I’m sorry, could you repeat that?
S1: Look, conservatives are just evil people. Period.
S2: Bigots, racists and homophobes are evil. Conservatives are the same-- they’re evil.
Perhaps you see nuance in statement #2, but heck if I do. I see a bad analogy preceding the same statement.
We have a poster who has been saying X for a decade. A mod (finally) tells him to stop saying X or he’ll get a warning. He goes on to explain why X is perfectly true and OK (while still in GD, btw). No warning. Not even a mod note to “take it to ATMB”, or to stop the hijack discussion of the mod note in GD.
This just boggles the mind, given what is SOP around here when it comes to other posters.
The way you rewrote it, no there’s not much nuance. The way he actually wrote it, yes I see nuance.
The first attacked people, the second attacks beliefs. I can understand still seeing that as worthy of a note or warning and wouldn’t argue if that was the outcome. But given the thread topic, it didn’t cross the line to me and didn’t seem like that much of a hijack.
I think his arguments in that thread are lacking any substance, but the other posters should be the ones to call him on it. We don’t need the mods giving warning for every dumb argument out there.
Oh, my aching head.
- Jonathan “The guy who reads every damn post in GD” Chance
As someone incredibly wise and handsome said when you accepted the job:
You forgot “tall.”
Didn’t some poster get a “please don’t interfere with me more than once per thread” pass that other posters were supposed to respect?
Not on my watch.
There’s nothing special about “this” case. He is allowed to do what other posters are not in all cases.
In the last thread about this, the mods continued to hold the belief that in a thread about, say, stamp collectors, with stamp collectors participating, it is acceptable to insult stamp collectors as a group. They put up with his little fiction, and that’s there prerogative as mods. I think it’s silly, but I don’t have the coffee cup, so my opinion doesn’t count.
But here DT has argued with a mod decision in GD; a clearly warnable offense for all other posters, but once again come the kid gloves. I too would like to hear a rationale for that not being an official warning when it is to all other posters.
“Someone how supports…” is a person.
Then you agree with me-- we didn’t mean it this time when we said he’d get a warning if he did it again. Remember that was the point. He was told he’d get a warning. You’re saying that the statement about the warning should never have been made.
This really hinges on my decision to provide instruction rather than a warning. That decision was mine, but you, Mace, seem to feel that it is somehow indicative of all things that went before. I made no consultation on my handling of Der Trihs in that thread, nor do I usually.
Because of that, your silly, obsessive insistence that we all operate as a group is entirely unfounded. As if I would be part of something that set someone aside.
Now, were you capable of putting yourself outside of your outrage, you might see things as I do. That in the first post you cite him as ‘arguing my decision’ he is not. He is, perhaps unreasonably or not, taking issue with the substance of my post and not my moderating.
In the second post you cite again as him arguing - the one that starts “It’s not clear at all…” Der Trihs - to my mind, at least - was making the case for his argument and not against the moderation. In my subsequent post I redirected him towards a way in which he could better phrase his beliefs. Because that’s the issue, how he phrases his beliefs, not the substance of them.
Now we have you, Mace, insisting multiple times the astounding belief that what I thought I perceived wasn’t what I perceived. Or, to skit it out:
Me: I warned DT. Then he redirected his argument! Yay!
Mace: No he didn’t. You didn’t think that!
Me: Yes, I did.
Mace: No, you didn’t! He’s bad and should be punished!
Me: sigh I think I know what I thought.
Mace: It’s wrong!
Honestly, Mace. Do you really believe that your perceptions of what goes through my head are superior to my own? It seems so, as you accuse me of giving him a free ride as a part of some grand slackness of mods. This, despite the fact that I’ve only been doing this for a few weeks and consulted no one on this. Think hard about your behavior in this thread, Mace. It’s disappointing.
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7:3
If there’s anything I want my tenure as a mod in Great Debates to bring about, it’s a greater willingness of all participants to see the other guy’s side. Posters who refuse - as some do - to only obsessively believe that they are right and therefore the other side must be inherently, inevitably wrong - to demonize their debate opponents - are people who should know better.
I earnestly hope that you rethink this or else you have created another DT exception to the rules that applies to only him. “Oh he wasn’t arguing with the moderation, just the substance of my post!!!” But, your post WAS the moderation!
So not only can he hurl personal insults under the guise that he is simply insulting a group (which posters in the group have identified as belonging to) and hijack threads sometimes earning a simple mod note (and has been around long enough to know what hijacks threads), but now he is not arguing the moderation, just arguing the moderator’s posts discussing moderation.
I don’t think there is a grand mod conspiracy, and I realize that “it’s your first day” so to speak. But if you truly want the GD that you discuss, then DT needs some stern official warnings to correct his behavior. Everyone else complies with it, and on those occasions when we are tired, upset, grouchy, or drunk and don’t comply, we get a warning for it. All we ask is for some consistency.
Sorry, I’m not seeing the difference.
Plus, we have all seen numerous examples of the rank and file warned for just such “making the case for our arguments” after a mod note. It’s a double standard for DT.
[sup]*underlining mine[/sup]
Look, I understand the points of view you two are making. I simply disagree with them. Nonetheless, my stated purpose remains in effect and I’m going to do my best to make it happen.
I’m not outraged. I’m befuddled. If I were outraged, I’d be posting in the Pit. Disagreeing with you does not equal outrage.
I’m not expecting you or any of the moderators to change. I’m simply pointing out what I feel is poor moderation. That’s one purpose of this forum.
Huh?
What is this in reference to?
Sounds suspiciously like the NDE guy.
I doubt he believes he knows what you’re thinking. But you should appreciate that none of us know what you’re thinking. We see what you post. And John was not the only one who interpreted your posts the way he did. Regardless of what your intent was, it appeared to several of us that you gave a warning and then let it slide.
Then why are you demonizing John Mace, claiming opinions that he has not stated, and even pulling out a Bible quote to condemn him? Why are you treating him like he’s worthy of pity because he doesn’t agree with your (obviously correct) opinion?
And, no, it is not in any way obsessive to think that you should, a moderator of the SDMB message board, behave in a way similar to the other moderators. This isn’t the Jonathan Chance messageboard, where you get to make up your own rules and procedures. You have joined a group, and you are expected to operate in tandem with that group, and not go rogue and do things on your own.
For instance, there is no rule against making an unhelpfully hostile comment in GD. There’s simply the rule about attacking the post instead of the poster. And that rule is in fact enforced by giving a warning if the person does not stop. If someone argues with what you’ve said as a moderator, we do in fact expect you to tell them to take it to ATMB, and then give them a warning if they do not comply.
No one is telling you what you actually think. We are telling you what we think, and what we expect out of you as a moderator. Ultimately, what you think doesn’t really matter to us. All that matters to us is what you do, and we don’t think you did a good job in this instance.
You have the choice of listening to us and taking our views into account for next time, updating your views. Or you can do exactly what you claim John Mace is doing and just suppose that your point of view is right and that all others are wrong. I personally would rather have a moderator that did the former.
Uh oh.