Having a forum for factual discussions without political jabs matters a lot to me. Losing an otherwise valuable poster who can not respect that is unfortunate, but is best in the long run.
To be clear, the warning was for both. You disputed my original note, and then you continued the political discussion in your reply.
I hope he is at least still looking, but… looking at the original posts…
running coach writes: “support for federal law enforcement agents such as border patrol, park rangers”
Reply did not write: “Is there really that much of an overlap between supporters of rigid border enforcement policies and supporters of wild lands protection”
Which would be a valid question to raise insofar as the notion of using one single “thin line” flag for all the different Federal LEAs, though it would probably elicit an unsatisfying response of “well, how individual people view it is outside GQ scope”
Instead, Reply wrote: “…between racist ICE sycophants and people who like the ranger giving a bear talk” (BTW if you note, using not just one but two caricatures about the particular public services involved, besides the aforementioned confusion of CBP with ICE) An aggressively derisive rewording, and yes, a political jab.
From his posts to this thread it is pretty clear that to Reply, what I call aggressively derisive is merely Speaking Truth and furthermore that to him it is unacceptable to back down on it. So here we are.
I haven’t read this entire thread, but in what I did read, one salient (and easy to understand) point seems not to have been mentioned:
GQ is supposed to be factual, and therefore personal opinions are not supported. When those personal opinions contain political content, they actually violate the rules. @Reply does not seem to be able to grasp this simple distinction – unless he is going to argue that his offending remark is a fact rather than opinion. In which case there is no hope and they might as well depart.
Also what JRDelirious said.
I looked at the thread in question. It was going along fine with factual responses, until the OP’s “objective reality” post.
The ensuing mod actions were entirely appropriate in my view. If posters feel such angst over current events that they can’t restrain themselves from weaponizing a GQ thread, then GQ is probably not the forum for them.
I don’t actually disagree with anything you said, other than your claim that your comment was not a political jab or that such should be allowed in a fact-based forum. I also actually think Colibri’s tone was not helpful and only served to escalate your anger, rather than try to understand it.
I get why you think what you said should be okay. But there’s no content-neutral way to apply that so that it wouldn’t also apply to everyone else.
And I say it’s a political jab because it was an insulting someone, and based on politics. You admit the latter.
I really do not think you should ever let people whom you think did wrong force you to leave a place you otherwise enjoy. That’s acceding control to them. I disagree with the mods many times, particularly on racism and bigotry issues. But I stick around because I won’t let that push me away.
I hope you will reconsider leaving after you’ve been given time. We need people like you in the fight.
As has been pointed out to you , not only was your jab political, but it was false.
Of course they predominantly target Mexicans, since they are the largest source of undocumented aliens.
That is like saying Police forces are sexist as they predominantly target Males.
Hogwash. The question was innately factual. And it was answered factually, to my entire satisfaction, by someone (running_coach to whom my great thanks) who knew the answer. Your political jab was out of place.
I’ve been moderating GQ for 13 years, and while there are sometimes disputes about what constitutes a political jab, this is the first time I can recall anyone proposing to do away with the rule entirely. In my experience, this is one of the least controversial rules on the board, just after “no insults.”
I concur.
GQ needs to be different. I’m always annoyed by the jokers that show up early in the thread before there is an answer. That’s fine in every other forum but no politics and no jokes and give it some time before guesses are hazard.
GQ, “Just the facts Ma’am”.
I can’t believe, esp. with the benefit of hindsight, that you can’t see why it would’ve probably have been seen as a poltical jab. Sometimes it’s better to admit you’re in the wrong, especially over soemthing this trifling.
If you make a comment on a GQ thread and a mod says that it’s too political, but you want to discuss it, why wouldn’t you just make a thread in the appropriate forum (P&E, GD, Pit, whatever) and drop a post in GQ saying “OK, I’m done discussing that in GQ, anyone who wants to come to a discussion of it at [link]”? The whole point of GQ is for people to get factual information, and there are a plethora of other boards for opinions and arguments. Going on a rant about ICE in response to a comment that doesn’t even involve ICE just isn’t what the GQ is made for, and the mods won’t stop you from do so in any of the appropriate places.
My guess? because they didn’t say it was “getting to political.” The OP was accused of making a “political jab.” They didn’t agree with that determination and politely argued with it. Then Colibri gave them a Warning for discussing it outside of ATMB–a quite unusual punishment for that action. Normally they just give a Moderator Note to go to ATMB.
So now the poster feels like they’ve been mistreated, Warned for something that doesn’t normally get a Warning. So they’re too angry to just post in another thread. They’re more motivated than ever to try and prove the mods wrong.
It’s why I suspect that you see the OP jumping all over the place for any possible justification. For them, it became less about a difference in opinion of what counts as a political jab, and just more about getting the Warning removed. They were offended by it.
The OP flat out says why they didn’t open a new thread–they thought it would be closed for being too similar. I wonder how much explicitly saying that you should open a new thread in GD or P/E would help.
If a moderator says that something in GQ is a ‘political jab’, or indeed a ‘political anything’, that means that it is too political for GQ. Trying to play word games because the mod didn’t literally use the phrase ‘too political’ doesn’t change that. The poster may ‘feel like’ they’re being mistreated, but they’re just being petulant over getting caught for multiple clear and flagrant rule violations.
If you look at the OP, there isn’t actually any request to have the warning removed. There is a demand to have GQ rules majorly changed, with a ‘ban me if you don’t change it’ ultimatum at the end. So no, that doesn’t really seem an accurate description.
Who really imagines the whole “this is a dealbreaker for me” thing accompanied by a suicide threat is a suitable way to express one’s personal preferences about a minor aspect of how something works? I laughed a lot at this during the switchover to the new platform - but of course among we mostly older folks here it was just borne of frustration with figuring out the changes, and rarely meant seriously.
Have you read his posts?
It’s a bit amusing to read this when the Tim Mortiss ban thread is so fresh.
Not very surprising that you find it amusing.
It seems you do, actually.