Will, I read the whole warning. If your position is that those were the reasons for your being modded, instead of only a small part of what exacerbated the behavior that got you modded, no wonder you’re so confused. I recommend rereading the modding, the WHOLE modding, and see if you can catch what you missed the first time.
I know how quick you are to admit error, so I’ll be over here holding my breath! 
O.k., I’m calling this one: Left Hand of Dorkness, death from asphyxiation, 0828 hrs. PST.
Because I like clarity, I’ll try again. Here are the reasons you were told to stop posting to the thread:
[ol]
[li]The nature of your participation resulted in thread derailment. That derailment took the following forms:[/li][li]An effort to shift the discussion away from the thread topic from your first post.[/li][li]Petty sniping[/li][/ol]
These two things combined didn’t contribute to the thread at all. This was exacerbated by your eschewing of reviewing cites which gave the impression that you weren’t interested in the thread topic.
If you challenged the validity of cites, presented counter examples, made points against what was being asserted, then that’s totally in line with the nature of debate. But when your contributions amount to trying to shift the thread topic (post #11), questioning whether a poster can understand English (post #33), insinuating that other posters didn’t use their brain (post #47), and petty snipes (post #57), then it’s a bridge too far.
It’s pretty easy to ignore non substantive petty sniping (I’m ignoring yours in this thread). But when you respond tit for tat, the thread is lost. A certain amount of snark is going to be fine, we’re adults and it can enhance communication to some extent. But when your contributions consist of mostly snark then it hinders discussion.
I have no plans to ragequit the board, but if I ever do, my last post won’t be a sulky flounce; I’ll just say I’m holding my breath waiting for someone to admit they’re wrong, and then never post again.
My most sincere and humblest apologies to Dope-member Rat. I am quite chastened.
They make a cream for that.
For heaven’s sake. You weren’t even warned. It was a note.
I swear to God, some people will die atop a note hill stronger than others might protest a warning or a banning.
Hold my beer…
My first post 1) asked questions about the characterization of two relationships by journalists 2) stated an opinion about the potential benefits of alleged collusion 3) compared the Russian influence with other influences on policy.
The remainder of posts dealt with number 1 only. If I was interested in derailing the thread I would have continued with number 2 and 3. You’re claim of attempted derailment is false and without support. Numbers 2 and 3 were one-off comments of the type that are made around here all the time without the poster being threadbanned.
So the entirety of the banning rests on the “petty sniping”. I did engage in petty sniping. My contributions were 50% petty sniping at worst. Some posters engaged in 100% petty sniping. Unfortunately they flock together and can create an overwhelming cacophony of lame one-liners that must be muted by someone.
I was banned from the thread. Was it a trial run?
High-level figures that are either famously belligerent toward other nations or are known chiefly for perjury. Let’s be real.
Still holding breath.
If you look at his posts overall you would find that he mischaracterizes his inquiries. He will often come out of nowhere asking for an explanation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic, and he will also request a full manifesto. I don’t need disciples, though.
Actually, this deserves a clearer response.
The first claim–that they’re famously “belligerent” toward other nations–is not a valid reason to dismiss their factual claims. A person can be both belligerent and honest.
The second claim–that some of them are known chiefly for perjury–is false. Maybe you meant it as hyperbole, but that’s not clear; it’s also possible that because of your, uh, unusual outlook, you believe it’s true. It ain’t.
Let’s be real indeed.
You dismissed gold-standard cites because of a false belief on your part, coupled with poor logic. Then you got ubersnarky.
I hope that your thread ban was a trial run, and that similar behavior from you in other threads gets moderated similarly.
If someone in government is belligerent toward other nations, history has shown that they should not be believed until actual evidence is presented. Do we know if his was a “factual claim”, of course not. Suddenly the CIA, headed by a torturer, is a reputable source of information. Torturer-headed agencies qualify for your “gold standard” level. Let that sink in.
It may be true that Clapper is better known for domestic spying than perjury. Does this mean we should believe him? He lied, big time. Sorry, I’m a skeptic when it comes to spooks. Known liars qualify for your “gold standard” level. Let that sink in.
“Let that sink in”? Okay, dude.
“Factual claim” means “a claim that isn’t a matter of opinion, is either true or false.” I apologize for any ambiguity in the phrase.
You fall prey to the strange loop, here. What evidence do you believe is better than the evidence of the foremost intelligence-gathering organization in the world? I absolutely know that CIA lies sometimes. I’m no big fan of theirs. And I know they torture. But I also know that a torturer is not always lying, and a good liar isn’t always lying; CIA tells the truth far more often than they lie, for very good self-interested reasons. Absent your sudden proclamation that you have a superior intelligence-gathering network, I stand by the claim.
Yeah, uh, one more try: what is Clapper CHIEFLY known for? No more dancing around the issue.
Being banned from a single thread is hardly anything at all, and an explanation was provided as to why it was done. So, there really is no issue other than your attitude that you should be able to say/do anything you want even if it is over and above the rules that everyone else here has to live with.
You just have to be right. Well, you’re not.
I think it would be fair to institute a forum ban from GD and Elections. Literally every thread he contributes to on some kind of debate is exactly what got him banned from that thread.
I mean, do we expect him to be a benefit to other debates, or continue to endlessly derail things with his own brand of nonsense? For chrissakes, just look at THIS thread! Definition of insanity, etc.
I won’t say we’ve never thought about forum bans for certain posters. Not Will, in my memory, but I know we’ve kicked the idea around.
I’m not generally in favor of such for a few reasons.
Because of that, while forum banning is in the toolbox, I’d be reluctant to use it. Thread bans - and occasional topic bans - are even used very sparingly when things are going obsessively off the rails.
Yes. There is a long and storied history of “public servants” suppressing antiwar and anti-state speech. Of course, they usually use the strong arm of leviathan state to accomplish this, quite different.