Okay, so nobody thinks that it is a fair comparison to dance on Teddy Kennedy’s grave like we would on Jesse Helms’ grave because we hate Helms’ bigotry while disagreeing with Kennedy’s politics isn’t a reason to dance on his grave.
I think it is open for a good argument. Whether 2.5 was trolling or not is up for discussion. I don’t think it was at all “blatant”.
And something can’t be a parody because a mod finds it too “moronic”? That’s a good objective standard there. I think 2.5 brought up a good point: either it is acceptable to desecrate the graves of politicians or not. Either both threads should have stayed, or both gone.
And beyond that, closing the thread where he complains about the closing gets closed and is told he will get another warning for posting about it. I thought that was very acceptable is the Pit: to bitch about the mods??
Although I disagreed with his point, I think it was a reasonable point. No doubt people saw it was 2.5 as the author and reported the fuck out of it, which wouldn’t have happened if it was anybody else making that thread.
Oh, fer cryin’ out loud. If 2.5 objected to the tone of the Helms thread (and frankly I thought it rather unseemly myself), he simply could have posted his objections in that thread, and defended them if so needed.
I don’t think the proper response to what one perceives as jerkish behavior is to behave even more jerkishly.
2.5" has very carefully and rapidly and thoroughly built up a reputation as a troll and a jerk. If he wants to engage in satire, he’s going to have to wait a bit for that reputation to fade, or be a lot more subtle about it.
In hindsight, this is what he should have done, regarding the Kennedy/Helms thing:
[ul][li]In the OP blasting Kennedy, end with a paragraph specifically explaining the satiric purpose with a mention of the Helms thread, not just a link. Frankly, when I read (and responded to) the thread, I didn’t know Helms was dead or there was a thread about him. On its face, it looked no different from his very recent Obama trollery.[/li][li]In his follow-up thread, he certainly should not have referred to Helms as “a great man.” That’s not going to win any credibility points around here and it’s irrelevant, anyway. It changes the meaning from “Well, if you’re going to dance on Helms’ grave, be prepared for people to dance on Kennedy’s” (a valid point) to “Helms is better than Kennedy” (the opening shot in a meaningless ideological squabble, at best).[/ul][/li]
Or so it seems to me.
In hindsight, this is what he should have done, regarding the Kennedy/Helms thing:
[ul][li]In the OP blasting Kennedy, end with a paragraph specifically explaining the satiric purpose with a mention of the Helms thread, not just a link. Frankly, when I read (and responded to) the thread, I didn’t know Helms was dead or there was a thread about him. On its face, it looked no different from his very recent Obama trollery.[/li][/quote]
I thought it was pretty clear it was parody. It even included a nearly word-for-word re-phrasing of the Hell-rape fantasy.
[quote]
[li]In his follow-up thread, he certainly should not have referred to Helms as “a great man.” That’s not going to win any credibility points around here and it’s irrelevant, anyway. It changes the meaning from “Well, if you’re going to dance on Helms’ grave, be prepared for people to dance on Kennedy’s” (a valid point) to “Helms is better than Kennedy” (the opening shot in a meaningless ideological squabble, at best).[/ul][/li][/quote]
I honestly think that Helms is* a great man. So is Kennedy. I would never seriously suggest dancing on the grave of either man.
Does 2.5" actually have any positive political leanings, perhaps as a “conservative but not a Republican”? I’ve not seen anything but bitching come out of him.
In this specific case, coming rapidly on the heels of your closed Obama thread, it looked (to me, at least) like “Well, there’s 2.5 again, trying to troll up a political response.” You’re just gonna have to give it a rest for a while, if you want to be taken seriously.
And I just-as-seriously doubt any of the posters to the Helms thread were actually lacing on their tap shoes. The greatness of Helms and/or Kennedy remains irrelevant. Helms was certainly a controversial subject around here, and if you praise him, it’s your praise that becomes the focus, not whatever larger point you were trying to make.
Anyway, that’s my advice. Take it, don’t take it… whatever.
The argument itself is valid. Personally, I find the Jesse Helms thread rather distasteful. I closed 2.5’s threads because of my judgment, based on his past history, that he wasn’t posting honestly in order to protest the other thread, but merely seeking negative attention. I stand by that evaluation.
2.5 asked for an explanation. I gave him one. I felt that allowing that particular thread to remain open would allow him to continue the original trolling.
No, it’s not a violation. You can complain about my actions all you want here. My intention is not to censor you, but to get you to stop trolling.
You have posted a large number of threads which were borderline trollery - that is, calculated to garner negative attention - but which have not received specific warnings. The moderation staff is well aware of this behavior pattern. You really need to knock this off.
Brian_Ekers and El Kabong offer some good advice. You would do well to take it.
And I believe that 2.5 is largely an attention-seeker, rather than an honest poster.
But I do agree with his point here, and I do believe his thread was an appropriate way to highlight the unseemly “dancing on the grave” aspect of the discussion of the death of former Senator Helms.
Why is it that the supposedly tolerent, liberal left can find in its members those that can react to the death of a human being with such poisonous vitriol? If the stereotypes are true, this is a reaction I would expect from conservatives, who, after all, are mean-spirited and hard-hearted.
Yet I don’t see it nearly as much from the conservative side. (Admission here that confirmation bias may be in play). Certainly I know I, a conservative, have never once engaged in that sort of grave-dancing at someone’s death. That’s a data point of one.
I sympathize with the problem the mods face. But this is a half-way measure. If you truly believe he’s trolling, then ban him. But simply closing that thread invites the conclusion that politics played a part in the decision. The thread raised decent questions that deserve further conversation.
You raise a couple of issues in this paragraph that I’d like to comment on. First of all, not all trolling deserves instant banning – the reason we have warnings in the first place is to notify posters that we don’t like what they’re doing and give them a chance to stop it. Posters who want to stick around rarely have a problem staying within the rules even if they do initially draw a warning or two.
Second of all, the reason that thread looked like trolling to me was it was yet another case where 2.5 started a thread on a contentious issue with a strong, inflammatory position. Which side he took wasn’t the issue. When you look at his posting as a whole, it’s very hard to see someone simply arguing his opinions in good faith, and every new thread he starts makes it harder. At some point, we need to tell him to knock it off. We’re not telling him not to post his opinions – he was and is welcome to argue his viewpoint in the existing Jesse Helms thread. But he doesn’t need to make himself the center of every contentious discussion by starting new threads to focus attention on himself.
Third of all, despite being a liberal, I think the Jesse Helms thread is retarded. If I was prone to politically-influenced posting, I’d have closed it, since it makes liberals look bad and promotes sympathy for a fairly unsympathetic character. I left it open in spite of my feelings about it, because I felt the board as a whole had a right to comment on the OP. Since it’s in the Pit, this commentary could include detailed descriptions of why the OP is a douchebag, thereby allowing the free exchange of all points of view.
We do try to give posters plenty of opportunities to change undesirable behavior. 2.5’s posting privileges are currently under discussion by staff. I don’t think that at this point we are seeing a lot of indication from him that he intends to modify his behavior.
Some people in the Jesse Helms thread of course are taking issue with it. As I indicated above, I believe the argument itself is valid. If you or someone else wants to debate that issue in an honest way, you are perfectly welcome to. Surely you yourself don’t think that I closed 2.5’s threads for the purpose of silencing a legitimate “conservative” voice or shutting down discussion of the issue?
Of course, 2.5 and others will try to spin this into some kind of political bias issue, which is nonsense. If someone wants to accuse me of political bias in my moderation, that can be easily refuted by looking at the number of my warnings or reprimands for anti-Bush or anti-administration remarks in GQ, of which there have been quite a few.
Very understandable. But issuing a warning doesn’t require the closing of the thread… although I do see how it might dilute the strength of the warning.
Both Collibri and Giraffe are, in my estimation, very even-handed ion moderation decisions, and I have no reason to believe that political animus motivates either one.
But Colibri hits it on the head: 2.5 may well spin this as a political decision, and therein lies the problem I alluded to above: when a thread that makes a valid point is closed, it invites that kind of specious reasoning and conclusion, unwarranted though it is.
This is why I’ll never seek moderator duties here – you too often find yourself in a damn’d if you do and dam’d if you don’t predicament.
Really, when politics or religion are involved in any way with a moderating decision, some people on the other side are going to call “foul.” We can’t let that interfere with making what we believe to be the right call in moderating.
