Okay, so Colibri shut down the political comments in this thread, and I can’t argue it was a wrong decision to do so.
However, the OP went out of his way to politicize the question and get in his full set of licks against those scummy assholes, the Clintons…* but that’s not the question, so never mind.*
Right.
That a couple of us made politicized responses isn’t… okay in GQ, but I contend that the question itself, as posted, is inappropriate as well. The topic should have been locked, to force the OP to repost somewhere both his science question AND the political slime it was wrapped in could be addressed, or moved by the mod to that end.
Put another way, if responses can’t be politicized in GQ, then OPs should not be allowed to be, either, no matter how deftly the politics are excused.
I didn’t see any licks against the Clintons in the OP to which you linked. You and Czarcasm seemed to me to be the only ones concerned about the politics, for which you were (IMO appropriately) modded.
If you don’t like the question, don’t respond (except factually) or Pit Nars or something.
As I see it, he did no such thing. As phrased, it is not even clear whether the OP is interested in the idea being supported or debunked.
The OP actually went out of his way to emphasize that he was only interested in information on DNA testing and nothing more. You and others were the ones who sought to politicize the question.
As I said in the thread, if you have concerns about a thread being political, report it and ask it be moved. There is no reason for you to make a political response in GQ even if the OP is political. Otherwise you are not only violating GQ rules but you are junior modding.
Given the circumstances, even if an OP is political, I may choose to move the thread, close it, or issue a mod note instruction to posters to stick to factual responses. It’s not up to you to make that call on your own.
If I had wanted a political discussion, I would have chosen a different forum. I’ve been a member here for 14 years. I know where the Elections forum is.
I don’t know what you think my end game is here. I’m really interested in the genetics of the situation.
NOT saying that this was your intention, but for explanation: “well-poisoning” is usually done by a person placing a controversial statement or position within the framework of a supposedly innocent question. That way, the cheap shot is thrown, and anyone who addresses it is accused of not addressing the question the poster is supposedly “really” interested in. Well-poisoning is usually found anywhere except GD, because the well-poisoner isn’t interested in honest debate.
In the OP of the original thread, what you’re calling well-poisoning, I would call context. If I had said, “President Clinton supposedly had an illegitimate son with a prostitute, therefore Secretary Clinton shouldn’t become president”, I’d agree that that was a poisoned well.
You presented the accusations in question, and you did not make a claim. Therefore, no well-poisoning. In fact, the incorrect definition of “well-poisoning” being used against you might be well-poisoning. (IE: “I don’t like the facts you’re presenting, therefore you’re poisoning the well”.)
ETA: Or…um…exactly what you said in your most recent post (about context)
Give me a break. You know you are allowed to comment on moderation in ATMB. When I said “it’s not your call,” I was referring to ATMB. Again, obviously.
Generally in the NFL, it’s the player who throws the second punch that gets the flag for unsportsmanlike conduct … whatever the assumed political jab in the OP, it could have easily been ignored and the factual answer presented … and frankly I’m not convinced there was a political jab in the OP … seems just a bunch of (unnecessary) background information on why the OP has this question …
Yeah, a piss poor example to use in the OP in these politically charged times … but we had proper moderation and the thread should be focused on the actual question in the OP …
