the thing DrDeth was cautioning Obama supporters about. Well, that and the gratuitous insulting of Clinton and Clinton supporters.

My mom always told me that a little honey goes a long way when trying to sway people over to your side. I think that’s a good thing to remember right now.

#11

Some might disagree. :wink:

#12

Lib, i really can’t agree with you about Tom’s admonition to Shayna in the thread you linked.

The fact is that Shayna’s finger-wagging at DrDeth was just plain incorrect. While the Board does have a rule against spam, that is completely different from making the same argument multiple times in different threads. While i tend to disagree with DrDeth’s wild-eyed defenses of Clinton, i really don’t think there’s any harm or foul in posting the same argument in multiple threads. The fact is that, whether you agree with his argument or not, it’s an argument that is relevant to each of the threads in question.

If we were to start receiving mod admonitions for making the same argument over and over, then half of us here would be on our last warnings. With frequent, old-time posters like you (and me), in some threads i can pretty much predict what the person will say before they say it. In threads about Andrew Jackson, for example, you’ll call him Indian Hater and complain about Robert Remini’s biography, among other things. Your arguments about Jackson essentially remain the same in every thread, but i have absolutely no problem with that. If someone starts the thread, there should be no rule against you contributing your argument.

I’ve done exactly the same thing myself. In threads on grading and student evaluation in academia, i tend to make the same arguments each time. In discussions about race and what it means to be white in America, i often cite a particular book by historian Neil Foley. Hell, i just did a search and found that i’ve made essentially the same post about Foley’s book on no fewer than four separate occasions over the past few years: here, here, here, and here.
Is that spamming?

I happen to believe that in each of those threads, my point was relevant to the debate. And the reason i make the point repeatedly is that different people participate in different threads, and i think that there’s some benefit to be gained from making a particular argument more than once, especially if your audience might have changed. There are plenty of discussion topics that crop up again and again on these boards, and i think that’s a good thing.

Same in this case. DrDeth made essentially the same argument on three separate occasions, but each time the argument was relevant to the thread in question. The fact that each post was almost identical is, i believe, irrelevant. You have every right to disagree with his impassioned defenses of Hillary Clinton, but it doesn’t make them spam, and i think Shayna was wrong on that count.

#13

Yes. Thank you SO much.

A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

:smiley:

#14

**Tom **was right. **Shayna **told **DrDeth **to stop posting in a certain way because she thought it was against a board rule. She was wrong about the rule, and she was trying to moderate the thread. The only political bias being shown here is coming from you. If you don’t want people to keep posting the same stuff, stop creating threads on the same subject.

#15

You have done that, Lib. I’m not sure what the exact moment was but I think it was somewhere between “She’s the fucking Beast from Revelation.” (cite) and “Obama has many Christ-like qualities.” (cite)

#16

Please, please tell me you did not just compare criticizing Hilary to criticizing Hitler.

Please.

#17

A-freakin’-men. I expected better from you, Lib.

#18

Hey Lib, not that I don’t appreciate you taking up the mantle on my behalf if you feel I’ve been wronged, but I think this thread was ill-advised (though it did bring that post to my attention, since I’d missed it until now, so thanks, I guess). I don’t agree with many of the mod posts tom has made in the Clinton/Obama threads during this primary campaign (in particular, wrt to this one, the implication that I have been casting Senator Clinton as the embodiment of evil, which I most decidedly have not) but interpreting the rules as he perceives them is his call to make, so I abide by them. I’d like to respectfully ask that you have this thread closed. Thanks for your consideration.

#19

Any possible respect I had for you has been completely wiped out Liberal. I was willing to let your constant attacks on Hillary and her supporters slide as just being part of the process of an election cycle, but then you had to go and do this.

You are nothing more than a blemish on these boards.

#20

I’d like to see him back up some of the things he’s posted before he considers having this thread locked.