Seems clear to me that he wants Moderators to moderate according to how JohnT wants things moderated, and he’s using a flimsy economical argument to try to persuade them.
No, his name was mentioned (by me in the headline of the Washington Examiner article) in post #4302, about 2.5 hours and one page, prior. And it was a direct response to Procrustus asking me “Do we have any evidence that would meet any standard to establish who the whistle blower is?”
It was because of the call to not respond to a particular poster. Weak sauce as a characterization of an argument is not a problem. Implying that a poster isn’t worth responding to is personalization in a way that characterizing an argument as poor is not.
Yes, for Heavens sake. Why is it so difficult for people to realize that no poster gets to preclude others from participating? That includes encouraging other posters not to interact with another poster.
This is so utterly wrong-headed that it deserves further comment. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the moderators, which is very surprising coming from a former moderator.
Our role is not to decide which side of an argument is right or wrong. It’s to serve as referees between the sides. Even in GQ, if someone posts something that is blatantly factually incorrect, it’s not my role as a moderator to correct it. Instead, I will correct it as a poster, or leave it to other posters to correct it.
If moderators started to moderate based on their personal views of what is right and wrong, I can guarantee you wouldn’t like it, especially considering there is a diversity of views on the moderation staff.
That’s not what the post you’re responding to is about. The post is suggesting that maybe one side of the complaints about moderation might be correct. That your insistence that because both sides complain about bias in moderation, that means that the complaints are baseless, is ridiculous. If “both sides” are complaining about bias from, say, the governor of Illinois, that doesn’t logically mean that the complaints of both sides are invalid. Some of the complaints might be totally correct, and the existence of complaints on the “opposite” side doesn’t invalidate those complaints.
I’ll note again that I think the moderation is pretty good. But your justification for dismissing these complaints is just nonsense, IMO.
No, he’s right. I can go report 10 posts right now from people saying “don’t engage with HD,” just from the last 2 days. If that’s what JohnT got warned for why is it being selectively enforced?
It’s interesting that there’s a thread in Elections with the explicit title “Who is the Whistleblower?”, up for 4 days, with 44 responses, and not a single objection in- thread or directed to the OP. I would think that if people had strong opinions on identifying whistleblowers such as “participating in the terrorizing of possibly uninvolved people”, they would be commenting in that thread instead of piling on an individual in this one.
I have the same question, but … I don’t think JohnT was warned. This thread got started not based off a warning he received but as an announcement that he has decided not to renew his membership.
The difference being that A) we can opt to not read that thread and B) in no way did Ditka drop the WB name in the impeachment thread to be informative. He did to act in ways counter to board rule #1
It’s especially interesting that the name is mentioned in post #23 of that thread, a full 3 days before HD listed some sources that mentioned the name, sources that include a post on this message board that explicitly mentions the name.
It abso-fucking-lutely was to be “informative”. It first got mentioned as a direct response to this query by Procrustus:
If this were really about the whistleblower, at least some of your anger ought to be directed at Procrustus for asking about it, but I don’t think it really has much of anything to do with Ciaramella’s identity. I think it’s mostly posters mad at me and looking for an excuse to try and have me silenced.