For this post responding to a comment that being associated with the Biden administration is a big bad thing for a possible D Presidential nominee this time round:
Understood the thread guidance had been to avoid hijacking into Biden and past administration evaluation battles. But this response is way excessive. It was an appropriate short response to a claim that is relevant to choosing a nominee for this cycle. Even a thread ban would be too much IMHO.
I had the same impression, and wondered how THAT specifically drew someone’s attention — either a mod’s directly, or a peer user feeling sufficiently moved to report the post.
I understand these things don’t happen in a vacuum, but still.
In that thread, there was a repeated pattern:
When I read the mod note, I suspected that it was a matter of DrDeth having been previously warned to not engage in that second point in the above.
If kenobi_65 is correct the appropriate response is a thread ban.
Ah well. Dr Deth perhaps should have couched his defense of Biden in this thread more like “I disagree that voters will invariably view association with the Biden administration negatively. I don’t think it will significantly harm Candidate Z’s chances.”
I should note that I submitted a flag on that thread, though not actually on DrDeth’s post – I flagged QuickSilver’s reply to his “Biden was a great president,” to signal to the mods that the repeated hijack had begun again.
And what if is an ongoing problem? Should the mods pretend that this is a first offence?
FWIW, my observation is that he has certain hobby horses: topics on which he seems to feel compelled to jump in to make his statement whenever the topic comes up. Disputing any other poster who comments on Biden’s fitness for office, or suggests that Biden was senile or generally impaired, is a big one for him, but not the only one. And, IMO, he seems to make those posts reflexively, even when they’re kind of off-topic for the thread, and lead to digressions.
A few months ago, when I flagged one of his posts (not in that thread, I don’t think), the mod who replied to it said, more or less, “yes, he’s a pain, but being a pain isn’t against the rules.” My suspicion is that he’s been racking up a lot of flags, and mod notes/warnings, because he keeps making those hobby-horse posts.
Then Dseid should have listed all the other problems in his first post in this thread.
Dseid may not be aware of the other problems. It looks like he created this thread because he was surprised that what seemed to be a fairly benign post led to a mention of a possible banning.
Unless one has chosen to become very familiar with DrDeth’s posting history, or frequently sparred with him, unless you are a mod, you may not be aware of his history of warnings (and certainly not flags that don’t result in mod notes).
Generally speaking, the main way one can earn a thread ban – which DrDeth received in that thread, today – is by being repeatedly problematic, and repeatedly ignoring moderator instructions, in the thread.
Oh. I misunderstood Dseid’s argument; I apparently read it too quickly. He should have specifically quoted the mod’s statements for me to understand.
Link to the mod note in that thread:
How many thread bans before we can consider him too much trouble to be worth it?
IMO, he’s well past that stage (but I’m probably biased…)
He also reflexively goes after any criticism whatsoever of Gavin Newsom.
Seriously. His departure is long, long overdue. He threadshits everywhere he goes, he has absolutely no credibility on any topic and adds absolutely nothing of value to this board. It’s not even just thread bans, he’s topic banned - IMO not on enough topics either.
There are circumstances to this. The WWI thread should have been the last straw but we agreed he was baited into that and a long message was sent to him about how close to the end of his posting privileges he was.
Along with many modnotes was @Aspenglow’s notes on September 7th & 11th, where she reminded everyone that this topic was limited to actual candidates for 2028. He was specifically mentioned in both.
He has 353 posts in that thread and has seen the numerous modnotes. 15 mod notes in the thread.
So no, the Biden bit is too much. He just recently was reminded twice, responding to something off-topic is not staying on topic.
Big picture, noone has been given so many chances and 2 30 day suspensions.
He does not learn.
The WWI thread:
Where oddly enough I argued against him being banned for a thread that pretty much baited him.
So we gave him yet one more, one last chance.
I completely understand the idea of small things being final straws for repeat offenders; I just don’t see disputing that Biden was so bad as to be political poison for a candidate associated with him in any way in the coming cycle in one brief five word sentence as hijacking the thread or even off subject. Quicksilver’s longer post was, sure. But Deth’s did not read like an attempt to relitigate again.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying his post was a great contribution either. It was a a not so greatest hits mix of what he has posted many times before in that thread. Probably until after midterms that is where the thread is going to be. Not much new to say and a bunch of us (myself included) overeager to say it.
Final straw is a fine concept, and I still believe that the final straw should at least be a straw, not a dust mote.
Last note: September 21st was the day @ParallelLines wrote and sent the jointly considered PM to @DrDeth on the WWI thread incidents. That is less than 3 weeks ago and he already blew through two recent specific mod notes that were specifically to him in the Frontrunners for Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 thread.
Doesn’t really matter if it was a reply to off-topic, he has been told twice recently that is not an excuse. It doesn’t matter it was a minor thing this time. It was in direct violation of a lot of moderation.
And that is my biggest dispute: whether or not being associated with the Biden administration is so toxic, because it was so bad, at least perceived as so bad, as to make a candidate a poor choice - is on topic.
I absolutely understand him being on thin ice. And I get that he’s had a lot of chances.
But in a thread about future candidates, it’s on-topic to discuss whether they’re good candidates. And that means discussing whether their previous government positions will help or hurt them. For Democrats, that means discussing whether ties to a previous Democratic administration will help or hurt them. Specifically, if someone is tied to the Biden administration, discussing whether those ties will help or hurt a candidate seems 100% on-topic.
I get that if he steps an inch out of bounds, it’s curtains for him. But I don’t think this was an inch out of bounds, and the previous mod-notes don’t draw the bounds in a way that I can see.
A decision along the lines of “You know what, we’re tired of having to police him, his contribution to the board doesn’t outweigh the headaches he brings” would make sense to me. But treating this as the precipitating event is confusing.