# "Proper" use of mod powers to steer a thread in GD?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [January 23, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144 "2010-01-23T18:39:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/61 "2010-01-24T17:45:00Z")

</div>

> [@raindog](#):
>
> I have 2 major problems with this.
> 
> The first is the plain reality that posters ‘throwing out one liners and [not]actually participating’ is _ **exceptionally** _ common.

It is not common when the one throwing out one liners is the OP and where the OP continues for the better part of a page continuing in the same fashion with no developed arguments. On every occasion where I have seen that happen I have stepped in to tell them to make their case or I would shut down the thread.

> [@raindog](#):
>
> The second issue is that in the few instances where a moderator pulls rank in this regard it’s when the offending poster is posting something that the moderator disagrees with, or is posting a topic that is unpopular with the SDMB.

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> Why should Der Trihs be allowed to spew and be ignored when a newbie isn’t?
> 
> Would I be allowed to pop into just about every single policial thread and just drop "All liberals/“dumb"ocrats are child molesting perverts who want to rape babies and kill nuns”? If not, why is Der Trihs allowed to? Because he’s done so for a long time?

> [@magellan01](#):
>
> Yet he gets a pass because jt does it all the time (:rolleyes:), AND he’s on the left (:rolleyes::rolleyes:). Any new on the right who comes near his level of contribution gets his days to being banned counted as soon as he starts posting.

Sorry, guys. I hearby accuse you all with selective reading and confirmation bias.

There are at least a dozen posters in GD whom I can count on to drop into any thread about politics or religion to make a broad brush condemnation of one side or the other–from both the Left and the Right, from both the atheist or theist viewpoint–and wander off, again, without adding any substance to the thread. As long as they do not make their comments personal, I treat them all in the same way that I treat **Der Trihs**. As a theist who understands some atheist pespectives and as a person who finds that neither the Left nor the Right represents my views, I find something offensive in just about every one of their posts and I am not going out of my way to shut them down.

Tolerating Left wing or atheist views more than their opponents? Given that the board skews in those directions, (particularly among posters in GD), you are going to see more comments from those sides, particularly when they are offensive to your beliefs. However, I see them from all sides and when I start getting complaints about the other posters in the way that I see complaints about **Der Trihs** , then I will take seriously the claims that I am leaning in one direction or another or that **Der Trihs** gets a free ride.

> [@magellan01](#):
>
> I hear that, "Oh, he makes some good contributions in fora other than GD and The Pit. So fucking what?!!! Oh, and he’s honest? I think he is, but that just makes him not a liar. He’s still 1) hateful and 2) guilty of trollish behavior. And if it isn’t trollish, it’s definitely jerkish. This board would be immeasurably better if he wasn’t around, or if he wasn’t permitted to post in GD or the Pit. And it would go a long way to getting people to believe that the moderation of the board isn’y as politically skewed as the membership.
> 
> Will this happen? No. He has a free pass to be an over the top myopic hateful ass because, well, he’s an over the top myopic hateful ass. The administration of this board should wake up and get rid of him.

I don’t see him in other fora and have no idea why anyone would consider him a useful poster. The point is that I can find other posters doing the same things without complaints from you or anyone else about their behavior. He is over the top and silly–and he has isolated himself, creating a situation where everyone already ignores him for that reason. He does not cause threads to flame out. He is not guilty of hijacks because posters already ignore him when he is off track. He is, by definition. not disruptive.

I do not look to shut down posters with whom I disagree–or there would be a LOT fewer of you out there. I look to keep threads on track with as few flame wars and hijacks as possible. To the extent that **Der Trihs** , (and the dozen or so simililar if less prolific posters), fail to disrupt actual discussions, they all “get a pass” from me–even, perhaps especially, the ones I find most offensive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/62 "2010-01-24T18:05:18Z")

</div>

> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#):
>
> I certainly agree with the bias always being against a view the mod does not want himself, and it is done to silence one side only. Someone asked for examples, here you go:
> 
> I was in a thread in GD about evolution, yet was told I can’t even mention how life began because that is not part of evolution. It certainly was in my opinion, and when I learned it, and the funny thing is the OP had asked for us to express our view of it off the top of our head, too. The OP then said the discussion was fine, but the mod did not care one bit and never said I could post there again. There is no excuse for that kind of unwanted moderation.
> 
> I mean GD is exactly where this would belong, and because others talked about it when I went to dinner, I was told I could not even post anything else in the thread, and that was many hours after my last post. Clearly the idea was being censored, no other answer. I have since asked many people I know if they think evolution theory covers life starting, so far 15 out of 15 say sure. Maybe they do teach it differently now, to cover the fact they can’t create life, but so what? I still stated my knowledge of it off the top of my head, just what the thread had asked.
> 
> The thread also said one could discuss and critic it after posting what one remembered. That is all I had done. I was told I “didn’t listen” when I was not even there to discuss it, and that I was done, to stay out of it. This was terrible moderation in GD for sure.

I have no idea whether you are being dishonest or whether you truly cannot understand what happened in that thread, so I will lay it out for you one more time:

Your first post did not bring any Mod response. You were not ruled out of order for displaying the fact that you were ignorant regarding evolutionary theory, and the difference between that and abiogenesis, when you posted.

However, multiple posters took the time to explain to you your several errors. They pointed out quite early the difference between evolutionary theory and speculation about abiogenesis. Rather than engaging with them to get your errors corrected and move on, you kept jumping from topic to topic, ignoring the points that had already been made against your beliefs, and bringing up other extraneous beliefs. (Yes, you “did not listen.”)

In such a situation, the history of **GD** indicates that you would have, if left to your behavior, drawn in another dozen or so posters who would have attempted to demonstrate why your beliefs, (that were not relevant to evolutionary theory, as such), were in error and the actual discussions of errors about evolutionary theory–misconceptions regarding natural selection, discussions of genetic drift, rings species, cladistics, and other forgotten issues–would have been buried under all the posts trying to explain to you the things you failed to learn, (or that were criminally omitted from your course), in 11th grade biology.

Thus, after multiple posts demonstrating where you and the thread were headed, I told you that you were welcome to take up the abiogenesis argument in a different thread, but that you were to stop disrupting that thread with your repetitious complaints about a topic, (abiogenesis), different from evolutionary theory. When such a thread was opened for you, you then pouted that you were not going to participate. That was your choice and had nothing to do with the Moderating of this board.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/63 "2010-01-24T18:20:38Z")

</div>

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> His posts are my cite ;), but here’s a particularly obnoxious example where he’s getting in the way of grown-ups trying to have a conversation:
> 
> [Wherefore the fundamental liberal/conservative gap, and can/should it be bridged? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=548929)

Where do you see anyone being distracted from the “discussion” by **Der Trihs**? I see a couple of posters choosing to engage him early on–at his level by their choice–and then the thread moves on to other posters making their own observations while ignoring him. As the thread continues, I see a number of posts that display the same simplistic “_us vs them and THEY are bad_” mindset that he displays, but they come from both sides of the political divide and they are generally posted without reference to his initial diatribe.

Heck, he got there first and he still couldn’t hijack the thread.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/64 "2010-01-24T18:33:47Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> I do not look to shut down posters with whom I disagree–or there would be a LOT fewer of you out there. I look to keep threads on track with as few flame wars and hijacks as possible. To the extent that **Der Trihs** , (and the dozen or so simililar if less prolific posters), fail to disrupt actual discussions, they all “get a pass” from me–even, perhaps especially, the ones I find most offensive.

Tom, please don’t lump me in with Magellan–my point is _none_ should be allowed to do it. I’m sure I’ve got confirmation bias, no doubt about it. That doesn’t change the fact that Elucidator and Der Trihs are trolling. If others on the right are also popping into threads dropping meaningless one-line attacks, _then deal with them TOO_.

I keep hearing (and seeing–honestly, I really think there’s been a tremendous improvement in GD since Marley joined you and took some of the burden) that everyone wants to improve GD. Tuba commented on it in this very thread. I think the two most obvious things to do are  
A) Not give a pass to known trolls (of _any_ political persuasion!) who do nothing but say “Dems/Repubs/Christians/Athiests suck!” in GD.

B) Consider getting rid of the “Insult a person by insulting their group” loophole. Really: “All Demon-crats are stoopid and evil” doesn’t add anything to a debate and it’s unsupportable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/65 "2010-01-24T18:37:30Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Where do you see anyone being distracted from the “discussion” by **Der Trihs**? I see a couple of posters choosing to engage him early on–at his level by their choice–and then the thread moves on to other posters making their own observations while ignoring him. As the thread continues, I see a number of posts that display the same simplistic “_us vs them and THEY are bad_” mindset that he displays, but they come from both sides of the political divide and they are generally posted without reference to his initial diatribe.
> 
> Heck, he got there first and he still couldn’t hijack the thread.

I think we’re looking at this from different angles. You seem to be saying “Since no-one’s rising for his bait, it’s ok for him to troll”. I’m saying "Yeah, what if _everyone_ posted that way? KLS did and got (rightfully) smacked down for it. Why should Der get a pass because most of us are bored with him?

Again, would I be allowed to do exactly the same kinds of posts? People would certainly rise to the bait if _I_ did it, 'cause it would be a new posting style for me\*. Do I get to do it until I’m also ignored as much as DT is?  
\*Heh–I couldn’t write a post saying “I gotta fart” without writing 8 paragraphs on it. Posting obnoxious one-liners would be, if nothing else, a challenge for me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/66 "2010-01-24T18:43:04Z")

</div>

Tom, the thread that was opened was also titled "debating evolution’, so my issues would have been exactly the same with the same result–told I could not discuss origin of life there at all, it is NOT evolution, remember??? Then I could get another smackdown for my view, so I wisely did not take the bait.

I sure noticed origins got discussed in both threads, too, yet no one else silenced (because they were on the right side in your view). I was told I was too ignorant to have my view. I don’t see in other debates that one side must listen and agree with the other side, what kind of new debate rule is that? The OP never restricted the discussion just to the book of Darwin, and you did, for unknown reasons. Go ask the public if “evolution” provides a theory of the origin of life and see what they say. I have.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/67 "2010-01-24T18:50:01Z")

</div>

> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#):
>
> I sure noticed origins got discussed in both threads, too, yet no one else silenced (because they were on the right side in your view).

Yet again: entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. That evolutionary biology does not include abiogenesis is a fact. Just give it a rest or, if you really want to be thoroughly educated, start a GD thread asking people to explain it to you.

> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#):
>
> The OP never restricted the discussion just to the book of Darwin, and you did, for unknown reasons.

The “book of Darwin”? That before or after Ecclesiastes? And no, nobody restricted anything to Origin of Species, mods simply informed you that hijacking a thread on evolution to your mistake about abiogenesis’ connection was a hijack. Much like if you brought up the concept of stagflation in an evolution thread, you’d probably be asked to take it to another thread. You’re still free to start your own “How are stagflation and evolution related” threads.

> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#):
>
> Go ask the public if “evolution” provides a theory of the origin of life and see what they say. I have.

So you’ve proven that the public who you’ve spoken to is generally pretty ignorant and uneducated about evolution. Yay.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/68 "2010-01-24T19:11:05Z")

</div>

**tomndebb**  
I don’t have the time to peruse the threads that interest me, let alone researching your moderating history. This much I know:

1. I can’t remember a single instance in which you called out a poster for inane, pointless, or citeless posts when you were not already in disagreement with them. (either directly or by ideological inference, but most often directly) Often you’re already active in the thread.

2. I can remember this type of over-reaching when the poster is right of center on topics involving religion, science or politics. Other than the fact that you disagree with them, this is still not a coincidence, and hers why, IMV:

When a poster (especially if the poster is the OP) posts something that is unpopular with the board regulars there is an instant chorus of responses. If the poster/OP is weak or inane the chorus often gets to a fever pitch. There is a momentum that builds, almost a lynch mob mentality.

Everyone starts getting frustrated if the poster “doesn’t get it” and persists. Its been my experience that that is when you are most likely to over reach.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/69 "2010-01-24T19:24:11Z")

</div>

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> B) Consider getting rid of the “Insult a person by insulting their group” loophole. Really: “All Demon-crats are stoopid and evil” doesn’t add anything to a debate and it’s unsupportable.

If you want to propose a rule for GD that no insults can be posted for any reason, I will enforce it if you get a majority of GD denizens to support it.

This means no claims that president X made a decison based on “_stupid_” belief Y or with the intention to do this bad thing, no claims that labor unions or corporations are greedy or misdirected, no claims that Affirmative Action is racist, no claims that Stormfront is racist, no insults period.

Right now I have a bright line that everyone can see: groups may be insulted as long as a direct connection to posters is not made. However, this message board has members from enormous numbers of communities–ethnic, national, regional, (un)belief associations, labor, management, linguistic, choice of beverage, _ad infinitum_. Under a no insults to a group that happens to post on the board rule, we would have to rely on a no insults at all rule to ensure that we were not permitting insults against some poster, somewhere.

Propose it.  
Hammer it out.  
I’ll enforce the will of the community.

Then we get to figure out what is an “insult.” Reading the thread to which you linked, I can see insults, even in the more thoughtful posts, where language is used by a poster to describe the “other side” to which anyone on that “other side” would take umbrage. Does the insult have to be deliberate? Who gets to decide deliberate from incidental or just a lack of common language?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/70 "2010-01-24T19:28:42Z")

</div>

> [@raindog](#):
>
> **tomndebb**  
> I don’t have the time to peruse the threads that interest me, let alone researching your moderating history. **This much I know** :
> 
> 1. I can’t remember a single instance in which you called out a poster for inane, pointless, or citeless posts when you were not already in disagreement with them. (either directly or by ideological inference, but most often directly) Often you’re already active in the thread.
> 
> 2. I can remember this type of over-reaching when the poster is right of center on topics involving religion, science or politics.

bolding mine

Selective reading and confirmation bias. If you cannot take the time to actually discover the accuracy of your accusations, why should I believe that your impressions are valid? (And I assure you that I have plenty of nasty remarks from unbelievers and posters on the Left that I am shutting down their discussions, even when you have failed to notice them.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/71 "2010-01-24T19:35:35Z")

</div>

> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#):
>
> Tom, the thread that was opened was also titled "debating evolution’, so my issues would have been exactly the same with the same result–told I could not discuss origin of life there at all, it is NOT evolution, remember??? Then I could get another smackdown for my view, so I wisely did not take the bait.
> 
> I sure noticed origins got discussed in both threads, too, yet no one else silenced (because they were on the right side in your view).

The only discussion of “origins” in the first thread were attempts to correct your errors.

The second thread had some discussion of origins because it was opened as an invitation to you to participate on that theme. I would not shut down a thread in which you were personally invited to participate with your beliefs just because you accepted the invitation. You are simply making stuff up and you have long since gotten boring in your inaccurate accusations.

As to whether you can find a lot of people who have been uneducated or undereducated or even misled regarding evolution: I know that they exist and I recognize both the failures of education and the intrusion of politics that has led to that result. Science is not expressed in the voices on the uneducated, however many they are.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/72 "2010-01-24T20:13:00Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> bolding mine
> 
> Selective reading and confirmation bias. If you cannot take the time to actually discover the accuracy of your accusations, why should I believe that your impressions are valid? (And I assure you that I have plenty of nasty remarks from unbelievers and posters on the Left that I am shutting down their discussions, even when you have failed to notice them.)

Point well taken.

I am certain, however, that if I took the time to research this (and I don’t know how I’d go about it) I would find that in every instance you put the mod hat on and asked for cites etc----in other words posted as a poster with moderator authority----- it would be a circumstance where you were active in the thread and in disagreement with the poster in question.

To be totally clear, my objection is when you reach beyond historical moderator behavior and address the quality or veracity of a posters argument/post from a position of authority.

As to the posted rules per se, I find you to be level headed, patient and fair minded. Overall I think you’re a great moderator. (and I know you’ve been pining for my approval for a long, long time)

In this once area, however, I don’t think it is appropriate for any mod to be asking for “Cite?” or questioning the quality of a posters argument while in moderator mode. My experience is that the moderator bias colors the moderation, and is outside the rules.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CircleofWillis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/54ee81/32.png) [@CircleofWillis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CircleofWillis)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/73 "2010-01-24T21:06:45Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Marley’s post was not just a call for a cite. It was an explicit statement that KLR 650 needed to stop just throwing out one liners and actually participate.

If this were an actual rule, then **elucidator** would’ve been banned a long time ago.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/74 "2010-01-24T21:38:49Z")

</div>

> [@CircleofWillis](#):
>
> If this were an actual rule, then **elucidator** would’ve been banned a long time ago.

Give me a list of threads where **elucidator** was the OP and then refused to participate and I will go back and give him Warnings for all of them in GD.

KLR 650 was the OP.  
ZPG Zealot was the OP.

Starting a thread in which your only contribution will be one liners designed to evoke angry or “hysterical” reactions is pretty close to the definition of trolling.  
Making an attempt, lame or successful, to be a court jester is not trolling. (I’m curious, BTW, why you picked only on **elucidator** instead of mentioning some or all of the other posters whose behavior is the same.)

(ZPG Zealot did not resort to one liners, but she utterly refused to attempt to explain any rationale behind her lengthy diatribes, which amounts to the same thing.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/75 "2010-01-24T22:49:31Z")

</div>

> [@Marley23](#):
>
> [This isn’t a request for a cite, but I’m not much for low-content partisanship of any sort.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12026340#post12026340) I’m not going to pretend I can weed this out of Great Debates but I’d like to cut it down.

Then a follow up question, if possible -

What was it that you objected to? You mentioned both **magellan01** and **Der Trihs**.

Was it just that someone responded to **Der Trihs** , or is this

> [@magellan01](#):
>
> Cue Der Trihs:
> 
> Too good. Too good…

the equivalent of this

> [@Der Trihs](#):
>
> And again, that is why is is wrong to compromise. Because so many of the Right’s positions are flat out evil; so many have no motive beyond malice.
> 
> Conservatives are perfectly happy with government, as long as it is only used to hurt people …
> 
> the Republicans really are that bad.
> 
> The conservatives as a whole are both delusional and malignant;

If you are objecting to content-free rants, that’s perfectly fine and I agree with you. If you are implying that all of us should just ignore it when someone issues this kind of hate-spew, and that if we respond, then we will be included with the spewer, then I don’t agree.

Because I don’t think it is much of a secret that **Der Trihs** does this kind of thing on a regular basis. If content-free rants are to be discouraged in GD, well and good. If the idea is to discourage hate rants by expecting the conservatives and honest liberals to ignore it, then that is somewhat more problematic.

It is rather irritating to have this kind of thing posted again and again and be more or less obligated to let it pass unremarked. Pitting the poster in question does not seem to achieve much, if raising the tone of GD is the desired end result. And letting the many, many examples of hate-speech lie there stinking like goat turds in so many of the threads in which he posts, and practically every one about abortion or conservative principles, is not (in my opinion) likely to raise the tone of the discussion any time soon.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/76 "2010-01-24T22:56:48Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Making an attempt, lame or successful, to be a court jester is not trolling. (I’m curious, BTW, why you picked only on **elucidator** instead of mentioning some or all of the other posters whose behavior is the same.)

I’m curious who you think CircleofWillis conspicuously left unmentioned. elucidator is certainly the king of content free partisan one liners around here, imho.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/77 "2010-01-24T23:27:13Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> This means no claims that president X made a decison based on “_stupid_” belief Y or with the intention to do this bad thing, no claims that labor unions or corporations are greedy or misdirected, no claims that Affirmative Action is racist, no claims that Stormfront is racist, no insults period.

Hm…to nitpick a bit (because if the rule goes into effect, that’ll happen anyway), I’m not sure that “Stormfront is racist” is an insult–that’s their motto, after all.

> [@](#):
>
> Right now I have a bright line that everyone can see: groups may be insulted as long as a direct connection to posters is not made.

Maybe this is my sticking point. It seems to me in that thread I linked, that Der T. was insulting any Republican/conservative who posted in the thread. He didn’t name names,

> [@](#):
>
> However, this message board has members from enormous numbers of communities–ethnic, national, regional, (un)belief associations, labor, management, linguistic, choice of beverage, _ad infinitum_. Under a no insults to a group that happens to post on the board rule, we would have to rely on a no insults at all rule to ensure that we were not permitting insults against some poster, somewhere.

A fair objection and you’re right…much harder to moderate.

> [@](#):
>
> Propose it.  
> Hammer it out.  
> I’ll enforce the will of the community.

Out of curiosity, where would be the appropriate place to make such a proposal? In GD where the people involved could discuss it or in ATMB where discussions about rules go?

> [@](#):
>
> Then we get to figure out what is an “insult.” Reading the thread to which you linked, I can see insults, even in the more thoughtful posts, where language is used by a poster to describe the “other side” to which anyone on that “other side” would take umbrage. Does the insult have to be deliberate? Who gets to decide deliberate from incidental or just a lack of common language?

Again, a fair point, but still…maybe instead of a “no group insults” rule that bright line could simply be redrawn a little more towards the cautious side. IMO Trihs’s behavior in that thread, despite being within the letter of the law is unacceptable for any kind of debate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/78 "2010-01-25T00:23:29Z")

</div>

> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> I’m curious who you think CircleofWillis conspicuously left unmentioned. elucidator is certainly the king of content free partisan one liners around here, imho.

You are welcome to your humble opinion, but I am not going to start throwing out names just to let everyone wrangle over whether they are ort are not included in my list. You will notice that I declined to name **Der Trihs** or his primary critic or the other poster who garnered speical consideration a couple of years back. I have subsequently referred to **Der Trihs** by name only because he was already the named subject of several posts.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/79 "2010-01-25T00:26:13Z")

</div>

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> Out of curiosity, where would be the appropriate place to make such a proposal? In GD where the people involved could discuss it or in ATMB where discussions about rules go?

ATMB. If someone begins such a thread, I will post a stickied announcement in Great Debates with a link to the ATMB thread.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/80 "2010-01-25T01:07:01Z")

</div>

> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> You are welcome to your humble opinion, but I am not going to start throwing out names just to let everyone wrangle over whether they are ort are not included in my list. You will notice that I declined to name **Der Trihs** or his primary critic or the other poster who garnered speical consideration a couple of years back. I have subsequently referred to **Der Trihs** by name only because he was already the named subject of several posts.

I did notice that you declined that invitation. I would note that the pointed mention of your curiosity would be seen as most as an invitation for others to name names.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144.md?page=5)