So factual jr modding is OK now?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fenris

Then you ask once. Maybe twice. Czar posted 10 times in that thread. The op? Four.

…Czarcasm responded to questions asked by the OP, he responded to other posters, I didn’t see anything excessive there.

Posting 2 times for every one post the OP makes is badgering by any definition.

No it most certainly isn’t. Demonstrably untrue. This thread is a fine example. I have posted many more times in this thread than the OP. Am I badgering anyone?

If it wasn’t Czarcasm who posted in that thread, would you be reacting the same way?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Morgenstern

I think you’re creative license is overactive in this regard.

…so you don’t want to “correct” me by stating what you actually meant? Fair enough. I’ll let your words speak for themselves.

[Morgenstern]

2 things;

1. Dex made it clear to me he wanted nothing more on the subject. I’m not going to feel around and fine out where he’s drawn the line with respect to commenting on any of that. It wouldn’t be wise now would it?

2. If Dex comes back and says it’s okay to respond, I will. Otherwise, I’ll leave it at what I said in post #99.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Morgenstern

2 things;

1. Dex made it clear to me he wanted nothing more on the subject. I’m not going to feel around and fine out where he’s drawn the line with respect to commenting on any of that. It wouldn’t be wise now would it?

2. If Dex comes back and says it’s okay to respond, I will. Otherwise, I’ll leave it at what I said in post #99.

…I don’t really care what you think is wise or not. You have stated I’m being creative with my interpretation of your words. I don’t think I have been. Feel free to either correct me or stop claiming I’m being creative in interpreting your words. Giraffe stated he couldn’t see the insult. I stated that a plain reading of your post would reveal what the insult was. If my plain reading of your post was incorrect, please feel free to either correct me, or if correcting me would violate the mod instructions, you would be better off not replying to me at all.

[Joey_P]

@Banquet_Bear

…Czarcasm responded to questions asked by the OP, he responded to other posters, I didn’t see anything excessive there.

It’s hard to see this as not being excessive…

@Czarcasm

Please cite any of these so-called “facts” that you wish to discuss. For example, it has been said by who that 1 in every 100 of us are psychopaths?

@Czarcasm

At least one of us understands the difference between “potentiality” and “reality”.

@Daz_the_burner_Rush

Czarcasm, if you were to correctly read my post i did not mention anything as ‘fact’, merely something that ‘has been said’.
I was trying to make the point that most of us now recognize that there are many functioning psychopaths within society, something that interests me. I do not pretend to know much on the subject, so please forgive me ‘Czarcasm’ for any future posts that do not contain accurate info.

@Czarcasm

Again, said by who?

@Daz_the_burner_Rush

Why exactly does this matter, if you understand the general point i was trying to make? It could be some bloke at a bar, it was a glib statement used to make a point.

@Czarcasm

It matters who said it if we are to consider it as a possible statement of fact.

@Daz_the_burner_Rush

I never asked for it to be considered a statement of fact, please read my previous post again. I think you want to reconsider using the word ‘we’, I think other people have read and understood my post as intended.

@Czarcasm

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.
Did you?

@Czarcasm

Since “psychopath” is a legal term rather than a medical term, and since legalities change from location to location, and since none of the laws that deal with “psychopathy” as they describe it get into its permanency there can be no factual answer to this question. Calls for individual opinions, probably best suited for Great Debates or IMHO?

@Czarcasm

Thanks for trying.
Where did you get that “80%” stat from jtur88?

IMO, the OP would have been best off asking for the thread to be closed and re-writing it with that line left out (since it was just a throwaway line), then reporting Czarcasm if he brings it up again in the new thread.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Joey_P

It’s hard to see this as not being excessive…

IMO, the OP would have been best off asking for the thread to be closed and re-writing it with that line left out (since it was just a throwaway line), then reporting Czarcasm if he brings it up again in the new thread.

…it isn’t excessive just because you said so. One could argue my responses in this thread are excessive because people keep responding to me, so I respond to them. Czarcasm clearly was responding to questions or comments asked of him by Daz ‘the burner’ Rush in most of those posts, and was responding to questions posed to him by others in the thread. If you don’t want Czarcasm to respond to your posts, simply stop talking to him. But asking him to not respond to questions or comments directed at him is excessive, to be honest.

[Morgenstern]

@Banquet_Bear

…I don’t really care what you think is wise or not. …

There’s not much point in going on now is there?

I believe my hands are tied, with respect to answering your question, by what Dex posted as a staff member in this thread. Perhaps you should read what he posted before continuing this.
Which is why I, once again, refer you to post #99.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Joey_P

IMO, the OP would have been best off asking for the thread to be closed and re-writing it with that line left out (since it was just a throwaway line), then reporting Czarcasm if he brings it up again in the new thread.

Alternately, a gentle note to Czarcasm that if he’s really curious about a throwaway line like that in an OP, he should:

1. Wait until there are some substantive answers to the OP’s question before asking something like that;
2. Read carefully to be sure he understands what the throwaway line is really saying;
3. Try to Google the answer himself before asking about it in thread; and
4. Make his request polite.

Again, this isn’t about Czarcasm: this is about asking folks in GQ to contribute to threads they’re in. Czarcasm is in this thread because his posts in that thread provide an excellent example of what happens when folks aren’t asked to contribute in a thoughtful, civil manner.

Because the thing is, the OP asked an interesting question – essentially, is sociopathy nature or nurture–and he buttressed it with an interesting, reasonably-remembered fact about the prevalence of sociopathy. A good discussion eventually got underway, about a related question, but it took a long time, given the back-and-forth about the fact that wasn’t central to the OP and anyway was trivial to find cites for on Ask Jeeves or whatever. The board would be better if folks were encouraged to follow the steps above.

And if that contains an insult, then I’ll throw up my hands and take my warning.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Morgenstern

There’s not much point in going on now is there?

…thats completely over to you.

[Fenris]

@Joey_P

It’s hard to see this as not being excessive…

I’d normally say that this was a great post, but under the exciting new ATMB rules, since any mention of certain posters names may be “piling on”, this post was probably best suited for the Pit?* Of course, the question of how one discusses moderation without the moderated/unmoderated poster being mentioned is an exercise best left to the reader.
*I’m thrilled to hear that this isn’t “junior modding”, as I’m going to be using it a lot in GD for certain posters. I always thought telling a poster that they posted in the wrong place was pretty much the epitome of junior modding, but hey! Per Colibri and Dex, it’s not only not that, but actually welcome. Note, that to use this rule, you have to put a question mark at the end, so it’s a suggestion (sorta. In a semi-literate way) not a demand.

[Fenris]

@Banquet_Bear

…thats completely over to you.

If your posts are designed to attempt to get another poster to violate moderator instructions, wouldn’t this be better suited for the Pit?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fenris

If your posts are designed to attempt to get another poster to violate moderator instructions, wouldn’t this be better suited for the Pit?

…my posts weren’t designed that way at all. A plain reading of them would show that. If he wants to accuse me of something, he can either correct me or stop accusing me of something. But if he wants to know if there is a point to him going on, it is entirely over to him. But accusing me of something: then claiming that he can’t explain why he is accusing me of something because that would violate his instructions is disingenuous. Just stop accusing me already. I was initially responding to Giraffe, who couldn’t see the insult. That was entirely within the scope of this thread.

[Fenris]

@Banquet_Bear

…my posts weren’t designed that way at all.

Then I [del]stand[/del] sit corrected.

[Joey_P]

@Banquet_Bear

…it isn’t excessive just because you said so. One could argue my responses in this thread are excessive because people keep responding to me, so I respond to them. Czarcasm clearly was responding to questions or comments asked of him by Daz ‘the burner’ Rush in most of those posts, and was responding to questions posed to him by others in the thread. If you don’t want Czarcasm to respond to your posts, simply stop talking to him. But asking him to not respond to questions or comments directed at him is excessive, to be honest.

But Czarcasm was essentially just responding to himself. He created a question that had no bearing on the OP, then demanded cites. It should have taken no more than one post from Daz to say ‘ignore that line, it’s not really part of my question’ for Czar to say ‘okay, nevermind’. I’ll even give it two back and forths, but that went on for a while. I count him asking 6 times about it. As I said before, if Czar disliked the way the question was worded and wasn’t getting the clarification he wanted, he should have just walked away.

Someone suggested to Daz that he stop responding to Czar and we all saw how that worked out.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Joey_P

But Czarcasm was essentially just responding to himself.

…he literally and objectively wasn’t responding to himself. He actually responded to other people.

He created a question that had no bearing on the OP, then demanded cites.

The OP postulated a situation built on assumptions and inaccuracies and asked us to answer a question that assumed those assumptions and inaccuracies were correct.

It should have taken no more than one post from Daz to say ‘ignore that line, it’s not really part of my question’ for Czar to say ‘okay, nevermind’.

It wasn’t just the one line that I’m gonna assume Czarcasm took issue with.

I’ll even give it two back and forths, but that went on for a while. I count him asking 6 times about it. As I said before, if Czar disliked the way the question was worded and wasn’t getting the clarification he wanted, he should have just walked away.

It takes more than one person to “derail” a thread. Czarcasm could have walked away. I don’t quite see why he needed to though, to be honest. As has been pointed out, his interactions in that thread was not against the rules. He was responding to questions and comments put to him directly. There are far worse examples of rudeness in General Questions that the mods have deemed are not actionable.

Someone suggested to Daz that he stop responding to Czar and we all saw how that worked out.

There are ways of making that suggestion that comply with the rules.

[Morgenstern]

@Fenris

If your posts are designed to attempt to get another poster to violate moderator instructions, wouldn’t this be better suited for the Pit?

Here’s the problem with that. Discussing (as might be the case herein) board moderation in the pit is against the rules there.

So, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Ain’t all these rules fun.

[Joey_P]

As written, the OP said

Here’s a thought.
Is psychopathy a basic, unaltered human condition?
Please nobody answer who, after reading the word ‘psychopath’ thinks ‘mindless serial killers’.
These days many of us are aware that psychopaths walk among us. In fact, it has been said that 1 in every 100 of us are psychopaths, or at the very least have psychopathic traits.
Those traits can be; lack of empathy, lack of ability to follow o ‘life plan’, unreliability.
I was thinking that these so-called psychopathic traits, and others, are traits that i think people are probably generally born with, and that it is learned behaviour that subsequently causes these traits to diminish.
Even the lack of fear thing, I know that people who know about this stuff put a lot down to an abnormality in the amygdala, but if an individual was never civilized, could he/she be considered a pychopath?

It could have been changed to this and remained the same…

Here’s a thought.
Is psychopathy a basic, unaltered human condition?
Please nobody answer who, after reading the word ‘psychopath’ thinks ‘mindless serial killers’.
The traits can be; lack of empathy, lack of ability to follow o ‘life plan’, unreliability.
I was thinking that these so-called psychopathic traits, and others, are traits that i think people are probably generally born with, and that it is learned behaviour that subsequently causes these traits to diminish.
Even the lack of fear thing, I know that people who know about this stuff put a lot down to an abnormality in the amygdala, but if an individual was never civilized, could he/she be considered a pychopath?

Either way the questions are:
Is psychopathy a basic, unaltered human condition?
and
If an individual was never civilized, could he/she be considered a pychopath?

The 1 in 100 thing really never comes into play. Left out, the questions remain the same. Without it, it wouldn’t have been there to nitpick. What if Daz had said ‘I made it up, move on’? What if he had said “Okay, I did some research, here’s a cite, it’s actually 1 in xxx”. What difference would it have made to the parts of the OP that ended with question marks?

[Sarahfeena]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

You can say whatever you want about the POST, but not about the POSTER. “That post reflects ignorance” is different from “You are an ignoramus.” That’s the way it’s always been. And, yes, I quite agree, Cecil’s columns would not be acceptable on our boards. I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything.

The Pit can be used for criticizing Czarcasm for being annoying. ATMB is used for criticizing moderator actions in not scolding Czarcasm for being annoying. (Cartoonverse, does that answer your supposed paradox?) There is a clear distinction, that seems to be deliberately being blurred (or ignored.) Of course, the problem with this distinction is that IT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES TO BE ANNOYING. Hence, the current ATMB thread yelling about the moderators failure to scold Czarcasm, to which the answer is still IT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES TO BE ANNOYING.

Giraffe, you have asked me to “think through the consequences” of what I’m saying. I respectfully suggest the same for you: do you REALLY want the mods to issue warnings/reminders/notes to people for being annoying?

Again, the diff is between “Your post sucks” and “You suck.” The former is NOT a personal insult (generally speaking) while the later is.

You know what should be against the rules? Nitpicking an irrelevant point to the extent that a thread is totally derailed and becomes about the irrelevant point rather than the actual topic, for no other apparent reason than to try to prove to everyone how smart you are. Is there a rule for that?

[Fenris]

@Banquet_Bear

There are ways of making that suggestion that comply with the rules.

Up until that thread, I was completely within the rules*. Suggesting (not ordering, suggesting a new poster ignore known obnoxious behavior by a poster notorious for it, has been a welcomed thing up until that post.

Here’s a specific example from ATMB. Note post 108, where I do exactly the same thing I did in the GQ thread and note posts 112 and 113 where Marley and Colibri(!) point-blank tell the poster I was talking about that I broke no rules at all when I warned people about the poster’s previous behavior.
*I was noted for “junior modding” which it wasn’t, by any definition of the rule before or (I’ll bet) in the future.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Joey_P

As written, the OP said
It could have been changed to this and remained the same…
Either way the questions are:
Is psychopathy a basic, unaltered human condition?
and
If an individual was never civilized, could he/she be considered a pychopath?

The 1 in 100 thing really never comes into play. Left out, the questions remain the same. Without it, it wouldn’t have been there to nitpick. What if Daz had said ‘I made it up, move on’? What if he had said “Okay, I did some research, here’s a cite, it’s actually 1 in xxx”. What difference would it have made to the parts of the OP that ended with question marks?

…It isn’t just the 1 in 100 question. Its the implication that they “walk among us”, that these are traits that we are generally born with, and that learned behaviour causes those traits to diminish. I think it is entirely fair for someone to address all of those points before we get to the actual question, don’t you?