"Respect and civility for all."

I know that threatening to quit isn’t going to get you any sympathy. Yeah the Russian troll bots and actual American Trump supporters can be frustrating. But you can handle those guys! Dust yourself off and get back in there, Buddy!

Oh, borscht! My last Czech bounced!

Maybe it was the Cruz part, in theory only a troll would vote for that man. Fellow Republicans consider him absolutely toxic. Trump was just a weird side-show by comparison. Now looks far more dangerous, but Cruz ::shudder::

As much as I love a relaxing round of golf, I’m not sure this guy would benefit from its therapeutic properties. :slight_smile:

I’ve isolated what I think are your main points:

This is a feature, rather than a bug. If a person stays within the rules, then ipso facto we as moderators will not penalize that person. That’s how rules are supposed to work. It’s perfectly acceptable to have opposing views, encouraged in fact in GD. It’s is the nature of the forum that people will weigh in on contentious topics and in doing so discussion can be passionate. The rules serve as a way to curtail some of our base urges in an effort to foster an environment where discussion can take place.

The alternative is a sort of moderation that doesn’t rely on actual known and written rules. Instead, moderation would be based on some unknown rule set that could change day to day. That doesn’t foster discussion. In short, if a poster stays within the rules, they will not be penalized. If a poster does not stay within the rules, then they will potentially be penalized.

Your call appears to be more instances of moderating for trolling, is that correct? If you were a moderator how would you write the hypothetical warning? ‘XYZ, you are receiving a warning for trolling because…’ then what? Perhaps you can craft the rule that can be applied generally and we can evaluate whether such a rule would be wise to adopt.

As an FYI, as far as using the warning more than once in a blue moon - warnings for trolling are the 4th most issued warning on the boards, though by a distant margin.

You got me curious.

Personal insults are #1.

That’s how it works on* every* forum I’m familiar with, including supposedly left wing ones. The rightists get treated with kid gloves and openly ignore the rules, while anyone who tries arguing with them gets hit with heavy penalties. It’s been true here for as long as I recall, resulting in a long-standing population of “race realists” and the like.

If you have a more compelling explanation for why someone would [claim to] support Trump, I’ll all ears.

By now you may be getting the idea … yes, this (the bit you are talking about) IS the board a great many of us want to have.

What I personally do NOT want is another place to be surrounded completely by those who think like I do and who do not challenge my positions or give me an opportunity to challenge theirs. I know what I think and why already.

Those with opinions very divergent to mine have in fact succeeded in getting me to change my positions on many subjects. I hope that sometimes it has gone the other way as well. And in any case making and reading the arguments has increased my ability to make the case that I believe in by better understanding how those with other thoughts have come to their positions.

I care less about you leaving than I care about one of those with positions very divergent to mine (who engages with some mutual respect or at least within the rules) leaving. Diversity of thought is desired and we got enough who think as you do on political matters.

If that is not what you want, if what you want is a place to go to commiserate with those who share your opinions without any dissent, then well, at least stay in MPSIMS, and out of Elections, GD, IMHO, the Pit, and probably Cafe Society. GQ should be okay too I guess. What is Marketplace like?

~63 million people voted for the man. I don’t think they are all on the Kremlin payroll.

Many do support Trump though I don’t know why. My own in-laws, voted for him though since the election, they’re regretting it. Hard to get, but many saw him as the lesser of 2 evils vs. Hillary.

Me, I held my nose less hard to vote for Hillary than the time I had to vote for Kerry/Edwards. That was tough. God, I actually enjoyed voting for Obama, can we please get some more candidates like him?

Items of a political nature are listed there on occasion.

Well, sure, it can look like our moderation/rules regime often comes down upon those of us who “should know better than that”, and allows for skirting just on the right side of the Letter of the Law. I am sure there will be cases where one side will feel they are being told to take the high road while the other guy is going “nyah, nyah, I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you!”
ISTM however this particular example was a confusingly light straw to break the camel’s back. Paraphrasing:

H: “Oh, I’m OK with Trump”
F: “Come on, you know he thinks you are a mindless idiot”
Mod: “You know better, don’t make it personal, keep it civil”

Looking at that, the way note alludes to personalizing the debate, lends itself to the interpretation that the problem was in the “you” usage in the course of interpreting the Combed Over One’s verbal effluvia that raised red flags. Which for all I know could have been a “generic you”. I am willing to be corrected if wrong but does that mean if the response had been impersonalized instead as in: “When Trump said he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes, he didn’t mean that as a complement. He was calling his base unthinking fools who would follow him regardless of his actions”, it might have remained within the bounds?

I’d honestly have to say a qualified ‘yes’ to that.

Personalizing arguments in Great Debates - and to a lesser extent Elections - is generally poor form. It takes things from an effort to find answers and Debate to accusations and insults and is nothing near best practices.

Even assuming it is poor form, I don’t see why that matters. The mods here don’t enforce best practices. I’ve never seen a mod come in and say “You should know better! In GQ, you should ask a question in a clear and precise manner with enough details to understand the question, but not enough to cause a distraction.” I don’t see people in this thread being told “You know better. It is poor form to further antagonize the poster who is clearly angry. It only makes them angrier.”

I admit that the actual post is a bit harsher than the paraphrase, but I can’t see at all how it’s some clear line that a poster should have known not to cross. There is no rule against “personalizing” a comment, and saying that “what he really meant was that he hates you” is not an uncommon thing I’ve read in very civil conversations.

In fact, that’s what I thought this thread would be about. All of these “You should know better” comments come off as belittling to me, like you think we’re assholes who are deliberately violating the rules. But the reality is that it’s not always clear where the line is. I doubt FYL thought he was even being uncivil.

And, even if you think it is clear, does it help? What does it accomplish? I’ve seen plenty of people get upset by it, but has the lack of such a statement resulted in people not following moderator directions?

It just seems, well, poor form, and not best practice. I’ve never seen it anywhere else online.

Was he Modded for being uncivil?

Or was he Modded for expressing an opinion as a direct, personal challenge with a high probability of starting a fight.

You would be correct that we do not have a rule against speaking to another poster. However, Mod notes instructing posters to back off and to not make a discussion into a personal feud are as old as the board, itself. (Without even getting into the whole issue of insults in the second person that are not strictly clear whether the “you” is personal or rhetorical.)

My own thought it was not clear whether the pronoun “you,” was used in its definite or indefinite sense.

(1) Trump thinks you [the general class of voters supporting him] are useful idiots.
(2) Trump thinks you [personally, the poster here] is a useful idiot.

In other words, I think JRDelirious is right on the money.

That said, there have been SDMB posters in the past who seem to equate disagreeable opinions with trolling. “No one could possibly genuinely hold that opinion,” the thinking seems to go in these cases, “so they must be trolling for a reaction.”

Figured that–but what are #2 and #3? Failure to follow mod directions is probably one of them, but what’s the other?

#2 is asking too many questions.