I found it. It was just a mod note but it surprised me that something like that would be modded. And confused me, to be honest. I’m getting less and less confident about what is allowed here and what is not.
Oh, I didn’t know that one. That thread was a bit disturbing to start with. I do think the mods are trying to be more reactive to the well debated points that this board wasn’t really all that welcoming to women*. But it was a note, which effectively means, don’t get grosser than this please.
*Obviously we won’t always get that right either.
I used to feel that way, but I don’t anymore, FWIW. So, you must be doing a good job with that.
Interesting? It’s obvious to me. Unpopular opinions and unpopular posters get reported more. Sure a out and out insult will get reported, but a borderline case? Only if that poster pisses you off in one way or the other.
In context, this warning was reasonable, altho it could have been worded better to include earlier postings.
I didn’t issue that warning, but it seems a little close to disingenuous debate to post a link to a 2nd term Representative’s page, which includes news, sponsored bills, policy positions, voting history, and bio information in order to declare that “her honest to goodness reason for being there is she is a lesbian native american.” And then in the follow-up, to ignore the actually qualifications listed and focus only on the MMA background to further indicate she is unqualified.
Exactly.
As mentioned above, it was the debating style, not the issue that rated the warning.
Make an unsubstantiated claim, have it refuted with a very side issue mentioned, ridicule the side issue and say you have answered the refutation. It was more about the debate style than the substantive issue. Would I warn a leftist who engaged in that kind of bull? Damn right I would. And I know movement leftists who do that, although I can’t think of any on these boards who do.
Let me say that I do appreciate the general tone of this thread.
And this is why the new mods are the best best-est mods!
Thanks for the clarification!
I think the post with the warning could have been clearer, because that’s not the impression I got when reading it initially.
And, this is just my opinion, but as I mention above, I’d prefer a lighter touch for the initial moderation (unless something is really egregious), and then warnings can be for failure to follow instructions, which will remove any hint of partisanship.
You say that ironically, but you may be right. Some people are perfectly pleasant until their ideas are challenged, then they start acting like assholes. I have to fight against that tendency myself, with I am sure varying degrees of success. Maybe Damuri is able to follow the rules until people start ridiculing/refuting/challenging his views, and then he freaks out.
Folks who post things in keeping with the board’s main political views–socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-military–aren’t going to get challenged as often, so the people that act like jerks when they’re challenged will act lke jerks less often.
Even if this is granted in full, the point made earlier still stands - all else being equal, a conservative on this board will rack up more warnings than a comparably jerky liberal, and the number of warnings is less an indicator of jerkiness in one case than the other.
But beyond even that, “being a jerk” (or troll) is a very subjective standard (and on this board has gotten a whole lot more subjective lately, as the reaction of posters in threads like this indicates). So you can draw a tolerance line which largely “works” for people who rarely find themselves in confrontational situations, but doesn’t work as well for many of the people who are more apt to find themselves in that position.
[FWIW, I don’t think it’s about simply having one’s ideas “challenged”. It’s more about dealing with an overwhelming number of people, many of whom are making specious points and/or using rhetorical sleights-of-hand but whom it’s difficult to deal with since they have sheer numbers on their side. A lot of people find this frustrating, and can sometimes slip up. But that’s FWIW - this does not affect the point made above.]
It takes a second to report a post. If your debate opponent(s) is acting in bad faith, just report them.
It’s not hard not to get a warning, if you debate honestly and respect the rules of the forum you’re in.
I would like to sticky this post.
Oh, and when you report, if you hope to get mod action, odds go up Flagging with Something Else and why you flagged the post.
There are also some people (not mods, but some posters) who are - for whatever reason - incapable of seeing things from the other person’s side, or from a neutral sideline perspective. To them, anything that is not on “their side” is fundamentally wrong.
I’m not sure if this was intended to address my post which preceded it, or if it was, how it did.
That aside, I would note that it’s difficult-to-impossible impossible to divorce an assessment of whether someone is “acting in bad faith” from one’s position on the underlying issue.
This seems to contradict numerous posts that you yourself have made to this very thread.
On your first point, I really disagree. Acting in good faith means providing cites and arguments, saying when something is your opinion or you’re making a factual claim, returning to the thread to address the argument and not moving on to the next claim without acknowledging the previous replies, and so on. That can be done for any legitimate position. If you find you’re not able to do that, maybe the position you’re defending is indefensible.
On your second point, I think this particular warning was iffy at best. That’s why I made a thread. This was an exception to most warnings, which I think are fully warranted. Others agree that this particular warning was iffy. UR2’s first post (the one that didn’t lead to the warning) was more warnable, and it’s my opinion that UR2 strays close to the line in terms of debating behavior, and could warrant warnings quite often, but not for this particular instance.
I’m not saying this the exception that proves the rule, because that saying was always non-sensical to me anyway. I’m saying that the post was close to the line, but I don’t think it was over the line. However, it’s easy to stay far from the line.
I disagree with this. Whether someone is addressing an argument is very frequently a matter of dispute. Whether something is an opinion or a fact is very frequently a matter of dispute (one poster to this thread has asserted that the Republican party being a “violent white nationalist organization” is a “simple fact”). And a person who is being attacked by numerous posters may simply have a hard time dealing with all of them and chose to focus on certain posters who make points he finds most salient, or who he finds to be more reasonable or whatever.
But I think we’re flipping the argument here. I wasn’t talking about the person who is posting in bad faith and whether he can avoid doing this. My post to which you responded was about someone who loses his cool a bit because he’s dealing with a lot of other people, many of whom are not posting in good faith. Your response was to simply report these people, but my rejoinder is that this wouldn’t help if the moderators are sympathetic to the posters on the other side of the argument, since they will invariably find them compelling enough to judge them as being in good faith.
Your second post to this thread seemed to indicate that this was indicative of a general trend. But even beyond that, even a tiny percentage of dubious warnings have a big impact over time if a person is frequently reported by ideological opponents.
I agree with everything in this post. I think there are a few different general rules being discussed at once here, but it seems to me that there’s a general consensus that people expressing conservative (or other heterodox, probably) viewpoints are just more likely to get banned, even all other things being equal. In addition to the “acts like a jerk when called out” population*, there’s also another group that would be affected by the rules expressed in this thread: people who just are annoying and don’t contribute much in a general sense* *, i.e. the people doing the specious overwhelming. These people certainly exist. If you are a content-free, non-substantive liberal poster, who sometimes post things that “seem[ ] a little close to disingenuous debate,” as raventhief put it, or you otherwise just say things that aren’t very productive and aren’t Good Points, and you don’t get reported, you’re not going to get moderated. And you’re probably not going to get reported. A conservative who makes a dumb point, or an unrelated point, or a totally nonsensical point, it sounds like, is reasonably likely to get reported, and thus reasonably likely to get moderated.
There is something to be said for being responsive to the desires of your user base, so I mean, it’s a fine rule to have in a private forum. It maybe creates the community that the people remaining around here would like to see. But I think you might as well call it what it is in that case.
* to which I sometimes belong, by way of a disclaimer
* * Id.
I think you and I will not find common ground on the first section. As to the part quoted, I agree, but it’s very recent. Complaints like yours have been around for years, and I never really agreed with them, until the last couple of months.
You make very good points. I’m currently faced with exactly the situation you describe in a thread I started, and I don’t at all agree that it’s easy to stay far from the line. I’ve reread the rules and still have absolutely no idea where the line even is. ‘Don’t insult other posters’ is a rule I can follow. ‘Don’t argue badly’, where badly is whatever a mod defines it to be that day, is not.
And while I think many of the replies I’m getting are not in the spirit of GD, it’s hard to say any individual comment is breaking the rules.