But make sure the BrainGlutton part is just a few words and a link. No substance:
[QUOTE=His Portion]
Duck and Chicken
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. And let’s remember the forum this was in. This wasn’t GD or the Pitt.
Moderator Note
Let’s not take pot shots at folks who aren’t here to defend themselves. No more food-related mocking comments, please.
Not mine. This board is centrist, with a strong Right (libertarian) minority. I’ve been a member on strongly Leftist boards - the difference is night and day. I come here because it isn’t the echo chamber for the Left you seem to think it is.
Some views aren’t worthy of respect.
Like I’ve said before, we shouldn’t need to show that e.g. racism is wrong or dangerous every time it appears. It’s already been shown. Presumption isn’t a problem there at all. It’s a great convenience.
Of course, DerTrihs and The Second Stone both complained bitterly about the right-wing bias of the board and the moderators.
You can look at JC’s ban list and see that your claims are empirically falsified to the point of being butthurt.
Oh and guess what? I am very careful about the views I express here because I am expressing them in a public forum. By careful I mean that I anticipate the views of those who disagree with me and attempt to address them in my posts. You are correct that this board holds its poster to certain standards. They are not academic ones incidentally - they are nowhere near that high nor should they be. This is a generalist message board. But when you bring unsubstantiated feelings to your table, you should expect to have your views characterized as such. That’s the way we roll.
Generally speaking suspended posters don’t last very long: Der Trihs was correct to accept his de facto banning IMHO. But Brainglutton’s modded infractions seemed correctable. I opine that he posted useful content: his links were almost invariably relevant to the topic at hand and his sourcing did not trend crackpot. The phrase, “Cite?!” is a bit of a running joke here, but I think adding facts to the mix tends to fight ignorance more than it discourages it. In other words, I think BG’s posting style should be encouraged - but is also worthy of debate in ATMB. I’m setting certain low proportion posts aside.
Does BG derail threads? No? Then he probably isn’t a much of a problem poster. (Yeah, yeah spammers don’t derail threads either - I’m not trying to limit scope for mod sanction here.)
Does BG respond to well formed questions intended to clarify his links? I’m guessing he does, but I’m not sure.
This board also has a presumption against the time cube guy and other crackpots. As it should.
That presumption leads to you, and others, falsely calling opinions or people racist, as an attempt to shut down those views. I’m sure you do find it convenient not to have to argue with those you disagree with, though.
Wait, I can shut down people I would rather not argue with? Or not have to argue with people I disagree with? How do I get in on that? (Other than not arguing with people I’d rather not argue with, that is.)
Which is why we get complaints that we allow racists to post here. Provided such people are polite they’re welcome. They may get argued against, sure. But such is the risk they take.
There is room at the SDMB table for all provided they remain civil and follow the rules.
As MfM said, your argument is demonstrably wrong. You’re certainly free to believe it. But don’t expect others to not argue against it. If that makes you feel you’re being oppressed perhaps you should think on the meaning of the word.
This is one of those posts that is its own refutation. Those views have not been shut down, and you continue to argue with those you disagree with. Seems like the strategy has failed.
To some extend, I agree with this. Other than the fact that there’s no plan for the board to lean left, it’s just that those who do make louder noises than those who lean the other way.
Look at any thread on Christianity. I can name at least one poster who will post, before the 10th post, loudly proclaiming he’s an atheist and that’s all there is to it, everything else is a fairy tale. Ya just learn that opinions are as common as zits on a 15 year old and move on.
I agree with the moderation in that thread, but I think that the violations were too trivial to act as the final straw for a banning and a suspension, respectively. For close to three pages there was a gun control debating going on. Then a mod steps in and says “No more, a poster here has lost a friend.”
Terr, at least I believe in good faith, thought that the school policy itself was not part of the national debate on what laws to pass against firearms. It was pretty close to the line and IMHO probably crossed it, but again, I don’t think it should have been enough to be the final straw.
Likewise with BrianGlutton. Yes, he continued to argue gun control, but so did a bunch of others who ignored the instruction. It wasn’t like he was making personal insults, being a jerk, etc.
I agree with the warnings, but not allowing them to act as the final straw. As far as warnings go, they were low level violations.
A camel’s back can take only so much straw.
The Something Awful forum mods ban people at the drop of a hat, but they’re (often) allowed back by re-buying their $9.95 membership. I’m not sure how well that would work here.
I feel similarly. When reposting to a thread, I try to read all the comments after my last post before posting the new one. But I miss stuff. And sometimes I’ll write a bunch of posts the night before and post them in the morning after I’ve had a chance to edit out the late-night stupids. Yes, I check what others have written in the interim, but I miss stuff. I could see myself running afoul of this.
I understand your concern. But you’d need to do it many times to have real trouble over it.
I avoided that thread, and continue to avoid that thread, because 1) I knew it was somehow going to turn into a gun control/gun rights issue because it always does, 2) I needed only to read the first post to realize that it wasn’t appropriate to post anything related to guns, and 3) as much sympathy as I have for Lancia (and I do have sympathy for her) it’s never easy to express on an impersonal message board and I’m not good at it.
How is it that I and so many others were able to recognize that yet there were still people looking to pick a fight? There’s a time and a place. The two posters in question never, ever recognize(d) that, not in that thread or any other.
Me three on this.
If you said you banned Terr for being a heartless bastard I couldn’t argue against it, but AFAIK there is no rule against that. I also believe he thought his post was within the rules, however insensitive. It shouldn’t have been the last straw.
And Ruken has a point about that thread in particular; before the title was edited it was generic, and it’s very common for people to jump in without reading the OP and not realize the intention of the thread. Also, there was another thread about it that linked to that thread, and was then closed, so a few people may have jumped in without reading the OP for that reason as well.
I know Terr wasn’t personally popular here, but he did contribute by sparking debate, and responding coherently. I think a lot of it was a cultural clash; not to generalize but Russian-Israelis are not known for being polite by Western standards, and being a minority POV means he was high risk for contentious discussions. Really, all minority POV posters are high risk for that reason.
I think this will be a loss to the MB. How many “me too” posts can we post or enjoy reading? Disagreement is what makes for an interesting debate. Without posters like Terr, our only option will be poking disposable socks and incoherent trolls. Let’s face it, he was the typical “poster you love to hate”.
BG is to me just an odd duck; I really don’t know why he runs afoul of the rules. In any case, he has another chance.
I am a conservative.
I believe I am a disproportionate target of vitriol here, and that my behavior is modded more strictly than that of my opponents.
I find it amazing that you and any other conservative posters seem to think this is somehow wrong or surprising. I’m fairly liberal, myself. If I were to find myself a message board that leaned right, and constantly challenge the prevailing point of view there, do you really think I’d be treated politely? I sincerely doubt it - I’m sure I’d get slammed on a regular basis. And that would be fine by me; it is what I would expect.
I am glad that we have some conservative posters here to generate arguments and force people to defend their views*. But the idea that anyone of any viewpoint who voluntarily posts contrary to the board zeitgeist, on any board, is not going to be heartily attacked (within whatever posting guidelines are in force, one hopes) is very odd.
*Though I myself stay out of GD, as I read and post here to relax, and for me that sort of thing is not relaxing.
That’s probably true. But often, I’d say you got it comin’.
Ontopic:
About Terr, I’m actually sad he’s gone. He was seethingly angry, but many times he had pretty good points.
Many of the conservatives here (not Bricker certainly) parrot what they hear on RW radio without consideration. I feel like Terr didn’t do that.