By explaining what you meant by this
This is the part that confused me. To which post of mine are you referring to, and to what “pejorative” are you referring to?
It wasn’t the use of the word “fuck” (or its cognates) that caused Dex to remind her of the rules. It was the fact that the last paragraph was directed ad hominem in an insulting way at the person who posted the OP. Una herself has admitted that she would not have posted what she did if she had not thought she was in Teh Pit; she acknowledges that she was overstepping the bounds of ATMB.
And this is precisely what is being explained to you. To the extent that a person has a criticism of something a moderator has done, that criticism needs to be expressed in terms of the action, not in terms of the moderator. The only thing that having moderator/administrator criticisms in the Pit did was allow posters to insult the staff member while whinging about the staff member’s actions. For reasons that are easily understood, generally agreed upon (with a few vocal exceptions), and universally desired by said staff, that’s no longer an option.
So if you get upset that a moderator has shut your thread down, for example, you can start a thread in ATMB and state that the decision to do so was “the most fucking retarded decision in the history of mankind, dwarfing the choice to allow Hitler the right to partition Czechoslovakia by orders of magnitude!” But you would be wrong to complain about the decision by saying, “[Moderator], you’re a douchebag for closing that thread.”
It’s really not that hard to understand. 
Nor is the position that it sets up an unfair dynamic. However, since semantics seem to be the last refuge for those who refuse to acknowledge that any other position may be valid, I’ll let it stand. Is this where I insert the gratuitous smiley to hide behind and prove my post isn’t really an insult?
You have yet to demonstrate an unfair dynamic that exists. Perhaps you need to be more plain?
/Off Topic
OK, DSYoungEsq, just who are you anyway? Could you once, just once, write something a bit inflammatory or against TPTB instead of always painting the argument in the best possible light for the staff? Or, if you can’t do that, could you follow me around the board and support any and all positions I express? It would be a great help! 
(I hope you take this in the humor in which it was intended. If I had a real problem, I’d start a thread about you in the pit. Or ATMB. Or just pick a place and let the mods move it. )
Off Topic/
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
You haven’t bribed me nearly well enough for that. That sounds like it would take chocolate, and I’m assuming you already use whatever chocolate you have to bribe the tuba-playing diva. 
And you would NOT be the first. 
Do you mean something like this ad hominem?
In the referenced thread, which I believe TubaDiva closed prematurely and without regard to the entire context of the thread, I had no idea that we could no longer Pit mods. I thought there was simply a list of forbidden words.
At any rate, it comes across to me that you are speaking on behalf of the mods and admins, “explaining” things that it seems to me that they would be perfectly capable of explaining themselves. The whole while, it does not seem clear that you are addressing Syntropy’s concerns. In other words, I cannot see how your responses to Syntropy do not constitute the “squabbling” about which TubaDiva complained in the original thread based, apparently, on a single post out of all the posts, while your posts have been a long chain of squabbles in a rather lecturing tone.
In addition, your explanation about Una’s ad hominem, while posting things to Syntropy like “You have yet to demonstrate an unfair dynamic that exists. Perhaps you need to be more plain?” is breathtakingly ironic.
But with regard to the topic (if you’ll indulge a brief return to it), it does seem, at least to me, a bit out of whack when posters can insult one another in the Pit, but not insult mods. It’s like telling customers at WalMart that they can call one another assholes but not call the manager one — even if an asshole is exactly what he is behaving as. The manager can toss you out of the store simply because you came in to buy a bucket of paint and became momentarily distracted as you passed by the display of kitchen ware.
I don’t know, honestly. I don’t know anything about any of this. It doesn’t make any sense to me, and your explanations, though not helpful, are at least a step above “now we’re all just squabbling” followed by a lockdown. But only a step. Unless I am banned or suspended, I intend to complete my series of threads in Great Debates. In the meantime, if you can figure out where I should have placed my complaint, which involved a perceived double standard in moderation along with references and quotes from a specific poster, then by all means step in front of a mod and explain it to me.
DSYoungEsq: I appreciate you leaping to my defense, but it’s really not necessary. The mods can explain such things for ourselves, methinks, and your posts are bordering on the dread “junior modding.” We’re glad for people to speak up on our behalf and to re-state what we’ve said before (it’s not “junior modding” to repeat what the mods have said in general terms), but it does get kind of… itchy. (This ain’t any kind of warning, neither official nor unofficial, it’s just a friendly reminder to sort of watch when you’re getting close to the “jr-mod” line.)
For those who are still confused:
- You may be as critical of mod actions as you wish in ATMB, but your comments need to be about the mod’s actions, and not the mod’s personality, intelligence, mother, sexual habits, etc
- You can certainly start Pit threads about the mods for their roles as poster (separate from their role as moderator.) It’s almost always clear when a mod is posting as a poster, and thus subject to the same sort of Pit attacks as any other poster; vs when a mod is doing official moderator duties, subject to ATMB criticisms.
EXAMPLE 1: This post of mine is a moderator statement (clearly) and if you dislike what I’m saying, the place to challenge it is in the ATMB (continuing in this thread, for instance.)
EXAMPLE 2 [Imaginary]: In a thread about STAR WARS Epsiode 1, I post that the film is “a masterpiece of French expressionism.” You dislike what I say and start a Pit thread about me, saying that I’m the stupidest asshole in world. That’s perfectly OK.
So, we’re asking that our posters be able to distinguish two things:
(1) Between what a person says and who the person is; and
(2) Between what a moderator says when doing moderating duties, and what a moderator says when just being a regular ol’ poster.
Shouldn’t hurt the grey cells too much to make such distinctions, right?
It sounds to me very much like the longstanding distinction in Great Debates between attacking the post and attacking the poster.
Acceptable: That’s the most stupid drivel I’ve ever read.
Unacceptable: You’re the most supid poster I’ve ever encountered.
That’s pretty easy. And if I understand you correctly, the following applies here.
Acceptable: Complain about moderator/admin decisions/rulings in ATMB, but keep the complaint specific, on target, and devoid of insults or curses.
Acceptable: Complain about posts made by moderators in their capacity as posters in the Pit, where they may be called any names not on the forbidden list (wherever it is; I’m not sure).
If that’s the gist of it, then I think the problem with my post combined two things:
(1) I had a complaint about a ruling Tom had made, and
(2) I had a complaint about Der Trihs as a poster being given Carte Blanche for blasting people (including board members) for their religious faith based on the reasoning that he has done it for a long time and it is to be expected of him.
I opened it in the Pit (honestly unaware of any new rule), but a mod moved it here. I cited a rule from your stickies in ATMB (which you will recall I had volunteered to proofread, and which is why the rule was fresh in my mind). It was at that point that someone mentioned that all but one of the options, namely religion, involved things people had no choice over — such as their race — but did not voice the same opintion about their location, over which people certainly have a choice, unless they are too poor or too young to move. I challenged that one single specific claim that one’s faith is a choice (it isn’t, at least not for me).
And then suddenly, bam! TubaDiva shut it down as being too far off course. It seems to me that, as the OP of the thread, I should have at least some say over what course it should take. If there was any “squabbling” (her word), it was extremely brief, and was not headed off in that direction. So I suppose the correct thing to do was to open the thread here, and then respond to the remark made by Left Hand of Dorkness in the Pit with a courtesy link.
Is that right? Am I completely off the mark? Is there something in between? Could TubaDiva not have merely made some notation about a potential to veer off course without shutting the discussion completely down? I mean, the problem of Der Trihs shitting in nearly every thread at any mention of religion or faith still persists. Is it simply a hands-off topic?
Would you care to explain how you view the sentences “You have yet to demonstrate that an unfair dynamic exists. Perhpas you need to be more plain?” to be in anyway examples of argumentum ad hominem?
They are precisely what is allowed here: pointed statements that make assertions not about the poster, but about what is being posted (in this case, lack of demonstration of unfair dynamics). Not only that, but that post was a cogent and reasonably worded effort to get the poster in question to clarify what, if any, valid point was being made about an “unfair dynamic.”
If that’s breathtakingly ironic, you need to recalibrate your irony meter. :dubious:
@ Dex: Okay, but I would really like to know how what I was saying was any more “junior modding” than what Arnold was saying in the series of posts that lead up to mine?
Because their subjects are second person pronouns.
The post came across to me as snotty. Syntropy had already said that he was being as plain as he can. The implication that he should be more plain, especially constructed as a rhetorical question playing on his own word usage, came across to me as rude. It is not only the mods who, from time to time, merit someone coming to their defense.
Liberal, you should know better than to assert that an argumentum ad hominem occurs whenever the pronoun “you” is used. I certainly hope you know better. :dubious:
In case you don’t, arguing “ad hominem” occurs when you assert something about the person with whom you are arguing, and attempt to cast doubt upon the merit of what they have said through your assertion about them as a person. If I say to you, “your argument has no merit because you support it with no evidence”, I’ve used second person but I’ve certainly not used an ad hominem argument. If I say, “you are a notorious liar, so your argument has no merit”, then I am engaging in an ad hominem.
My statements were in no way examples of arguing through an attack on the person.
ETA: Now, as to irony, the irony of you asserting that Syntropy needs someone coming to his defense after castigating me for coming to the defense of the mods certainly ranks up there.
Yes, yes, I know there is a difference, but still…
Actually, the irony seems to be that clarity is being demanded by someone who has completely tortured my original point and the entire point of the thread to mean that certain posters want to shout obscenities at TPTB. Not the case. However, since it needs restating, allow me to put it in terms even an attorney cannot misconstrue:
In starting an ATMB thread requesting action regarding a certain moderator’s actions (saying Pitting was ever so much easier btw) one must abide by certain rules regardless of how high feeling may be running, because this is ATMB after all. Posts in ATMB have always been held to a higher standard than posts on the rest of the board with the possible exception of General Questions. Even the slightest hint of wrangling or hijack gets the thread rerouted. But since criticism of the board or its moderators/admins cannot go anywhere else, what happens is it gets closed. And now we’re told “Well, just open a pit thread and pit that person, so long as you’re pitting them as a poster, not a mod.” Excuse me? You want me to open multiple threads? You want me to complain about the complaint that wasn’t dealt with because the original complaint thread was closed? But…the hamsters! The beloved, poor, tortured overworked hamsters! As little as a year ago we were told not to open multiple threads about the same issue, that in fact multiple threads on the same issue would be combined because the hamsters were nigh running their feet off. Now we’re encouraged to do so?,
At the same time, moderators are allowed to determine, using their own judgment, whether or not a post is insulting and close said thread while at the same time being as snarky as they’d like. THIS is the unfair dynamic of which I spoke earlier. Nothing to do with wanting to call the moderators nasty names, although I can understand why it would be preferable to think that’s what I’m referring to.
And as for the whole swearing thing. It’s true. I’m sorry. I’m an awful human being. The word ‘fuck’ doesn’t offend me. Nor does ‘cunt’. Most especially not when directed at me by some two dimensional words on a screen by someone I have never met. I have an unreasonable opinion that adults should be able to speak freely including use of the occasional obscenity for emphasis. We are all adults here; there’s an age requirement right there in the rules. I read them all.
In addition, I have the temerity to believe that customer service should not be a dead skill. Whether or not the moderators and admins wish to acknowledge it, they are offering a service to the customers who are providing the content. This should be a give and take on both sides, not a proclamation from on high.
So that’s it. Clearly I am a dangerous individual and should be kept away from all right-thinking people. Fortunately, we have those of the order of the brown tongue to do that for the rest of the population. And thank you, DSYoung for generously adopting that role.
Oh. And FYI: I’m female.
Our assumption is that you can complain about a moderator action without insulting the moderator. No, we don’t want you to open multiple threads. Restating:
(1) **Complaints about moderator actions should be in ATMB, and personal insults are not permitted. **This isn’t that hard to understand. If a cop stops you for speeding and you weren’t speeding, swearing at the cop isn’t going to help. Calling the judge a cunt isn’t going to help. Not even if your "feelings are running high."The question is the issue of whether you were speeding, and it should be possible to discuss that based on the evidence (or lack thereof), and the legal process. Even in cases where feelings run high, I don’t recall ever reading a legal appeal that involved calling the judge a motherfucker. Of course, I could be wrong, I don’t read many legal appeals.
Anyhow, back to the point: no, you may not open multiple threads on the same complaint, and no, you may not insult the moderator as a person.
As has been noted several times above:
ACCEPTABLE: That was the dumbest moderating decision ever.
NOT ACCEPTABLE: You are the dumbest moderator ever.
ACCEPTABLE: That was a shitty ruling.
NOT ACCEPTABLE: You are a shitty person.
Is this really that hard to grasp?
(2) **Moderators in their role of posters (NOT in their role as moderators) can be pitted like anyone else.**To go back to the legal example: you don’t call the judge a motherfucker in court, you discuss the issues. However, if you meet the judge at a party and he fondles your wife, you can certainly call him any name you want. He’s not on the bench, he’s not being a judge, he’s just a person at a party.
Similarly, if a moderator is posting about politics, religion, the arts, games, social events, whatever: you can pit the moderator just like anyone else. What you CANNOT do is pit the moderator for moderating decisions.
Again, no, you may not open multiple threads. It’s really a question of what your thread is about. If it’s about a moderator decision, it goes in ATMB. If it’s about the moderator as a person/poster (and NOT about her/his moderating decisions) it can go in the Pit.
I agree, and this should NOT be happening. Under the old rules, when posts about moderating decisions were in the Pit, there was a considerable build-up of frustration amongst the mods who were not permitted to respond in kind. Hence, there was a certain amount of snarkiness on their part. This should not be happening any more. If it does, please email one of the administrators (cite reference, please.)
Obviously (I hope), this refers to when a moderator is doing moderating. If a moderator is posting as a normal poster, he/she can be as snarky as anyone.
Again, we are asking that you make two distinctions:
- Moderator actions vs moderator person
- Moderator as moderator vs moderator as poster
We really don’t think it’s that hard. It’s standard debate practice from high school. It’s common enough everywhere in the world – if you go to complain to a retail store about a faulty product, you talk about the product. You swear about it, even. But you don’t insult the clerk, not if you want help. If your steak is overcooked at a restaurant, you talk to the waiter about the steak, not about his parentage. If your computer is hiccoughing, you tell the service representative about what the computer is doing, you don’t make racial remarks about Indian nationals.
Thank you Dex. I appreciate and understand the reasoning behind everything you posted but this:
Please understand that this is merely my personal opinion, but if you’re going to make a rule that personal insults are alright in the pit…except for THESE people… it won’t work. I may be wrong and I hope for the board’s sake I am.
A brief aside, if I may. Your age is as telling as mine. When I was in high school debate, we were taught to speak with elocution and clear enunciation, and to use tools of rhetoric. But recently, I saw a documentary (HBO, I think) about modern high school debate. They speak like auctioneers on meth, except for taking fewer breaths. Only specially trained people can even understand what they’re saying in order to score them. They are scored, not by making the most compelling argument, but by making more points than the other team; i.e., listing more items, no matter how weak or strong they are. The documentary did not cover how debate descended to this sort of exercise, but it must have happened after the early 1970s. And it would explain the nature of talking heads on the news these days as opposed to those in days of yore, when they had more than twenty seconds to comment on the president’s latest speech.
My sense of the reading was that you could not insult the moderator as a person* in ATMB, while you are complaining about their moderation*. Dex seemed to me to be saying that insulting moderators in the Pit about something they posted as ordinary posters is fair game. Then again, I could be wet as a frog in a pond.
Correct.
Which part? The frog thing?