Terr and BrainGlutton

About This Message Board
161

There have been a total of 3 policies on the lying in GD issue since the board started. Here they are.

  1. It is permitted to call something a lie or a person a liar in GD.
  2. The word lie or liar is needlessly hostile, but you are permitted to use other words that might be construed as euphemisms for the same.
  3. The status quo.

In the context of a Pit thread, I argued strenuously for a shift from era 1 to era 2. (Or rather, I pitted folks who called others liars in GD, “Others” being myself and another guy). I am mostly indifferent between 2 and 3. The longest era was era 2. There are arguments for and against all 3 calibrations. I’ll lay some out here.

1: For: The claim that someone is lying can be evaluated like any other claim. So we should allow it in GD. (Cite: Guadere).

Response: Actually, accusations of lying can involve mind reading. They also derail GD threads: instead of discussing the topic, the discussion shifts to the character and behavior of the poster. That sort of thing belongs in the pit.

Counter-response (paraphrase): “Chill out. I get called a liar all the time. It’s no big deal.”

Response by MfM: The hell?

Response by most people: Let it go dude.

Era 2. For: Accusations of calling someone a liar are needlessly hostile, possibly libelous. Saying a post is deceptive or even a poster is deceptive implies lying, but it includes a figleaf. Deception can be unintentional. Moreover, the word deception simply doesn’t pack as much punch as lying.

Critique: What? I don’t see the difference. If you say somebody is being disingenuous, you are calling them a liar. Either allow the accusation or don’t. Choose option 1 or 3. I don’t care.

MfM: (The hell?)

Era 3: We’re going to raise the bar and include certain phrases that can be construed as attacks on the poster, including “Deceptive”. OBTW, it’s not your intent that matters. It’s your meaning. There’s a difference.

MfM: The hell? I thought “Lie” had a certain tone.

Bone: Let’s go back to era 2.

MfM: Hey if the mods want to enforce the new regime, they should knock themselves out. There are stickies on the subject after all.

In general, lots of different policies have logical critiques and logical defenses. But the important criteria is what works in practice and what discourages train wrecks and derailments. And what encourages a less unpleasant atmosphere, understanding that the GD kitchen will inevitably be summery from time to time.

162

A better example would be the one referenced in this thread, where something is a personal insult coming from me but not coming from other posters in the same thread using the same terms, but who have different politics.

Or an earlier thread in ATMB discussing the time when Lynn Bodoni made up a rule on the spot in order to silence a poster for daring to question one of the sacred cows of liberalism in the US, which is Planned Parenthood.

The former mod manhattan is on record as no longer wanting to moderate here specifically because of hostility to conservatives.

:shrugs: - it’s like liberal bias in the US media. No level of evidence is going to be accepted.

Regards,
Shodan

163

I think that this board benefits from discussions between posters of different viewpoints. It makes things interesting. It is after all about the discussion of topics, the interaction that makes the talk stimulating.

It is unintentional, but the moderators do tend to reinforce the board culture. Which is a left leaning, insular view of the world in general. Very much of an echo chamber of correct thought, as determined by the major group. A small group of not even conservatives, but middle of the road US posters will get reported. Foaming at the mouth angry liberals get a pass. And BrainGutton will be back to continue his blather.

And no, don’t ask me for individual cites that we will endlessly argue about.

It is unfortunate that a formerly very interesting discussion board is dying on the vine. But it is. Terr is now gone. BrainGluten will be retained.

Bricker, Shodan, they will probably be moderated right of the board by Christmas. Watch what you say.

Revenue from this board as a business must no longer be important to Zotti. Maybe he is ill or infirm I do not know. I can think of no other explanation.

If you seek affirmation of your opinions, stay here while the balloon deflates. If you want real stimulating discussion from various views, you are going to need to look elsewhere.

164

I would oppose this unless we also discuss the policy of having one month suspensions representing a de facto last chance. I think Terr ran afoul of the rules. If you think this was a miscarriage, we should discuss the underlying policies (or rather guidelines). In theory, I like the lather, rinse, repeat policy of applying suspensions of longer and longer duration. But I have been assured that problem posters after a certain point show little hope of reform.

Incidentally, formerly banned posters are permitted to reapply for membership after a certain spell. This has occurred. But they have to write an honest and credible email, showing sincere desire to reform.

In Shodan’s linked thread for a 2010 incident, he was complaining about a mod note he received when he said in GD that a position “Was based on lies”. This came immediately after a post where a mod said not to call others stupid. Shodan wasn’t disobeying mod instructions per se, but he sure walked up to the line. That can get you a warning. The fact that Shodan received a note implies that he’s received special protection because he is part of the conservative minority here.
ETA:

I thought he decided he no longer wanted to participate here because of hostility to conservatives and that his decision to step down as mod happened months earlier.

165

Also, would you mind turning off the lights and holding a flashlight under your chin, so it’s extra chilling?

166

He didn’t get banned for THIS. He got banned for accumulated behavior and warnings.

167

And yet I do not see many posts that come off as accusing a poster of lying getting by without moderation no matter who says it and do see many “liberal” posters getting moderated for similar behaviors. Moreover I suspect that even Bricker has posts that some feel should have been moderated but were not. And many other posters have been moderated in ways they feel was unjust as well.

But again … one perceived as a bad call moderation in 15 years equals a moderation bias against you? “Wagner. I know what he’s really try to tell me.”

But sure, I’ll accept it: conservative posts matter.

168

I guess the idea that a third strike deserves a severe response even if the last offense is not so major is something anathema to a conservative perspective.

169

And yet the thread you link to documents that your behavior was indeed persistently out of line in that thread and that you were ignoring moderator requests to dial it down.

Y’all are acting like being conservative should be a get out of jail free card.

170

Sorry for so much multi-posting but it does raise a point. California changed the three strikes law so that the third strike requiring 25 years to life needed to be a serious or violent felony with two or more prior strikes.

Going forward is there a place for something like this? That a ban generally occurs both after the one month suspension sentence has already been applied and that the new offense is a serious transgression.

If the analogy is to hold then California revised law also has a provision “by which designated defendants currently serving a third strike sentence may petition the court for reduction of their term to a second strike sentence, if they would have been eligible for second strike sentencing under the new law.” If such is decided as a way to move going forward perhaps it could be applied to Terr retroactively?

171

Works for Christians.

172

Bone, I completely agree. Which of those are allowable? All? None? I think probably all of them would be OK in most cases, but at the same time all of them are at risk because they come close to the fuzzy line that has now apparently been drawn as an unintended side effect of the “liar” rule.

I especially draw attention to the part that I emphasized: “I understand the rule against accusations of lying, but there really should be a bright line rule that includes the phrase ‘you are lying’ as verboten, and not much else (in this area).”

And I think that Measure offers a good analysis in #161.

I think it’s significant that such a disproportionate number of moderation complaints – we see a few right here in this thread – have been over what are felt to be unjustified warnings about violating this particular rule. If I may offer a personal opinion on this …

Calling someone a “liar” is a direct personal attack with all kinds of broad implications about that person’s moral deficiencies. One may as well add “a habitual liar and a crook”! I get it. However, unintended consequences seem to start when the moderation rules are deemed to apply to any and all possible synonyms for something not being truthful, potentially even those in the list above. And also “making things up”, a dead horse that I’ve flogged before. To me it means to state things without having a cite or other factual basis, but it’s certainly not synonymous with lying since such statements may often be believed to be self-evidently true.

And the trouble is that it’s the very nature of debate to argue about the veracity or relevance of alleged facts and how they are presented and how they are interpreted. Debate is full of half-truths, skewed perspectives, deception, and everything in between, sometimes intentional, but not necessarily perpetrated by congenital “liars”. Even the most honest and well-meaning person might post an article that grossly misrepresents an issue. Or he might post a perfectly accurate article and offer an entirely disingenuous and deceptive interpretation of it to support a flawed argument. Such a posting would be “deceptive” by definition.

This is not the same as simply “incorrect”, even if it’s unintentional, because “incorrect” carries no implication of influencing opinions in the reader, “deceptive” does. IOW, it should be perfectly acceptable to convey the idea “I don’t know if you intended it that way (and I don’t really care about your intent) but the article you quoted (or the interpretation you gave) is deceptive. It’s deceptive because someone reading it would be deceived.”

Language – that’s what I’m advocating here – to be able to use the clearest language to describe what one is trying to say while maintaining a civil discussion. The unintended consequences of the “liar” rule seems to be almost a situation where anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a synonym for anything remotely less than truthful is at risk of being pounced on as a rules violation. It hampers debate. I support what Bone is saying about having a higher bar around permissible language, so that only deliberate personal insults are judged as such. Moderation shouldn’t be a surprise.

173

That would just turn it into arguments about what’s a serious transgression. The mods already use this as a basis, and not everyone agrees with their decisions.

And in Terr’s case, I’d think that disobeying mod instructions is one of the more serious transgressions in their eyes, so I don’t think it would have helped him much.

174

BrainGlutton disobeyed mod instructions twice in that same thread. Previously, he replied to a mod note with a nasty dismissive remark and reported it.

With 5 warnings since his two week “get his attention” suspension, he’s getting another chance.

175

Maybe. But it at least gives the mods a chance to give another last chance if they do think a warnable offense needs a warning but is mild enough that they think a poster may still be rehabilitatable. As I understand it the current circumstance is very much akin to mandatory sentencing laws. I am not a fan of those in our general society and I see no reason to perceive an inflexible response to an infraction after a month’s suspension as something better.

I am not arguing for Terr specifically. Honestly the little I specifically associate with him has been more snark than substance, and snark of little entertainment value at that. I have no problem with the ban and would only have a problem with BG’s suspension if he came back and was anything other than the shortest of leashes.

176

The mods can correct me, but I’ve never had that impression. I think they generally avoid bright-line rules about suspensions and bannings. There are guidelines, but they will take each circumstance under consideration individually. If there were mandatory sentencing laws, we wouldn’t routinely have threads like this advocating for or complaining about bannings.

(Note: personally I prefer that the mods use their judgment versus strictly defined rules, even when it doesn’t work in my favor.)

177

Best to just avoid using “you”. Note that all of Bone’s examples have “you” in them:

That [post/quote/link] is deceptive.

No fuss, no muss. It’s a floor cleaner AND a dessert topping.

178

And it is apathy like yours that is ruining this board. :wink:

As for the “persecution” of people with strong political views, we must remember that the majority of them are really fucking stupid. We happen to be going through a period in the US where the dumbest ideas are coming from the Right, but it embarrasses me to recall some of the ideas that came from the Left when I was a wee sprat–or some coming out now. Strong opinions get you noticed. STUPID strong opinions get you noticed more.

179

The word “chilling” is used here not to mean scary or terrifying, but rather to mean cooling – it signals a diminution of willingness to post.

And this post is a good example. I believe you knew what I meant by “chilling” and in an unfettered environment I’d snark back at you. But I don’t dare. So you can snark at me in safety; I can’t return the snark.

180

See my previous post (#179) for an example.