# "Proper" use of mod powers to steer a thread in GD? **URL:** \ **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:** 6
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/101 "2010-01-25T22:16:39Z")
I would propose that this thread needs 2 sister threads: **1) What rule changes would you propose to strengthen/improve GD?**, and; **2) Is there a double standard for right/left hate speech?** ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/102 "2010-01-25T22:38:04Z")
The instruction I gave was not was not just ‘this post is fine but everybody ignore it.’ It was ‘this type of post is not welcome in this thread.’ So yes, I did try to prevent the thread from being taken over by partisanship. The idea was not to let **Der Trihs** have his say and make everyone ignore it, it was to keep the thread moving past that. > [@magellan01](#): > > I asked about this i the other thread, and never received a response from **Marley23**. DT issued one of his usual hate-filled turds and all I did was point to it saying it was “too good”. That was the entirety of the exchange. I quoted you because you were the only person who had responded to **Der Trihs** at that point. It was not intended to be any kind of more severe admonition. Of course it’s also true that “too good” contributed nothing to the thread, but that wasn’t the main issue. A few months ago, I remember **tomndebb** posting that he was interested in cutting a lot of this stuff down. We haven’t discussed how that might be accomplished, but I’d also like to make that happen. (We have to find an understandable way to do it and I’m not saying a handful of piecemeal ‘don’t hijack this thread’ or ‘cite this claim’ instructions will get it done.) I think we can do better than a lot of this doctrinaire left/right bickering. And on the same note I think it’s a problem that the site has become mostly inhositable to conversatives, although we do have some very intelligent ones still around. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/103 "2010-01-25T23:12:22Z")
On preview, never mind - I think I should respect **raindog** ’s request about what he wants to discuss. > [@raindog](#): > > I would propose that this thread needs 2 sister threads: > > 1. What rule changes would you propose to strengthen/improve GD?, and; > > 2. Is there a double standard for right/left hate speech? I would be very glad if you start either or both of theses separately. If I may make a suggestion, start number 1 first, and let it sort of run its course. I rather suspect the second might encounter more difficulties than the first. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/104 "2010-01-25T23:17:10Z")
Works for me. I know it was introduced upthread, but I’d leave the phrase “hate speech” out of either debate. Those words have a specific meaning and the semantics are going to be a problem even if ‘hate’ is convenient for you as shorthand. ---
**Author:** ![CircleofWillis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/54ee81/32.png) [@CircleofWillis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CircleofWillis)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/105 "2010-01-26T00:29:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Damn! Another night of crying myself to sleep, sobbing into my banky! If your dreams are like your posts, don’t bother cuz you aren’t missing much. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/106 "2010-01-26T02:47:06Z")
**CircleofWillis** , if you have a beef with **elucidator** , go open a Pit thread, This is not the forum for you to try to hijack the thread with snark or violate the rules with insults against another poster. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/107 "2010-01-26T03:26:30Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > There is a distinct difference between “fact free” posts----of which there are no rules against, and hate spew, for which there is. > > [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=549087) is the thread that inspired this one. Please, if you haven’t already, read **KLR 650** ’s posts. With rare exception he was polite. His biggest crime------and I’m sure you 3 would agree-----was that he A) was espousing a view unpopular here, and; B) He was long on rhetoric and short on facts. > > But the fact is, among those posters who are guilty of only crime “B” we have dozens of regular posters, and hundreds of intermittent posters. **Dozens.** > > **And crime “B” is not against the rules.** > > . . . > > I submit that the only posters that the kind of rebuke that **KLR 650** got are those who not only post “fact free” content, but do it from an unpopular position. (while the regulars who post PC fact free content go unnoticed and unrebuked.) > > \*\*\*\*\*That is not against the rules, \ ***and that is the discussion here.** I disagree with your perception. The issue is not content free posts or even unpopular content free posts. The issue is inciting to riot which occurs when the **OP** refuses to develop his or her own arguments. **Circleofwillis** ’s first humorous post to this thread quoted a single line from one of my posts: > [@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. and noted that a rigorous enforcement of a rule against empty one liners would get **elucidator** banned. The comment was amusing in its way, but he (and you) have ignored the rest of my post (bolding added, here): > [@tomndebb](#): > > At the point where Marley intervened, KLR 650 had not submitted a single thought out post with an actual thesis and a coherent dvelopment. You had. Bricker had. Finn had. However,\*\* it was KLR 650’s thread\*\* and everything he had posted to that point was a series of big declarations that had no substance and no development. That is the sort of thread that deteriorates into name calling and **a Mod telling the OP to actually participate** is something that has gone on for years. Had **KLR 650** been one of the peanut gallery, I would have ignored him and I suspect that Marley might have, as well. However, an OP who posts content free provocation is a typical cause of fights. Had **KLR 650** been merely a contributing poster, I would have waited until some other poster(s) had risen to the bait, (hoping none would), and when both sides began getting out of line, told everyone to back off. As the OP, however, **KLR 650** refusing to provide support for his own topic was much more likely to cause a fight to break out and if we’re going to tell him to take his behavior out of his own thread, we might as well close the thread. The recent adoption thread followed a similar pattern except that the OP posted at length, obscuring for a while that she had no substance to her posts. She was not asked to prove her point, only to explain what in the world she meant by some of her more outrageous statements. When she refused to even acknowledge that her posts were confusing, only then–after five days and over 400 posts–was the thread shut down. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/108 "2010-01-26T03:33:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The instruction I gave was not was not just ‘this post is fine but everybody ignore it.’ It was ‘this type of post is not welcome in this thread.’ So yes, I did try to prevent the thread from being taken over by partisanship. The idea was not to let **Der Trihs** have his say and make everyone ignore it, it was to keep the thread moving past that. > I quoted you because you were the only person who had responded to **Der Trihs** at that point. It was not intended to be any kind of more severe admonition. Of course it’s also true that “too good” contributed nothing to the thread, but that wasn’t the main issue. > > A few months ago, I remember **tomndebb** posting that he was interested in cutting a lot of this stuff down. We haven’t discussed how that might be accomplished, but I’d also like to make that happen. (We have to find an understandable way to do it and I’m not saying a handful of piecemeal ‘don’t hijack this thread’ or ‘cite this claim’ instructions will get it done.) I think we can do better than a lot of this doctrinaire left/right bickering. And on the same note I think it’s a problem that the site has become mostly inhositable to conversatives, although we do have some very intelligent ones still around. My only point was that you made it sound like we were going back and forth. There was only one exchange and it had been long past when you put on the mod hat. It was so unnecessary that I was genuinely puzzled. If you had come in right after that exchange, I would have understood what you were doing. You may want to go back and look at your wording. It just seemed out of place for the amount of time, and posts, that had passed. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/109 "2010-01-26T15:52:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I disagree with your perception. > > The issue is not content free posts or even unpopular content free posts. > The issue is inciting to riot which occurs when the **OP** refuses to develop his or her own arguments\*…snip…\* tomnedebb, what I think you fail to realize is the _ **source** _ of the riot. I agree with you, in part. There is a riot. There is a mob forming. The true source of the riot, however, is that someone has dared to come to the SDDMB/GD and espouse a view that offends the board [political, social, or religious] sensibilities. Go look at some of these threads. Poster A shows up with an argument that is highly unpopular. His argument is also weak; not fully developed. In the ensuing 200 posts there will be a dozen or more feeble attempts to defend his postion. However, there will be 75 inane, pointless, citeless posts attacking Poster A’s position. But do we see? Poster A is inane, and “content free”, while we’re blind to the fact that the reason the spotlight is on Poster A is because he has made an unpopular argument. He’s a polarizing figure. \*\*He’s seen as a trouble maker. \*\* So, yea, I see the riot. And I’m sympathetic to your job as riot policeman. But my experience is that the _bigges_t crime he commits is daring to come with an unpopular idea, and his failure to fully develop his unpopular idea -----his secondary crime-----puts him in the same company with the 2 dozens posters attacking him. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/110 "2010-01-26T16:09:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > My only point was that you made it sound like we were going back and forth. There was only one exchange and it had been long past when you put on the mod hat. It was so unnecessary that I was genuinely puzzled. If you had come in right after that exchange, I would have understood what you were doing. You may want to go back and look at your wording. It just seemed out of place for the amount of time, and posts, that had passed. It sounded to me like you were going to start going back and forth, which would have taken the thread off track. I didn’t want that to happen and that’s why I worded it that way- it was preemptive and not intended to be a punishment. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/111 "2010-01-26T16:16:40Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > But my experience is that the _bigges_t crime he commits is daring to come with an unpopular idea, and his failure to fully develop his unpopular idea -----his secondary crime-----puts him in the same company with the 2 dozens posters attacking him. But that is NOT your experience. You are here with a number of unpopular ideas and I know darned well that I have told posters to keep their attacks on your ideas away from attacks on your person. Is it true that a weak argument will be savaged? Sure. Will it be savaged more loudly by a majority than a minority? Sure. But it takes the combination of an unpopular idea plus a weak, (or nonexistent), supporting argument to get into flaming territory. (And if the argument is so weak as to be unsupportable and no champion from the same side will stand up to support it, what is the purpose of letting the thread continue to boil for days?) I would also disagree that threads get shut down for weak arguments, at all. They get shut down when one side refuses (or fails) to lay out any actual argument. We have had CT threads that went hundreds of posts–unpopular ideas with weak arguments. What gets closed are threads where there is nothing but a repetitive reassertion of some belief without any supporting argument. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/112 "2010-01-26T16:24:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I disagree with your perception. > > The issue is not content free posts or even unpopular content free posts. > The issue is inciting to riot which occurs when the **OP** refuses to develop his or her own arguments\*…snip…\* **Tom,** An example of this is that we have no shortage of OPs from the left end of the political/religious/social spectrum who have weak, or underdeveloped arguments. No one is \*“incited to riot” \* because what causes riots is not so much the _quality of the argument_ (although a weak argument acts like gasoline to the fire) but _the argument itself._ If I post an inane, citeless rant-like OP in great debates about Dick Cheney’s crime wave I’ll get some level of support, and be attacked by \*\*Shodan, Mr Moto, Sam Stone, Bricker \*\*or others. Quite literally a handful at most. However, if post an inane, citeless rant-like OP in great debates about Obama’s health care and hatred of America you can count on putting on your riot gear. Both OPs were inane, content free, citeless, and hyperbolic. Given the board demographic, there will only be one riot. And history bears this out. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/113 "2010-01-26T16:34:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > But that is NOT your experience. > > You are here with a number of unpopular ideas and I know darned well that I have told posters to keep their attacks on your ideas away from attacks on your person. > > Is it true that a weak argument will be savaged? Sure. Will it be savaged more loudly by a majority than a minority? Sure. > But it takes the combination of an unpopular idea plus a weak, (or nonexistent), supporting argument to get into flaming territory. (And if the argument is so weak as to be unsupportable and no champion from the same side will stand up to support it, what is the purpose of letting the thread continue to boil for days?) > > I would also disagree that threads get shut down for weak arguments, at all. They get shut down when one side refuses (or fails) to lay out any actual argument. We have had CT threads that went hundreds of posts–unpopular ideas with weak arguments. What gets closed are threads where there is nothing but a repetitive reassertion of some belief without any supporting argument. I largely agree with this post. And attacking _me,_ as opposed to my _argument_ is against the rules. And you have stepped in when the rules are violated. I appreciate that. And I agree that it takes _“the combination of an unpopular idea plus a weak, (or nonexistent), supporting argument to get into flaming territory.”_ But it is when the flaming starts that we have riots. But my point is that is usually when we have riots and posters are asked for [moderator] “Cite” and so forth. But the combination of A) an unpopular idea, and B) a weak argument is not against the rules. And if flaming/riots only tend to occur when both A & B are present, then I think we need to take a step back and realize that the posters most likely to get a rebuke are the ones with unpopular ideas. Because the left leaning posters------who post the popular ideas-----are every bit as weak, citeless and inane. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/114 "2010-01-26T16:50:11Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Because the left leaning posters------who post the popular ideas-----are every bit as weak, citeless and inane. Absolutely true. However, as a Moderator, my job is to keep the flames down, not to level judgments on the quality of arguments. On those occasions where you apparently see me judging the arguments, I would say that I have looked at a mob situation and pointed out to the lonely “victim” of the mob that he or she needs better arguments so that the thread becomes a discussion rather than a flaming. If the great unwashed mass of “lefty atheists” is not flaming their simple-minded associate for his or her OP, there is no flaming. I can roll my eyes at the silliness, but I have no reason to interfere. The options that you appear to leave me are - to take on the role of argument judge and shut down the simple minded “lefty atheist” threads or - to let the simple minded threads from the religious right be hammered into gore, stopping them only after blood is drawn. I think that pointing out why their arguments are not persuasive and suggesting that they come up with better arguments is the more helpful way to encourage them to participate. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/115 "2010-01-26T16:50:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It sounded to me like you were going to start going back and forth, which would have taken the thread off track. I didn’t want that to happen and that’s why I worded it that way- it was preemptive and not intended to be a punishment. That’s why I posted as I did earlier. It seems that **Der Trihs** ’ fact-free hate rant was not the problem; it was that somebody reacted to it. Had it just been left to lie there stinking, no action was necessary. Then, when you did take action, you seemed to equate **magellan01** ’s post to all the hate-rants **Der Trihs** had already posted. Because you (IMO) improperly characterized **magellan01** ’s post as if he has said that ‘Democrats are stupid’ when he neither said nor implied any such thing. It sounds a bit like you are saying that content-free rants aren’t a problem until someone reacts to them. Which _is_ much the same as saying that we are being called on to ignore them. IOW, is **Der Trihs** ’ content-free hate rant the problem, **in and of itself, no matter how other posters react or don’t react?** Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/116 "2010-01-26T16:53:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It sounded to me like you were going to start going back and forth, which would have taken the thread off track. I didn’t want that to happen and that’s why I worded it that way- it was preemptive and not intended to be a punishment. And that’s the way I took it. But I don’t think you understand my point: it should have been clear from when you came in that enough time and , especially posts, had passed, that what you feared didn’t seem very likely. And the tone of your post simply didn’t seem appropriate for a two-post exchange that had happened like 40 post earlier. Like I said, I found it odd. I do also think that it was unfair to insinuate equivalence between his hate-filled stupidity and my “Too good.” Can you at least see how actions like that give credence to the charge of moderation bias, whither it’s intended, or existent, or not? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/117 "2010-01-26T17:08:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Absolutely true. However, as a Moderator, my job is to keep the flames down, not to level judgments on the quality of arguments. > > On those occasions where you apparently see me judging the arguments, I would say that I have looked at a mob situation and pointed out to the lonely “victim” of the mob that he or she needs better arguments so that the thread becomes a discussion rather than a flaming. If the great unwashed mass of “lefty atheists” is not flaming their simple-minded associate for his or her OP, there is no flaming. I can roll my eyes at the silliness, but I have no reason to interfere. > > The options that you appear to leave me are > > - to take on the role of argument judge and shut down the simple minded “lefty atheist” threads > or > - to let the simple minded threads from the religious right be hammered into gore, stopping them only after blood is drawn. > > I think that pointing out why their arguments are not persuasive and suggesting that they come up with better arguments is the more helpful way to encourage them to participate. If it is true that both sides are equally adept at posting inanity, and that both sides will flame the other, given the slant of the membership, wouldn’t it also be true that content-free post from the left would be more numerous than those on the right. And wouldn’t the left (since their are more attackers) have a tendency to flame more than the right? And if either of those holds to be true, wouldn’t one expect moderation to more often be addressed to those on the left? Does it? This hardly seems to be the case. Especially with the content-free AND constant flaming by the resident hater, **DT**. The sole fact that he is given a pass demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt the bias in this board’s moderation. I know that won’t change now. Even if you and most mods might agree with the recent arguments brought against the board concerning DT, no one would dare want to act, which would be saying in essence, the conservatives on these boards were right about something. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/118 "2010-01-26T17:24:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It seems that **Der Trihs** ’ fact-free hate rant was not the problem; it was that somebody reacted to it. Had it just been left to lie there stinking, no action was necessary. I would have made the same post (minus the quote) if no one had responded to **Der Trihs** because his post was the issue: it was not welcome in that thread. I also included **magellan01** ’s response, but that wasn’t indicating any kind of equivalence - I was saying posts on that theme belong in another thread. > [@](#): > > IOW, is **Der Trihs** ’ content-free hate rant the problem, **in and of itself, no matter how other posters react or don’t react?** Yes, it is. > [@magellan01](#): > > And that’s the way I took it. But I don’t think you understand my point: it should have been clear from when you came in that enough time and , especially posts, had passed, that what you feared didn’t seem very likely. I didn’t look at the time stamps, I admit. Yes, a good amount of time had passed. Then again it’s a text conversation and the comments were sitting there, so I thought I should be clear. My aim wasn’t to crack down on you and **Der Trihs** , it was to keep the thread from turning into just partisanship. > [@](#): > > I do also think that it was unfair to insinuate equivalence between his hate-filled stupidity and my “Too good.” What matters is that neither one was wanted in the thread, not judging your two posts in a relative sense. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/119 "2010-01-26T17:25:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Absolutely true. However, as a Moderator, my job is to keep the flames down, not to level judgments on the quality of arguments. > > On those occasions where you apparently see me judging the arguments, I would say that I have looked at a mob situation and pointed out to the lonely “victim” of the mob that he or she needs better arguments so that the thread becomes a discussion rather than a flaming. If the great unwashed mass of “lefty atheists” is not flaming their simple-minded associate for his or her OP, there is no flaming. I can roll my eyes at the silliness, but I have no reason to interfere. > > The options that you appear to leave me are > > - to take on the role of argument judge and shut down the simple minded “lefty atheist” threads > or > - to let the simple minded threads from the religious right be hammered into gore, stopping them only after blood is drawn. > > I think that pointing out why their arguments are not persuasive and suggesting that they come up with better arguments is the more helpful way to encourage them to participate. I think these last few posts are compelling and I see the issues you have to face. I trust you agree that both options are untenable. But I assume you agree then, that the circumstances-----the board demographic—places a greater burden on the right leaning posters to have his act together. But if the mods take any action that causes the unpopular to leave; to be driven out, it only perpetuates the problem. If I read you correctly, you’re sometimes saving the right leaning poster from himself; saving him from his own argument. (and the goring he’s receiving) Either he bucks up and comes with a stronger argument, or he comes back to play another day. The problem is he doesn’t come back. He’s been driven away. In many cases, however, he hasn’t been driven away by quality but by quantity. (although often he’s been bested by both quality and quantity…) I don’t know the answer, but I do perceive the fix has been to drive away unpopular ideas/posters and further reduce the diversity of thought. Consider this, however, in general what is the nature of the goring? Isn’t it true that the inane citeless right leaning poster is being gored with inane citeless left leaning spears? OTOH, if the inane right leaning poster is being gored by a _superior_ argument, from well researched and prepared adversaries than the board is better off without him, right? I mean, in this country we routinely will put 300 policemen around 6 protesters who are holding an unpopular rally. I think the rules can’t be applied in such a way that a problem is solved (flaming) and in the process another problem is made worse. (a lack of diversity) It seems to me that added rules on taunting, indirect insults, and piling on may give the unpopular idea a chance to stay and debated. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144/120 "2010-01-26T17:38:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If it is true that both sides are equally adept at posting inanity, and that both sides will flame the other, given the slant of the membership, wouldn’t it also be true that content-free post from the left would be more numerous than those on the right. And wouldn’t the left (since their are more attackers) have a tendency to flame more than the right? And if either of those holds to be true, wouldn’t one expect moderation to more often be addressed to those on the left? Does it? More posters on the left than on the right get admonished, today. The discussion is what happens to threads where the OP is ill prepared and what role should the Mod take in addressing that. When the ill prepared poster on the left shows up, there are fewer posters to pile on, so the flames do not get as high. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-use-of-mod-powers-to-steer-a-thread-in-gd/526144.md?page=7)