“Gargoyles” might work in a pinch as well.
But you also didn’t have a community meeting with all the cops in the area, where people argued that, due to the high number of warnings, you should get a ticket in the future. And the cops didn’t say that they thought your future speeding still wouldn’t warrant a ticket. And then, when they did later give you a ticket, they didn’t come to community and say that they hadn’t changed their mind.
The only reason this inconsistency doesn’t bug me as much as Shodan is that I’ve learned to accept it. The mods here have some odd pride in never admitting to changing a position they’ve long argued. Still, the ultimate outcome is still the same, so I’ve chosen not to get too upset about it.
This is why I never stop arguing something in an ATMB thread even after you appear to have made a pronouncement. It’s still fairly even odds that you are actually going to listen even when you say you won’t. It would be easier on both of us if we knew for sure, but hey.
Oh, and DT is right about one thing: that wasn’t threadshitting. It can be either trolling, being a jerk, personal attacks, or even hate speech. But threadshitting is the specific crime of coming to a thread, belittling everyone in it, acting like the very topic of the thread is beneath you, and condemning people for even daring to bring it up.
Unfortunately, some of the things that get “a break” around here are the message board equivalent of going 75 in a school zone. Like at least one of the examples i gave above.
Everyone understands that there are grey areas, and that breaks are sometimes given, but if a cop fails to write up someone for going 75 in a school zone, then he’s guilty of dereliction of duty, in my opinion.
And if a cop consistently lets people off based not on an evaluation of how bad the offense is, in the context of the driving conditions, but based on whether s/he likes the make of the car or the look of the driver, then that cop, too, is not performing his or her public duties properly.
Let me ask you this: do you believe that we have the right to expect ANY particular level of consistency in moderation? Or is the whole thing merely at the whim of how you feel on any given occasion? I have to believe that you don’t think capricious standards are proper, because in my experience your own moderation, and that of *some *of your colleagues, has been, on the whole, very even-handed and fair.
If we can persist with the law enforcement analogy for a moment, though, you’re acting in here like part of the blue wall, where good, honest cops stonewall concerns about the thugs and incompetents on the force out of a sense that professional solidarity should outweigh their public duty.
No, we didn’t. I did say that in my opinion most of Der Trihs’ posts don’t break the rules. I’ve modded him any number of times for comments that were off-topic or otherwise out of bounds, although people tend to forget that whenever it comes time to complain about Der Trihs again. I said I wouldn’t mod him for posts that didn’t break the rules. I posted about the circumstances in which we felt that would be warranted or not warranted. I said specifically that I’d consider giving him warnings for posts that were particularly off topic or jerkish (as I interpret those terms). I thought this post deserved a warning because it was so far off topic and hyperbolic. I don’t think all of Der Trihs’ posts are on that level. Posters can and do disagree with that, but the idea that we said we weren’t going to mod him (or wouldn’t warn him, or would only mod him once he’d had a chance to say his peace or something similar) is crap, plain and simple. You’ll note that Der Trihs isn’t complaining I told him this stuff was OK. :rolleyes:
Huh, who’s been calling blacks “troglodytes” without getting modded?
Why would someone have to call blacks that to be modded? If I called Persians troglodytes, would you be OK with that?
No I wouldn’t be okay with that and I’m reasonably certain were someone to do so they’d have been modded.
So, what group was called troglydytes without the mods reacting?
FWIW, if someone used that term for whites I’d have objected also.
Can you provide a link?
Conservatives.
While I’m not a fan of such behavior, bashing conservatives/liberals/feminists/socialists/libertarians/etc. isn’t treated either on this board or IRL the same as hate speech against racial and/or ethnic groups.
I’m not a fan if such terms as “libtard” “gun-grabber” etc. but they’re not the same as “nigger” “spic” “kike” “raghead” etc.
So then why is “libtard” routinely moderated but “troglodyte right” is never moderated? Neither one refers to an ethnic group. Both refer to a political group. It wold appear that bashing one political group is treated on this board like bashing an ethnic group, but bashing another political group is not.
Because libtard sounds too much like retard. Conservatard wouldn’t do any better. Next?
Incidentally, “Troglodyte”, “Cave Dweller” and “Attila the Hun” are terms more likely to be applied to right wingers than to racial groups. Lefties are accused of being hippies: reference Coulter and Bernard Goldberg for more current insults. Racial groups have other expressions applied to them, typically of the 4 megaton variety. ----
I see a reasonably bright line between this post of Der’s and other inflammatory posts of Ders. I’ll note that the usual crowd has once again been long on wind and short on substantiation regarding Der’s alleged constant warn-worthy behavior. This board permits a lot of dubious behavior that I have no inclination of emulating, so I’m not all hung up on strict enforcement of the rules. Furthermore, while moderation standards have ebbed and flowed over the years I’ve never found them especially hard to decipher.
As an aside, methinks the resident SDMB outlaws should beware: there are a new crew of mods in town and they don’t take kindly to roughhousing. I heard Yosemite Sam has been thrown in the cooler, and there’s an APB on Bugs Bunny.
Crosspost. Pst: Ibn. Just a reminder: explicit usage of those terms hurts my eyes. I’m not saying use them or don’t use them: I’m just asking you to bear that in mind.
Well, if the shoe fits… 
This comment was originally intended for Der Trihs, but it can be expanded for Shodan and anybody else, including myself, who may, in a flash of inspiration, realize that it could apply to them: Your belligerent posting style doesn’t help your arguments get accepted. That thread is an example. You started with a concept that could be agreed with by many, but quickly veered off somewhere crazy, apparently to drive home your point harder. Except, by going with the crazy, you shut off everybody’s ears and they dismissed it as yet another episode of Der Trihs’ Insanity Theatre. Then you came here and played angelic with your quote mining. And you do this all the time, in nearly every thread you post in! You were in the wrong. Accept it without arguing for once, ferchrissake. And try rereading and considering how your post might be taken by the casual observer before you click Submit Reply.
I know, thinking and rewriting and shit adds to the time it takes to post–that one paragraph took me a half hour to get as close to right as I care to make it–but it cuts way down on mod warnings and can only help your blood pressure.
So you* think the moderators have been letting something go, and have been trying to get them to pay more attention, to take stronger action, but have been frustrated that they don’t agree stronger action is warranted.
Then there is an example where one does take stronger action. And your response is to jump their shit for not being consistent with their previous moderating you think was piss-poor? 
Shouldn’t the proper response be to thank them for taking the appropriate action, and encourage them to continue in that vein, rather than keelhaul them for failing to announce to the supposed repeat-rule-violator that they’re finally going to hold him to the rules, too?
“Moderating around here sucks, you let Der Trihs get away with everything, and now you’re holding him to the rules without warning him in advance you’re going to do so.”
:rolleyes:
*Generic you to whomever it applies.
Agreed. How was this comment worse than any of the other outrageous stuff he posts? In almost every war thread, he talks about how conservatives only want to kill brown people, or that pro-life people hate their own wives and mothers and that pro-life women hate themselves and all of the associated garbage.
These are exactly the things that many of us asked to be modded, and I will give credit for it being modded here, but it should be done about once per thread.
And I agree with Shodan in that we were told that he wasn’t breaking the rules. Couching it as applying to a group and not a particular poster was a okay. And in this thread, he didn’t say that Bricker wanted to murder those people, but the larger group of pro-gun people.
So, to use the cop analogy, I think it’s like a cop who hands you a six pack of beer every day for a month for your long drive, but one day he pulls you over a mile down the road and cites you for an open container violation.
I’ll note that you are flat out wrong. Plenty of links to other posts by DT, of similar nature, have been provided. You, on the other hand, have simply hand-waved away any difference without offering any substantive argument. In fact, you have even tried to justify the post that got DT his warning-- witness your first post in this thread. A pathetic attempt, I might add.
I don’t think Measure’s first post at all excused Der’s behavior. He explicitly said Der should apologize for his statements.
Well it’s hard to prove a negative - though it can be done. It’s pretty tedious though. I’ve compiled a list of links on page 1 of this thread. That’s what my claim was about right? I’ll put the data in a quote box.
So there were lots of links posted, but only one to a GD-DT post. I think it’s fair to disallow pit posts.
So John, since when does one example become “Plenty”? Or were you engaging in hyperbole? Or do you call that “Hand-waving”? It seems to me that substantiating my point with 3 links is the opposite of that, but hey what do I know?
!!
!!
The thread Shodan linked to was not started by me, but it contains all the quotes you need. The OP of that thread itself contains 11 links. Each is only 2 or 3 clicks away. If that’s too much work for you, then I don’t know what to say.
You’re the one making the claim, why do we have to dig for your cites?
In other words, you said “have been provided” vaguely, as if they were provided directly in this thread. Now you’re telling us they have been provided by going to a linked thread, and then hunting through it for the links that you think prove your point. That’s not the same thing.
Exactly. And no, I don’t think I was exactly defending Der in post 9 and I was surprised to be interpreted as such. Not John Mace’s finest moment. I think I can guess why I stuck a nerve though.** I think it’s fair to characterize JM’s posts as substantiated and to the point.** I didn’t have JM in mind when I refered to “the usual crowd” – even though I had referenced one of John Mace’s points a couple of sentences earlier.
This connects with JM’s understandable frustration with Der, who not only posts bombastically but rarely backs up his vitriol with evidence or links.
Anyway, I’m happy to clarify my earlier remarks, though I’m not going to go on a link hunt at this juncture.