While I agree it deserved a note for a jab a Czarcasm, I don’t think it really merits being jr modding. In fact, it is rather salient advice in general - ignore the people who are trying to nitpick the point to death or derail the thread and engage the people who actually wish to discuss the topic.
I don’t think that falls in the same category as saying something like “it would be best if you don’t hurl insults in GQ - that can get you a warning”. That comment should be safe, yet is much closer to jr modding than suggesting the poster be selective in to whom he responds.
Here’s two warnings:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17254731#post17254731
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16899162#post16899162
And two "knock-it-off"s
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16883057#post16883057
As I stated, Wikipedia isn’t hard to find. If Czarcasm had actually wanted to have a cite for the factual statement he asked for a cite for, he could have spent less time Googling the answer than he spent asking for a cite for the statement. I cited the statement (at least, I cited the full statement, not Czarcasm’s incorrect paraphrase of it).
And that’s the difference. Czarcasm didn’t elicit factual posts in a meaningful sense; rather, he asked questions that were trivially answered, instead of taking the tiny bit of time to find those answers himself
True, I was snarky–but I also included information. That’s the difference that I’m drawing. Czarcasm’s posts neither included nor information nor asked nontrivial clarifying questions. My snark was content-rich; his was content-free. I’d like for content-free snark like his to be unwelcome in GQ.
Your information did not back up the claim the OP made, which I pointed out. 1 in 100 people being potential psychopaths is not 1 in 100 people being psychopaths.
edited to add: Please note that the OP had no idea what his source was.
I think this is part of the problem: the notion that if you can somehow (however torturously) prove others wrong it will make you right. This isn’t always the case. And in fact it is possible for a person to be right and still come across as a jerk (not calling you that, just sayin’).
Having said that and in the other thread you said “The OP is asking for opinions based on unattributed(and wrong) definitions and “facts”, and I just happened to notice what forum he posted this thread in.”
You must have had the right definition (or you wouldn’t have known the OP was wrong), so, why not just post it so the thread could continue to move forward?
“however torturously”
“not calling you that-just sayin’”
" “contributions” "
This well seems a bit poisoned to me.
The second part of that was an observation that the OP was calling for speculation from other posters in a forum that was designed for factual answers.
That’s why it’s important to locate your well and septic system correctly.
I would prefer to be on the same system as everybody else.
Nm
But you clearly had the answer to a question you asked him over and over, so you might as well have just posted it or stopped asking him for it.
I mean, when someone else attempted to answer it you said the answer was wrong, so you must have had the right answer.
Again, why not either post it or stop asking since the only person in that thread who was concerned about getting that question answered was you.
As the OP himself said it was just a throwaway line and had no bearing on his actual questions.
ETA, you’re that guy that raises his hand and answers rhetorical questions at lectures, aren’t you?
So maybe the OP, instead of saying 1 in 100 people are psychopaths, should have said, hold up,
[emphasis added]
Your desire to win the nitpickery prize apparently blinded you to the actual claim. In fact, in the post you JUST RESPONDED TO, I pointed out that your paraphrase was inaccurate, and you STILL didn’t go back to see what the actual claim was.
Great, so that’s another point on the scoresheet for you. Who cares? This isn’t a contest, and your treating it as one is unhelpful. The goal, rather than winning points, should be to address the question with information, not with irrelevant nitpickery questions.
Jon Ronson, the guy who wrote “The Men Who Stare At Goats” and “The Psychopath Test” stated that “One out of every 100 people walking around are psychopaths”
So there ya go, it’s a fact that it has been said 1 our of every 100 people walking around are psychopaths.
Will that put this to rest?
(Huff Post article with auto playing Daily Show clip)
I wasn’t involved in that thread. I didn’t even know about it till this one, but it is worse than advertised here. Czarcasm, you ought to be ashamed for thread shitting like that. What was your point in that, anyway? Mods, you should have given Czarcasm a note after his first post there. The do not be a jerk rule is still in effect, no?
Wow, this thread illustrates everything that’s wrong with the SDMB, and why I (and seemingly a lot of other posters) have drifted away. From the pedantic nitpicking of posts to the overabundance of ridiculous rules to the inability of the moderators to understand how the rules should actually function. What a mess.
Better watch out–my understanding is that this is now considered “junior modding” and “taking shots”. Of course, me suggesting that you “watch out” is apparently also “junior modding”.
MODERATOR BLOWS WHISTLE FOR ATTENTION:
You have been alerted, several times, that this is NOT a “pile on Czarcasm” thread. If you want to talk about him, then go to the Pit or some other forum where it’s appropriate. This is a thread about a moderator decision to give a “friendly reminder” to one poster and not another. The reasons for which have been explained, several times.
You will NOT issue personal insults in this forum. Didn’t I say, twice above, NOT to do that??? Third time’s the charm, and will result in an Official Warning.
Congrats, this post wins the “least connected to reality” prize of the day.
Meanwhile, I have asked Czarcasm not to post in this thread any longer. (This was a personal request, not a moderator instruction.) The thread will remain open so long as it is about moderator decision; it will be closed (with Warnings) the minute that it’s used to poke at Czarcasm (or anyone else.)
I’m confused. Which prizes are insults and which are not? Because, speaking only for myself, I’d feel far less attacked being accused of nitpickery than disconnected from reality.
C K Dexter Haven, you are performing your mod duties in this thread in a way that should make you ashamed of yourself.