Okay, not really. This is a “just curious” question. I think our mods do a terrific job, and I really don’t get bent out of shape for getting chastised on a message board (though I do like to think of myself as a good citizen).
Anyway, the above post got a note from @What_Exit telling me to watch it, that I crossed the line from criticizing the post into attacking the poster. I don’t see it. In my mind (a dangerous neighborhood), I was clearly pointing out the ridiculousness of the post.
Again, no big deal. I’d be interested in other perspectives (I realize that the mod perspective is the one that counts )—as I said, for clarification, because honestly I could see doing something similar inadvertently.
To me, attacking the poster could be summarized by some statement like, “Your reply clearly insinuated that the poster is [fill in the blank].” I’m can’t parse my post to infer such an offense at the poster himself. To me, my reply was stating, “your opinion is silly.”
Exactly, believe it or not that is not allowed. But, her stray comment has caused a derailment and I have hidden it now to get the thread back on course.
Hmm, okay. You’re the mod, and you know better than I. But I thought that was the whole point of GD, to offer, evaluate and assess opinions.
Just for my edification, can you point to the rule I violated, to the extent that it clarifies why my post falls into “attack the poster” territory? Thanks in advance.
I’m just a witness. not a mod. But as I read @Stratocaster’s comeback (which I saw before the mod had posted) the tone was was very sarcastic, not businesslike.
To me at least, sarcasm reads like attacking the poster, whereas a more reasoned objection reads like attacking the post.
To my mind the sarcasm was much “louder” than any reasoned objection. Which objection was actually not stated, merely implied.
IMO body language is a terrible method for someone to assess truthfulness. And also IMO, sarcasm is a terrible way to try to make a point online where the odds of misinterpretation are much much higher than in person.
I’m not sure I would have thought anything of it on it’s own. However, after calling attention to it, it does read similarly to saying ‘fine, I guess you’ll do whatever you want’ as a snarky way of telling someone you think they’re wrong for not taking your advice.
Had you replied “I disagree”, I don’t think anyone would have thought anything of it.
But if I had been chastised for an overly snarky tone given the forum, I’d probably have rolled my eyes and moved on. I’d see that as a judgment call, and even if I disagreed with it, I’d chalk it up to “well, the umpire called it a strike.”
But that’s not what the note was for—it was for attacking the poster, and it seems to me that’s much more objective a matter. Again, it could be articulated as some form of, “Your reply (directly or implicitly) suggested the poster is a poopy-head / dummy / stinker.” I still don’t see it.
How is that different than what goes on every day in GD? “Your opinion is wrong” isn’t an attack on the poster, except to the extent that any disagreement with a personal opinion is, right?
(BTW, I enjoy rules lawyering, if that’s not already clear. It’s still not a big deal.)
I think the sarcastic ‘that’s good enough for me’ part is what did you in.
I do too, and with that, I think your statement may be interpreted as pushing past “I think your opinion is wrong” and heading towards “you’re wrong”. That’s why I think if you has said “I disagree”, we wouldn’t be here.
But it’s blurry line and I’m not standing solidly on either side at the moment.
“You may attack the post. You may not attack the poster.” is a good rule in principle. But it’s really hard to draw a clear line based on it.
Posts don’t write themselves. If I write “That post is foolish/illogical/racist/blasphemous/factually untrue” I’m also saying “You wrote a foolish/illogical/racist/blasphemous/factually untrue post.”
That said, keeping the discussions here manageable requires that we have a system and our system is a group of moderators making the calls. I generally don’t have a problem with the calls they make and even when I disagree with a particular call, I don’t disagree with the system. But I would ask the moderators to keep in mind that what they are doing is making subjective judgement calls not stating objective facts.
You may be right. I still don’t see how transforming “Well, if you found her body language untrustworthy, that’s good enough for me” into “Well, if you found her body language untrustworthy, I disagree” somehow changes the message. They are identical to me, other than the absence of sarcasm in the latter.
You have stumbled across one of the most insane “rules” on the Dope. You’re lucky you didn’t get an actual warning. Of all the ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, capricious, and downright vagarious actions on the part of the mods, announcing the nanoscopic differences between “attacking the poster” and “attacking the post” must be the most infuriating.
Huh? That’s been allowed for as long as I’ve been a poster. It’s textbook attacking the post, not the poster. It says the opinion is silly, not that the person who wrote it is silly.
@LSLGuy Yes, it was phrased in a sarcastic way. But snark and sarcasm are explicitly allowed on this board. Several mods take advantage of this.
Also, note that we’re guessing because WE didn’t tell us exactly what the problem was. It seems more likely that his inability to explain means he just decided it based on how it felt, and not based on any actual rubric.
I don’t agree with that type of moderation, and have said so. Modding based on how you feel will mean that you will randomly be more or less strict on different days, and makes it far more likely to make mistakes because you were in a bad mood.
You have to strive to be objective, which means doing some level of analysis. And then you should be able to voice that analysis when asked.
I’m kind of feeling my way here, but I think starting it with “If you believe” is the main part of the problem. Then you are attacking what the poster believes, instead of what the poster wrote. I don’t think there is any way to attack what a poster believes without at least being seen to be attacking the poster.
You wanted to be snarky, and I think one has to be very careful with snark in GD and P&E (at least).
)—as I said, for clarification, because honestly I could see doing something similar inadvertently.