These quotes are from two different threads in Great Debates where you posted shortly afterwards. Only one quote had you donning your Mod’s hat and commenting on the insult:
If the ruling is that the second comment is supposed to be personally insulting and the first one is not, then you are snotigenious. It is the most charitable thing I can call you right now without having my conscience bother me. Also, your rules are confusing, contradictory and silly.
Don’t bother to look up snotigenious in the dictionary. It’s a “special” word.
If, of course, your failure to comment on her insults was merely an oversight, then snotigenious means “born of a complex snow.” You’ll have to trust me on that.
I just have a hard time believing that you think the second one is insulting and the first one is not.
(Aside: I’d better get out of the Pit now before “she” catches me here and follows through on her threat. I am shaking in my bossy boots that she might use the word motherfucker again. I’ve never heard that one before.)
Ignorant simply means not knowing or being unaware. It’s quite common to see others called “ignorant” without any moderator intervention. It is, in fact, the purported mission of the board to fight ignorance.
Goofball is a personal insult, albeit extraordinarily mild. Without some context, it’s hard to say anything about this specific instance of the use of the word goofball.
I’d probably rather be called a goofball than ignorant, myself.
I have a link to the first one that is further down. I don’t think that the second one really needs one. It’s not the one that I was involved with. If you follow the link that I did provide, your question about who “she” is will be answered. But that is not the point. That is why it is in an aside. I don’t want to hash out what has already been gone over in two threads.
My focus in on Tom’s decision on what is a personal insult. A little consistency would be encouraging. I was more indignant over Tom’s indifference to the comments directed at me than I was at the comments themselves. (I knew that she didn’t know what she was talking about. She doesn’t know me. She did not understand the point that I was making. She thought that I was making a point that I was not making.) But does the fact that she was in error give her the right to insult?
Or would it have been better if she had been accurate in her accusations? Either way, is she permitted to say what she did in Great Debates? (Shrug?)
There is no link to Tom’s moderating that I can find.
Zoe, if you are looking for any support, this is a shitty pit thread. Link to the thread and preferably the post where **Tom ** moderated in a fashion you feel is incorrect.
If you just wanted clarification from Tom, you could have Emailed him. If you thought someone else violated a rule, you could have reported the post. If you want others to review, weigh in or know what happened, provide a few links.
This is the dumbest Mod Pitting I have seen in while.
**Tom ** did no moderating in the thread you linked to.
Well damn, I agree with you completely. Maureen’s post was so mild, I can’t imagine why **Tom ** thought it needed mention. However, it was not a warning, so I would think no big deal. He may have just wanted to prevent an escalation to something less friendly (or not, just a weak guess).
I would have thought the “I’m not, ya goofball.” would be taken as affectionate kidding or at least a minor friendly jab. In the other thread, I am guessing nobody reported the post you are questioning and Tom did not notice it.
Jim (I also note, that **Maureen ** & **FinnAgain ** are two poster I like very much also.)
And I understand completely why my post was confusing. No sleep and senility are taking their toll. I was off on too many tangents with no references. Sorry!
I don’t know, but now I am wondering the same thing about goofball.
Cool, I think we are all prone to that at times. I have way too many posts I reread later a think, ‘hmm, that’s not really what I intended to say, why did it look right in preview?’
Agreed. Perhaps this should just be a pitting about making any sort of moderator comment about the word “goofball.” Sure, it’s a personally oriented negative comment, but it’s the verbal equivalent of throwing a cotton ball at someone from 20 feet away.
I’m typically of the mindset of “why should I defend the mods…they’re the ones with the power,” but in this case I’m going to throw my 2 cents in. I would venture to say that “goofball” could be considered name-calling, whereas “ignorant” is merely a statement of fact that you consider someone to lack knowledge. If instead of saying Zoe was “ignorant” you with the face had said that she was an “ignoramus,” that would have been name-calling.
Of course, it was more than abundantly clear to me that Maureen was tryng to add a little bit of a light tone to the debate, and not trying to be seriously insulting at all, but perhaps tone is irrelevant around here.
Goofball is a direct name. I saw the comment as an almost affectionate term, HOWEVER, we have a lot of people with prickly personalities in GD and the use of any sort of direct name calling has a tendency to escalate quickly.
In the other thread, the initial jabs were, while hostile, within tolerance for the sort of remarks we often see in GD. The later jabs, which I did not see until this morning, started wandering over the line. However, by the time I got to the thread, both sides had taken personal affront at comments made by other posters and I had people reporting everyone still participating in the thread. Rather than haul out the ticket book and issue Warnings all over the place (and then have to watch everyone come here to split hairs over whether their warning was unfair because their insult was not quite as egregious as the insult(s) from their opponent(s)), I told everyone to knock it off.
If “ignorant” is an unreasonable way of characterizing someone who’d make a statement like this…
…then someone tell me what I should have said. This is close to being the most ignorant* statement I’ve read on this board and I’ve had to stop myself several times from posting about it in this thread.
Yeah, you may find it insulting. The truth can be that way sometimes.
*I’m still being charitable.
Zoe in the other thread was repetitively, obdurately and offensively wrong. Personally, I don’t believe that anyone could honestly claim both a passing familiarity with civil rights issues and also to not know that the phrase “one-drop rule” refers to any detectable sub-Saharan ancestry and that the test did not involve actual drops of blood, and only under duress would I believe that an English teacher would not recognize the figurative language as completely apt. She also performed bizarre contortions in order to take personal offense at general remarks, and got in some digs of her own by offering her own alternate characterizations of you with the face as lacking either integrity or understanding, before blowing a gasket over the word “ignorant.”
Charitable? you with the face is being downright generous.
