So what distinguishes a rant? That’s the $24K question.
I would give you the formula, but its classified.
Well, your response wouldn’t be meaningful, anyway. The mod team either needs clearer guidelines about what belongs in GD, or they need to worry less about whether things belong in GD. It’s ridiculous to moderate as though we’re all supposed to read their minds about what qualifies as the proper format.
Why exactly are you so upset about the move? The thread is still open, just in a different forum. You can still carry on your debate in the Pit, with the advantage that you can be as insulting to your opponents as you want (which seemed to be one of your objectives).
Not at all. My debate opponents are not Republican Congressmen. and I wanted a proper debate, not a Pit shitshow.
I’m irritated at the inconsistency of the application of rules that may or may not be imaginary. I, as a generic poster, should have a clear idea from the subforum rules in Great Debates about what belongs in there, and if a mod moves the thread to another forum, they should be able to point to those subforum rules and say ‘This is why’.
It’s a really minimal standard I’m asking for here, guys.
Then you should have framed it as a proper debate. You did not.
You have still not offered any explanation why you can’t carry out the debate in the Pit.
Because the only possible disagreement here must arise from one’s lack of attention?
In what way did I not frame it as a proper debate? This is exactly the question I want answered and added to the subforum rules. Was it seriously the crack about hunting people for sport? Are jokes and sarcasm banned in Great Debates? What about hyperbole?
I cannot carry out the debate I wanted to have in the Pit, because the Pit is a dumpster fire full of distractions, profanity, and personal attacks.
If DSYoungEsq doesn’t understand why I am here, arguing this point, then he has not being paying attention, correct. Because I have always been here, arguing these kind of points.
I thought I was clear before but perhaps not. Rants will typically get moved to the Pit. Your OP was a rant, therefore it was moved. The moderation team are the final arbiters on what constitutes a rant. I’ve moved quite a bit from Great Debates and Elections since I’ve come on board the moderation team. Since I don’t post in the Pit that frequently, you can find other examples by searching pretty easily. I’ve done it for you. It happens regularly.
The question then becomes, “what is a rant?” Like many things that touch on moderation, there aren’t always hard and fast rules. Typically I see a rant as when reason gives way to anger and passion, where the desire to berate overwhelms the desire to persuade. Perhaps not the best definition, but I would say characterizing over half of the elected members in the House as murderers, evil, with a penchant for hunting humans for sport fits within that characterization. YMMV.
Many OPs are not of rhetorical brilliance. Those threads may remain if their topics be better fleshed out. However, starting off with murder and evil, it’s difficult to see how that would deescalate and turn into a fruitful debate, therefore a move was in order.
Okay, this is a start, but it raises the question of how you can possibly have a debate on the subject of evil in that forum.
Also, I did not say they had a penchant for hunting humans as sport, and I will thank you not to misquote me again. Disingenuity on your part does not make the moderator team look better, nor does it make your decision seem firmer when it seems you didn’t even read my OP carefully enough to moderate it.
My ass.
Yes, you technically didn’t say they hunted humans for sport. Well and good, but you said, “Could it be worse? Perhaps if they allowed the rich to actually hunt the poor and sick for sport, but the net effect here is the same.”
You equated their actions to have the same effect as hunting for sport. Embrace your words and don’t try to dodge.
You have the answer you’re going to get. If it dissatisfies you, then that’s just the way it is.
Then why did you ask?
Says who?
Your thread got moved to the Pit. It’s not the end of the world. You didn’t get a warning or even a mod note. It was purely a bookkeeping action.
I did equate them, but I did not say they had a penchant for hunting people for sport. The effects ARE the same in my view. I am in no way backing away from my words, just insisting that you quote them correctly - like the rules say you should, you know?
And yeah, you folks did exactly what I expected of you. I’ll keep trying on other days.
Because you seemed confused as to what I was asking of the moderating team, so I spelled it out for you.
Would you like to start a GD thread about how imaginary and inconsistent rules are a good thing for a messageboard? I will eagerly take the con position.
You are correct, but that doesn’t make it any less incorrect.
When most everyone appears to think that it sounds, looks, and feels like a duck, odds are you’ve got a duck on your hands, and therefore it needs to go to the petting zoo.
Does it really though? Seems like discussing evil would not be too difficult. Look, another search. Of course, evil can also be discussed in the Pit. Another search.* These are just those with “evil” in the thread title, however discussing the topic of evil is clearly not out of bounds in Great Debates.
Kind of difficult to misquote without, you know, using quotes. In any event, I’d rather not quibble about misquotes or the lack thereof -** I identified your actual framing in my first post #7** in this thread but the phrasing is a bit clunky so shorthand is used for readability.
To be clear, I think your questions have been addressed. Your thread was moved because it was deemed to be a rant. The criteria used for that evaluation has been given and the final arbiter of whether a post is a rant or not are the moderators. Take a look at the previously linked search. You’ll find that rants often get moved. If you disagree that your OP was a rant, ok I accept your disagreement but it does not change the assessment.
*I have the advantage of not being burdened by the 120 second limit on searches.
Three mods and a couple of members of the peanut gallery hardly qualifies as everyone, and the moderators on this board are fairly notorious for refusing to even consider that any mod decision was less than perfect. Some of them are great posters and good people, but there’s some about the philosophy of moderatorship at this board that is just off.
I get the feeling that this thread is nothing more than another rant in disguise. :dubious:
For goodness sake. I actually have some sympathy with threads being moved to the pit when the author didn’t intend that. But this is just silly. Your post was you being extremely angry at these guys and taking it out of them. You used deliberate hyperbole to express how angry you were. You did not even put on a veneer of civility or pretend you actually wanted to debate anything.
GD threads get heated, yes. But they don’t tend to start out with angry attacks on everyone. They have said veneer that you want to discuss something, even if you poison the well or use a ton of snark. They can’t be full of rage. At least, not without mitigating language.
I don’t even disagree with your premise, at least, in general terms. This decision was, IMO, an immoral one. And I even fully understand the anger. I’m angry about it, too, even though it’s far from a fait accompli.
But what you made was a Pit thread. You did not invite honest debate, and your post was full of anger and attacks. You set the tone to be a bunch of people agreeing with you and joining in the outrage, and that anyone who disagreed would be attacked as evil, too.
I didn’t even have any idea it was originally posted in GD. It just fit so perfectly in the Pit. (I must’ve glazed over the post where it was moved.)