Excuse me for putting my nose where it doesn’t belong, but what if brazil84 were just to stop participating in global warming threads? Wouldn’t that make him happy, because he wouldn’t get frustrated, and make others happy, because he wouldn’t put himself in a situation to frustrate others? Sorry if I’m out of line, but it seems like that would solve the root of the problem from an outsiders perspective…
ETA: And he’d still get to enjoy the SDMB, and we wouldn’t lose a prolific poster.
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
ETA: And he’d still get to enjoy the SDMB, and we wouldn’t lose a prolific poster.
[/QUOTE]
I think December was also a prolific poster. Just saying…
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Excuse me for putting my nose where it doesn’t belong, but what if brazil84 were just to stop participating in global warming threads? Wouldn’t that make him happy, because he wouldn’t get frustrated, and make others happy, because he wouldn’t put himself in a situation to frustrate others? Sorry if I’m out of line,
but it seems like that would solve the root of the problem from an outsiders perspective…
ETA: And he’d still get to enjoy the SDMB, and we wouldn’t lose a prolific poster.
[/QUOTE]
brazil84 posts in pretty much the same manner in nearly every thread to which he posts. Having him not post on climate change would simply extend that behavior into threads on many other topics.
I’m not sure why we should worry about losing a “prolific” poster if that is the best adjective we can find to describe him.
I see no reason to believe that “your nose” is in the wrong place; it is an open Pit thread in which anyone may join.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
It’s pretty close to an insult to say “you typically argue in bad faith” for a regular poster. For a moderator, it is inexcusable.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it is pretty much required of a Moderator to make that point when one poster’s behavior is disruptive.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I also take exception to tomndebb’s “suggestions.” It’s analagous to a police officer who goes into a coffee shop and asks for a free cup of coffee. Obviously the owner will feel obligated to comply even though he is under no formal obligation to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Gee, a failed analogy and a straw man in the same short paragraph.
Your analogy would only work if I “suggested” that posters change their conclusions or their beliefs. A cop who “suggests” that it is not wise to pick a fight in this bar (or coffeshop) at this moment is simply averting trouble.
Beyond that, I have never claimed that I offer only suggestions. As it happens, my post that touched off this thread was a suggestion, complete with reasons for the suggestion I made. However, when I referred to it in this thread I noted that it might be a “suggestion or even an admonishment.” At times I post suggestions. At other times I post admonishments. Sometimes I post express orders. And once in a while I post Warnings. They each have their place, but your implication that I only admit to posting “suggestions” is baseless and wrong.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
But anyway, I get the message. As long as tomndebb is a moderator, it’s against board rules to go against the liberal dogma on the whole intelligence/IQ debate.
[/QUOTE]
This calumny is simply stupid and easily demonstrated to be wrong. I have participated in numerous threads addressing the measurement of intelligence and I have never invoked any sanctions against any of my opponents, so it is silly to think I was trying to stifle the discussion in the current/recent thread–particularly against a poster who has not bothered to post a single shred of factual evidence to support his (vague and never adequately defined) position.
I admit that I do find it amusing (if a bit wearying) to see crank after crank who is taken to task for his behavior immediately trot out the weird claim that someone is trying to silence him. From Jack Dean Tyler and SeeThruArt through the various conspiracy buffs to the current situation, every rude and disruptive poster wishes to assert (or, perhaps, believe), that the Powers wish to silence his* message rather than acknowledging that the Powers would simply prefer to see civil behavior.
Tom, I cannot begin to tell you how basically hostile that sentence is in its wording. You may not be able to see it, but any trained eye can. Your aggressiveness is not civil when being assertive would get the job done.
Of course, it’s the Pit and you may realize perfectly well what you are doing. But it is really difficult to relate to you one way here and another as the mod of GD where you can stomp us with your heel and expect us to be civil.
For the record, I don’t think you are trying to silence anybody completely.
[QUOTE=Duck Duck Goose]
Well, see, this is the point people are trying to make: there’s a good reason not to say “you don’t know what you’re talking about” during a debate, and they would like you to understand that.
The reason is that telling someone, “You don’t know what you’re talking about” is basically the same thing as saying, “You are ignorant.” And telling someone “you are ignorant” is a personal remark, like saying “you are ugly” or “you are poor”, and personal remarks have no place in a debate. A personal remark in a debate serves only to sidetrack the debate onto personalities–the person who has been told he is ignorant gets his attention shifted to countering that accusation, instead of staying on topic, which is the debate itself.
So telling someone “you don’t know what you’re talking about” only serves to slow the debate, and is exasperating to onlookers, as well as insulting to the person who’s just been told he’s ignorant. What’s he supposed to say, “No, I’m not”? That’s pointless, because there’s no way he can prove to you, the accuser, that he does so know what he’s talking about neener neener. Personal remarks in a debate are juvenile, and all the adults participating resent the person who keeps making them.
So that’s the reason not to tell someone “You don’t know what you’re talking about” in Great Debates.
[/QUOTE]
That´s probably the thing that most annoys me, his “I´m an ignorant, so are you and therefore I am right! lol” that is at the bottom of all his arguments.
I´ve never seen anyone so obtuse in the face of reasoning or evidence, I recall the thread about that Marine throwing a puppy off a cliff, he said it was computer work, someone possing as a marine, etc, I, as a professional in computer graphics gave my expert opinion that it wasn´t, he dismissed… then came the confirmation that the guy was indeed a marine in Iraq… dismiss, then a fucking written confession of the guy in his own web site, guess what he did?, stick his head further up his ass. Unbelievable
No point in arguing with someone that simply cannot or doesn´t want to have his mind affected by whimsies of logic and fantasies of reality. Personally I´m through with him and his bullshit, I won´t bash my dignity against the rocks in his head anymore.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Tom, I cannot begin to tell you how basically hostile that sentence is in its wording. You may not be able to see it, but any trained eye can. Your aggressiveness is not civil when being assertive would get the job done.
[/QUOTE]
Why would I not recognize how hostile the statement was? I wrote it with as much civil hostility as I could muster.
Do you recall Jack Dean Tyler? Do you recall SeeThruArt? Have you read most of the conspiracy threads? In each case, a poster engages in behavior that is rude and disruptive, regardless of the content of their posts. Sometimes it has been in violation of the rules and sometimes the poster has stayed one millimeter behind the line of the rules, but always engaging in behavior that is irritating to other posters. I have noted that when such posters have their behavior pointed out to them, their first line of defense is that their message is being suppressed. There is a direct parallel between the previous and current situations. Sure I’m hostile. Moderating is hardly a major effort that requires intense expenditure of resources, but it is a volunteer job and deliberate efforts to make it more difficult are not appreciated. If someone wants to attack my Moderating with the demonstrably false accusation that I am using my Mad Mod Powers to silence debate, I see no reason not to express hostility–particularly when we are already in the Pit where I would be permitted to express far more hostility if I chose.
I can imagine the etiquette book for “civil hostility.” Funny concept. Could be fun.
You and I tend not to resort to the usual base language. That doesn’t make our posts civil. Your purpose often seems to be to wound and humiliate. You are quite good at it. And in GD, you manage to stay within the legal limits of criticizing the arguments or style. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that you aren’t making those criticisms personal. You more recent criticism of one poster there would require that you mind read his intent. And of the other poster involved, you claim that you know what he knows.
Do you think that being hostile to those you are trying to get to be more civil is going to make moderating easier for you? I do not at all blame you for being frustrated or angry or whatever it is you are feeling when you moderate GD. And I acknowledge your right to express those feelings here like any other Doper. But don’t expect us to be able to compartmentalize when we return to GD. Just as you told Sage Rat that comments such as telling the other debator that they just don’t know anything leads to a similar reaction from the other person, you make it difficult to believe that you are “moderate” in your counsel.
You can criticize someone’s debate style and get your instructive points across without shredding a person. Why not be specific to that particular poster about what he is doing wrong? You assume he knows it. If that is really true, ban him from GD. If it’s not, teach him.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
But don’t kid yourself into thinking that you aren’t making those criticisms personal. You more recent criticism of one poster there would require that you mind read his intent. And of the other poster involved, you claim that you know what he knows.
[/QUOTE]
Of course I am making them personal.
As to what I know, it is called reading comprehension and does not involve reading minds so much as simply watching behavior over many months. There are posters who appear to be clueless regarding the effects of their words. I can think of several posters who constantly rile up the TM who demonstrate a serious lack of awareness regarding the words they use and the reaction to them. The lack of awareness, (discerned over months or years), does not rely on a phrase or even a post dropped here and there, but on a pattern of exchanges in which they clearly fail to understand objections lodged against them and often fail to understand direct statements made to them even when there is no hostility involved. On the other hand, when a poster persists in a particular manner of expression over a persiod of time, even when the behavior is called to his or her attention, but shows no lack of understanding in any other area, then I feel quite confident that I can recognize what they are doing.
(It must have been fun being a student in your classes where simply declaring “I didn’t know that was wrong” had to be accepted as an excuse for bad behavior because you clearly could not read their minds. 
)
As to how personal it gets: I do a lot of hands-on moderating, trying to break up fights or intervening before a misunderstanding becomes a feud, much more often than issuing Warnings for technical infractions. I could probably have cleared out 10% of the regular posters in GD if I resorted to issuing Warnings, then calling for their banning when they had hit four or five in a year. Many (perhaps most) posters are pretty passionate about a lot of topics and some tend to get carried away easily. Some who are most passionate–and often most interesting–are likely to break the rules more often than less interesting posters. On occasion, the poster simply cannot conform to our rules and winds up being banned for behavior, (witness Collounsbury who was banned before I became a Moderator). At other times, simply redirecting a poster is enough to keep the thread or Forum from going to hell without resorting to the ban stick.
On those occasions when I make repeated efforts to redirect a disruptive poster and the poster throws all my efforts back in my face, I probably do react personally. Frankly, I figure the occasional pointed remark is a small price to pay for my not waving the ban stick at every poster who misbehaves. I certainly do not make personal remarks to every poster with whom I disagree or whom I find personally irritating. Such remarks are reserved for the posters who are playing games to stay within the technical rules while causing unnecessary acrimony among other posters. (And if every expression of sarcasm must be condemned, then we need to disengage this board from Cecil’s columns, immediatey.)
[QUOTE=Zoe]
I can imagine the etiquette book for “civil hostility.” Funny concept. Could be fun.
[/QUOTE]
Seems to me Miss Manners has written several. She seems quite clear on that you need to be civil to everyone - but you don’t need to be NICE to everyone.
Dangerosa, oh I agree that nice is overrated, but I don’t think she advocates hostility – just assertiveness.
And all of my students had to make their own copies of the rules and carry them with them. They were also posted in the room. I learned fast in urban schools to CMA. 
Absolutely true. I commend you for that.
And you seem less likely to use your mod powers against someone who is breaking the rules in a way that is directed at you.
I can believe that.
Such remarks are reserved for the posters who are playing games to stay within the technical rules while causing unnecessary acrimony among other posters.
[/quote]
And maybe you don’t make mistakes about who’s playing games and who’s not. But when you tell someone else that she or he has been around long enought to know how that person operates, that is projecting onto another person your own abilities.
Then we may use sarcasm also in GD that is not always directed against the argument itself or is that privilege reserved for Mods?
It has always been crystal clear from Day One on these boards that the mods aren’t expected to stop being human once they agree to moderate a forum, that they aren’t expected to suddenly become Melanie Wilkes or Qui-Gon Jinn, and nobly put all desire to snark behind them.
And we’ve had some damn snarky mods in the past, both with the Mod Hat on and without it. And compared to them, frankly I think Tom’s kinda lame when it comes to off-hat snark. 
Need to work on the style there, boyo. It’s all in the wrist action, see… 
But really, Zoe, what exactly do you want from him, here? An admission that hell yeah, he enjoys gettin’ his snark on, and an apology for that, and a promise to go and sin no more? What?
[QUOTE=samclem]
I think December was also a prolific poster. Just saying…
[/QUOTE]
Compared to The Nut, December was the model of evidence-driven rational debate.
I’m hoping for some sign, Duck, Duck Goose, that maybe he’s aware that sometimes he sets the tone of incivility.
For example, the original “suggestion” in GD that the OP of this thread refers to was so harshly worded that it was thought to be a warning. Why?
Oh well. If Tom doesn’t see my point by now, he’s not going to.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
For example, the original “suggestion” in GD that the OP of this thread refers to was so harshly worded that it was thought to be a warning. Why?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, because a lot of posters (who, not misbehaving, generally do not attract stern Mod attention, anyway), tend to think that any time a Mod addresses them it is a Warning? (Even some posters who have received attention from the staff can feel that way: See lissener’s post, for example.)
And as to harshness, I will leave it to others to decide just how harsh it was to post this to Sage Rat in a Forum where a number of posters routinely resort to broadbrush claims that everyone on the opposite end of the political or religious spectrum from thier own cherished beliefs are clearly foolish or fraudulent or malevolent.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
For example, the original “suggestion” in GD that the OP of this thread refers to was so harshly worded that it was thought to be a warning. Why?
[/QUOTE]
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9961982&postcount=8
For being a regular on the boards, I guess I still missed the notice that mods specifically state “this is a warning” when they hand one out, besides putting on the mod hat.