I’ve got a question. I mean no disrespect, but here it is:
In a recent GD Discussion about Religion, the issue of Creationism/Evolution came up. The Debate got heated and DavidB (who is a moderator) got involved. (For those interested in the whole story, the link is here).
DavidB took Pashley to task on a number of issues and, in my opinion, was over-harsh. Beyond reasonable sarcasm. Dare I say it, a jerk. (Don’t take my work for it… click the link above.)
Pashley replied:
Was Pashley justified in resorting to such sentiments? I’m not sure. But I am sure that DavidB behaved in an un-moderator-like fashion.
How did he reply:
Anyone besides me think that the pot is calling the kettle an asshole?
DavidB - Cool it. Man, live and let live. You’re a mod goodness sake… shouldn’t you be an example?
David B is very passionate about this issue. It frustrates him to no end that people distort things like this. I feel for him, as I have also shown impatience when dealing with the average Creationists who simply parrots what some website tells them and does not comprehend the material, the rebuttal which is usually based in actual scientific facts, nor do they partiularly CARE to comprehend the material.
We are here to combat ignorance. The willfully ignorant is bound to be a thorn in the sides of those who take that mantra to heart.
For the record, I have seen David B take on Creationists with kid gloves more often than see him explode, and Lord knows, most of them deserve the wrath of David because when it reaches that point, usually the person in question already showed to be not worth the effort to be civil.
Of course, since moderators are held to a higher standard, I could see this bothering you. But I think NOT allowing someone to be willfully ignorant and being able to call them on it is also a function of what a moderator in Great Debates should aspire to do, not just beat up regs who use bad words.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One week, two days, 15 hours, 44 minutes and 14 seconds.
386 cigarettes not smoked, saving $48.28.
Life saved: 1 day, 8 hours, 10 minutes.
I’m not a great debater, yet I read there often. One reason I do not debate there is because of DavidB. I would not care to debate a trivial matter with him, much less something that I feel deeply about, because of his smugly superior attitude.
Those he disagrees with vociferously I feel sorry for. He is verbally insulting at times.
Disguising insults with his well-endowed vocabulary, then complaining when someone uses a four-letter word in responce is a tad hypocrytical too.
DavidB, I’ve seen in a few Doper get-together threads that you are regarded as a great human being and all around nice guy. Why does this not show up in your debates?
David is an extremely intelligent man, and a fair one as well. However, in this particular subject)creationism/evolution) his patience is starting to wear thin.
There have been so many threads on this topic here, that he is probably wondering why he bothers at all.
It’s also important to remember that David is a poster here as well, with the same priviledges that we enjoy.
You’ll find that David is an adept debater, following the rules of logic, and he sometimes gets impatient with us if we don’t live up to his standards.
He’ll grow on you if you look at what he says with an unjaundiced eye.
In ordinary debates, we should all hold ourselves to a high standard. Personal attacks belong in the Pit. I don’t think there’s any reason to lower the standards for “ordinary” posters.
That being said, there is a fine line between confronting someone on willful ignorance and making a personal attack. It’s very irritating to be attempting to conduct a rational debate and having someone constantly distract the thread with rants, blatant stupidity, repeating without additional evidence points that have been strongly refuted, and similar sins of debate. To express that irritation, and point out flaws in the person’s behavior as expressed in the debate is, IMHO, appropriate outside the Pit.
Besides, the mods seem to have little power. I would expect that they can’t unilaterally ban someone, and if they harrass someone inappropriately, their actions will be reviewed by the administrators. So relax. If you make a mistake and the mods point it out to you, all you have to do is apologize.
If a mod or admin is debating as a regular citizen, evaluate their posts on that basis. The standards here are high enough. There’s no need to muzzle the mods just because they have assumed additional administrative duties on our behalf.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Now, obviously David is no Cecil. And please bear in mind that David was not “complaining” about the language, he was doing his job (as he interpreted it).
I dunno, I’ve disagreed with David several times, with no evil scary repercussions.
But then, I don’t present hearsay, rumor, and outright lies as verifiable truth, either.
DavidB is a bright guy and a skilled debator. It is well known what view he takes of “alternative” and other theories of spiritual matters. (not the best wording, I am trying to condense)
Furthermore his wit is not so much rapier like as it is akin to a broad sword. Often, his challenges to the logic and the facts a poster is offering up as their argument can come off as demeaning. I fully believe that this is his intent.
He is not alone, dopers as a whole can be a pretty snooty bunch.
All that considered, if the best retort you can muster to one of his broadsides is, “shove it up your ass” you are way out of your league.
My experiences debating with David B. lead me to believe that, while he is indeed intelligent and articulate, he also lacks the ability to recognize that not everyone has to agree with him all the time, let alone the ability to recognize that he is not, automatically, right all the time. If a person persists in disagreeing with him, he will become increasingly ascerbic, patronizing, and insulting as he becomes more frustrated with the debate.
I think that David B. believes that if you cannot be persuaded over to his way of thinking (i.e., the “correct” way of thinking), then you are either being willfully obtuse or you are simply stupid. There is no room for a mere difference of opinion. This infuriates me personally, as many of the established posters in Great Debates well know. And I’m sure that David would have some choice words to say about me as well.
But I think the “moderators held to a higher standard” stuff is idiocy. I think everyone should be expected to act like an adult around here, and if they can’t, they should take it to the Pit. If they cross the line in the Pit (which is actually pretty hard to do), they should be given one warning and then tossed. I think that standard should apply to everyone.
That said, it does seem to me to be unfair that David would be his contemptuous, infuriating self, leading someone to invite him to do something intimate and unpleasant, only to have him respond by donning his “moderator hat” and chastising the other poster. Maybe the answer is to have Gaudere moderate the threads where David is participating extensively as a poster, and vice versa? I don’t know, but it does seem unfair that one of the participants of a boxing match should also be the referee.
I have no problems with DavidB the moderator. DavidB the poster is another matter- he’s often condescending to the point of being insulting, especially when it is not necessary. I don’t agree with most of what Pashley said but I wouldn’t say “show you can do more than spout creationist bullshit rhetoric”.
I see what you mean, sdimbert. While DavidB may be a great debator, passionate thinker, and all-around great guy, in this instance it seems like he dishes it out, then pulls rank when it looks like it’s being dished back to him. If pashley had made the same comment to someone else, that rank may not have been pulled.
That was one of the things that Ed Zotti warned us about when it was announced that the rules were going to get stricter. He said that there would be instances of moderators noticing something in one case and letting it go in another, just because they can’t be in all places at all times. It looks to me like pashley made the wrong comment to the wrong person. Not fair, but David was within the guidelines when he called him on it. It would be interesting to see a debate (in which David is involved) have someone that David agrees with make a similar comment to someone David does not agree with. Would he put his moderator hat on and admonish the person? Who knows.
Things like this bother me, too, so I don’t involve myself too much in GD.
Go ahead and take a stab at some research dipwad. Then maybe read my post again.
Try to read all the way through it, you might get the point I was trying to make.
Sorry, bub. You’re wrong on 3 counts:
1 - You said that I am not a “creationist.” I’m not.
2 - You said that I have "met my match in DavidB. Nope.
3 - You went and took a “wild stab in the dark…with no research or evidence…” BIG No-no! You’re off base. I was just offended by the way he manipulates that modhat of his.
BUT, of all the comments here, I think that SingleDad’s is the most thoughtful:
Good point! Thanks for putting things in perspective for me, Abba!
David can more than adequately defend his moderatorial actions. But his warning of Pashley was exactly correct, and what I would have done in his place. Saying (if somewhat agressively) “you haven’t offered any decent arguments” is acceptable; you are attacking the post, not the poster. But “shove it up your ass” should be in the Pit. Even if I moderated any discussion David is in, and he moderated mine, we would still be accused of partiality: “You’re taking his/her side 'cause you’re both mods!” (Not to mention we very often both participate in the same debate.) Also, it is not uncommon for either of us to be gone for a weekend or so, and I would not wish to see a flamewar erupt because the non-debating one of us was unavailable to intervene (nor do I think it proper to require Tuba or Ed to intervene in a minor scuffle).
David has an aggressive style, but even milder debaters like me get accused of partiality. In Rainbowcsr’s Catholic thread, I was called a “sarcastic idiot” for a (admittedly sarcastic) remark about Rainbowcsr’s avowed mission to attack the failings of various religions/ethnic groups. I warned him for the personal insult, just as David did with Pashley. And I also got accused of being unfair. However, the vast majority of posters understand that David and I can debate, and give and take a certain degree of aggressiveness (you’ve been pretty aggressive yourself with David, Jodi, but since you did not break the “no direct personal insults” rule, I don’t believe you’ve gotten an official warning), but when someone breaks the rules, we have a responsibility to call them on it.
sdimbert, DavidB is both a moderator and a poster on this board.
How I see it:
DavidB said:
First, Pashley had a long history of belligerence, bashing, baiting, trolling and stupidity on this board (he has, fortunately, changed somewhat for the better, at least with me), so reacting harshly to him is nothing new, nor is it only the trait of DavidB. Second, I don’t take this as anything particularly harsh - typical posting style on this board, I’d say, especially when it comes to the C/E debate - both sides can get pretty passionate (and yes, DavidB can pretty much be as abusive as the best of them).
Then Pashley said:
Now that was uncalled for. So, when DavidB replied:
He was well within his rights. First, note that he specifically used the [Moderator Hat] thingy that moderators use to distinguish when they are espousing their own views (i.e., C vs. E) and when they are acting in an official moderator capacity (i.e., Pashley used offensive language, and that is clearly not permitted in Great Debates).
I have never seen a Mod cross the line between their moderating responsibilities and their personal discussions. I don’t see why, because they are a Moderator, they should have to curtail their opinions and/or their debating style and/or their willingness to participate in discussions. Hell, half of them are Mods because they’ve been arguing here for so long.
Was DavidB out of line? No. Was he argumentative, offensive and belligerent? Maybe, and maybe he usually is; but then, so are a lot of other posters out there (me included, on some days). Was Pashley out of line? Maybe, maybe not, but he also clearly broke a GD rule, and DavidB was obliged to point that out to him. (You’ll also notice the thread was not automatically close or moved to the Pit - it was just a point he made.)
Isn’t this an ancient thread anyway? I thought this happened weeks ago?
I don’t have much of a stake in the original thread - I just wondered about the way DavidB acted. And you know what? Upon re-reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that I made a mountain out of a mole hill.
DavidB handled himself admirably - I like the way he uses his modhat to let the rest of us know in which capacityu he is posting!
I guess I wasted some space in the Pit. I would hate to have done that… so:
**
A: “Oh yeah?!? You’re an poopyhead!”
B: “You think so?!? You stupid, ugly booger-butt!”**
Whew - glad we avoided wasting everyone’s time on a BBQ Pit Thread with no flames.
(I never was very good at those vulgar, clever insults.)
And I am not questioning the propriety of his action; I’m merely pointing out that arguing with someone who is both a participant and the referee can seem unfair to other participants – because the “ref” has the ability to chastize others when they go over the line, but the other posters do not enjoy the same authority.
Maybe so, but the partiality is not so obvious; I mean, you’re not using your moderator powers to defend yourself. Not that I’m saying David did this either, but surely you can see how it might appear so. In fact, there’s nothing that David could do to make it not appear so. Which is why it seems that one of you should be the cop if the other is deeply involved in the debate and if that is possible. I recognize that it might not always be possible, such as when you are both involved in a topic as posters, but it seems to me that simply because it wouldn’t work all the time is not much justification for not attempting to make it work as often as possible.
Well, since you two are held to the “higher standard” that I personally do not think you need to be, obviously the absence of one of you would not mean a flame-war broke out involving the other – because the other should know that he (or she) isn’t supposed to engage in flame wars in Great Debates anyway.
Which is all largely irrelevant, except to the extent that it highlights how having you (either of you) act as both police and participant in the same thread leaves an impression of unfairness, justified or not.
The point is that if you are being an agressive debater, and then use your authority as a moderator to chastise the ones you’ve been aggressively debating, it looks as if your animus (in the context of the debate) may motivate the chastisement. I’m not saying it is that way, just that it looks that way – which is why participants are rarely allowed to act as referees in any context.
Actually, I lost my temper and called him a patronizing weasel, but it did so in the Pit.
And I never said you didn’t, or that you shouldn’t. I’m just pointing out that if you’re in an argument with a poster, and then you chastise the poster in the role of moderator, people might well think part of the motivation is the chance to jump on them. For this reason, I think these situations should be avoided, if and when possible. That’s all.
