Tomndebb continuously singles me out in threads

[mswas]

He asked me to bring it here so I will.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11037020&postcount=735

His warning I do not have a problem with, I am just tired of being singled out when the back and forth is mutual between me and the person I insulted. Yes, I called ElvisL1ves ‘dirt stupid’ and yes I know it’s against the rules in GD.

He first calls me a liar in post 355

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
If that’s truly not the position you hold, you should not be arguing it. Very bad form. Honesty-impaired, even. But if you won’t profess any other, what else can the rest of us conclude?
[/QUOTE]

So I respond directly to this in post 360

[QUOTE=mswas]

I don’t show respect and understanding for only one side. Jayjay got it just fine. He understood my view perfectly. I think it’s an abstract social good. I am neither gay nor a Christian Evangelical. If I were on a Christian message board I’d be arguing the opposite position in order to educate people about the other side of the debate, like I am attempting to do here. In fact I’d be arguing more passionately because I am in support of gay marriage. I passionately support gay adoption because I am all for opening up the field of contenders for foster care and adoption based on the idea that a larger field of contenders will provide an opportunity to place the kids more effectively. I have seen some really atrocious hetero foster care in my life and don’t think that gay couples will do any worse.
[/QUOTE]

Miller got it in post 376

So after JayJay tried to explain things to him, he calls me a liar again in post 416

In post 432 he tries to explain to me what underlies the ‘code’ of my posts.

Now this goes on for page after page. He also calls me stupid in various forms. Now, I don’t care if he thinks I am a liar or stupid. I don’t even care about being called out for being uncivil by calling him ‘dirt stupid’.

What I do care about is that Tomndebb singles me out time and again when I go to the mats with someone. I see him warn people in groups in other situations, but with me it’s always singling me out and not addressing the breaking of the rules by other posters. This has happened in dozens of threads at this point. So now, I simply have no respect at all for him as a moderator. I’ll do what he says, but I’d do it anyway, once I’ve called someone stupid I don’t need to do it over and over, so his warning is essentially superfluous.

Whether this results in my banning from this forum, I could honestly care less, if people agree with him then that’s fine, I don’t and I am comfortable being the only person who sees it the way I do.

Other people like Bryan Ekers also accused me of lying and nothing was said, he just didn’t go on about it for pages like ElvisL1ves did.

So either Tomndebb holds me to a higher standard because he has such high hopes for me, in which case I should be flattered, or on some subconscious level he loathes me, it doesn’t matter, his moderation is always one-sided.

[Sage_Rat]

Or, you’re a liar and don’t realize it.

Personally I’ve never particularly noticed you, so I’m not endorsing that idea. But, it should probably be considered.

[Revenant_Threshold]

How can someone be a liar and not realise it?

Lying requires intent - a deliberate decision to present things in a way other than you believe them to be. Being wrong and not realising it would make it a misunderstanding, not a lie.

[aldiboronti]

So you called a member 'dirt stupid, although you knew it was against the rules of GD. And when a moderator calls you on it he’s ‘singling you out’.

Ah, the injustice of it!

[mswas]

@Sage_Rat

Or, you’re a liar and don’t realize it.

Personally I’ve never particularly noticed you, so I’m not endorsing that idea. But, it should probably be considered.

:rolleyes:

I secretly oppose gay marriage but I tell everyone I support it. So in action I am supporting it but in a deep recess of my tortured soul I am really against it.

Thank you Dr. Freud, your analysis is startling.

But that’s all irrelevant, calling someone a liar is against the rules of GD, and that’s what this thread is about. Even if I am a liar, it’s still against the rules to call me one.

[mswas]

@aldiboronti

So you called a member 'dirt stupid, although you knew it was against the rules of GD. And when a moderator calls you on it he’s ‘singling you out’.

Ah, the injustice of it!

Yes, after being insulted page after page.

[Sage_Rat]

@Revenant_Threshold

How can someone be a liar and not realise it?

For instance, I was arguing with one poster. He looks at a quote that says something along the lines of, “Human released greenhouse gasses are clearly causing climate change.”, and declares it as saying nothing about global warming or CO2 because neither of those words is used. Whether he believed that himself or not, who can say, but I think that calling blatantly obvious mental blindness a “lie” is a close enough term for everyday use.

[mswas]

@Sage_Rat

For instance, I was arguing with one poster. He looks at a quote that says something along the lines of, “Human released greenhouse gasses are clearly causing climate change.”, and declares it as saying nothing about global warming or CO2 because neither of those words is used. Whether he believed that himself or not, who can say, but I think that calling blatantly obvious mental blindness a “lie” is a close enough term for everyday use.

The term you are looking for is ‘cognitive dissonance’. Something I am not laboring under. I have unabashedly examined my views on homosexuality and recognize where my biases come in, and have weighed it dispassionately and concluded that SSM is a good thing. That doesn’t mean that I wasn’t swayed by some of the counter-arguments, only that they were outweighed by the pro-arguments. The implication is that either I am totally for pro-SSM without reservation or I cannot possibly support SSM. I see two arguments that have merit and have made a decision about which world I would rather live in. That is hardly dishonest. It would be dishonest for me to be pro-SSM pretending that I don’t have sympathy for the counter-argument.

Socially I am pretty far left. Regarding Foreign Policy I lean somewhat heavily toward the right. Fiscally I am rather in the middle. Even if I hated ‘faggots’ with every fiber of my being, I don’t think it is my place to keep them from living their lives as they like. But as I don’t hate homosexuals, and in fact am quite fond of several, I am not very worried about lying to myself.

[Fantome]

@mswas

Yes, after being insulted page after page.

But “dirt stupid” is clear cut. You claim he called you a liar, but he didn’t. He said “If that’s truly not the position you hold…” and “I think there’s reason for skepticism.” Neither of those statements are calling you a liar as you claim. Calling someone “dirt stupid” is calling someone dirt stupid and is clearly against the rules. If your insults were as vague as the person’s insults you’re complaining about, maybe you wouldn’t have had to start this thread.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Sage_Rat

For instance, I was arguing with one poster. He looks at a quote that says something along the lines of, “Human released greenhouse gasses are clearly causing climate change.”, and declares it as saying nothing about global warming or CO2 because neither of those words is used. Whether he believed that himself or not, who can say, but I think that calling blatantly obvious mental blindness a “lie” is a close enough term for everyday use.

I suppose all I can really say is that I disagree. For me, lying must be a wilful act with the intent to deceive. Stupidity isn’t deceit; it’s the very opposite, in fact, because stupidity denotes a lack of knowledge while deceit requires it. Besides, I don’t know whether the conversation you mention was in GD like the one mswas quotes from, but at least in there we should try and hold ourselves to higher standards of accuracy.

[mswas]

@Fantome

But “dirt stupid” is clear cut. You claim he called you a liar, but he didn’t. He said “If that’s truly not the position you hold…” and “I think there’s reason for skepticism.” Neither of those statements are calling you a liar as you claim. Calling someone “dirt stupid” is calling someone dirt stupid and is clearly against the rules. If your insults were as vague as the person’s insults you’re complaining about, maybe you wouldn’t have had to start this thread.

Oh so what’s the appropriate euphemism that conveys that he’s ‘dirt stupid’ as clearly as he conveyed the thought that I was lying? My English teacher in HS wrote on my friend’s paper that it was, “not worthy of a thinking creature.”, would that one work?

[Fantome]

@mswas

Oh so what’s the appropriate euphemism that conveys that he’s ‘dirt stupid’ as clearly as he conveyed the thought that I was lying? My English teacher in HS wrote on my friend’s paper that it was, “not worthy of a thinking creature.”, would that one work?

Sure, if you think that’s not a violation of the rules, go for it.

[choie]

As a non-GD participant (except as a lurker), I’m not sure if implying someone is a liar is against GD rules. But if it is, then ElvisL1ves did indeed break the rules. In which case, he should have been chastized as well.

Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, though, mswas. While I understand that you may have been upset at ElvisL1ves’s implied insults, the correct response should have been to report his/her posts, rather than do something you knew was in violation of the GD rules.

Nevertheless, as I said, if **ElvisL1ves ** did cross the line, I agree with your OP here: tomndebb should not have spoken only to you. It is certainly possible that he PMed ElvisL1ves privately, but if so, he should’ve done the same to you. Since he spoke to you in public, he should’ve done so with **ElvisL1ves **.

Justice in the form of evenhanded moderation must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

[ZenBeam]

@choie

As a non-GD participant (except as a lurker), I’m not sure if implying someone is a liar is against GD rules. But if it is, then ElvisL1ves did indeed break the rules. In which case, he should have been chastized as well.

This is a good point. Is it against GD rules to call someone a liar? What if (hypothetically. I haven’t read the links.) mswas was lying, and someone called him on it? Would it still be against the rules?

On the other side of the coin, is it against the board rules to post a lie?

[Tom_Tildrum]

@ZenBeam

This is a good point. Is it against GD rules to call someone a liar? What if (hypothetically. I haven’t read the links.) mswas was lying, and someone called him on it? Would it still be against the rules?

On the other side of the coin, is it against the board rules to post a lie?

It’s the top sticky in GD: “Don’t call someone a liar in GD.” I think one is expected to take such allegations to the Pit.

[DSYoungEsq]

mswas, you know how things work around here to realize that you aren’t being “singled out” by the moderator.

It is pretty much a given that the moderator was directed to your post through someone having alerted the mods, using the Report Post button. The mod came, looked at your post, saw that you had indeed violated the rules, and dispatched the appropriate remedy.

If what ElvisL1ves did was a rules violation, the way to have that dealt with is not to retaliate with your own blatant rules violation. Instead, click that little Report Post icon yourself, and report what you consider to be a rules violation. Then see what happens. If you don’t see something happen, then send a PM or an email to one of the moderators for GD, and ask why the post isn’t being dealt with.

[Jeff]

@mswas

He first calls me a liar in post 355

And did you report this to the mods, or were you planning on holding your breath until someone came forth to avenge your honour?

[Nametag]

From the Writ of MEBuckner:

Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement–e.g., “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”–is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum.

It’s clear to me that your honesty wasn’t impugned – rather, ElvisL1ves sought to nettle you into owning your arguments. If you want to argue as Devil’s Advocate, you need to say so at the start, not after you start getting hammered – that looks a lot like weaseling, which is to say dishonest debate. AFAIK, that’s a perfectly legitimate call under GD rules.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

“Weaseling is what distinguishes human beings from animals. Well, except the weasel.”

Calling someone a liar is a violation of GD rules. Frankly, it’s a violation of the rules of every forum except the Pit. Saying that someone has made a false statement is NOT against the rules. The difference is that it’s OK to attack the STATEMENT but not the PERSON. A statement can be false, misleading, erroneous, etc. A person is another poster who must be treated with at least a minimal courtesy and respect.

[choie]

He didn’t say mswas made a false statement, he said he was (possibly) being “honesty imparied” and that he was “skeptical” that mswas was being truthful.

mswas was certainly in violation, brazenly so. But I do think Elvisl1ves also violated the rule*. However, if his posts weren’t reported, I doubt tomndebb would have spotted it.

• At least the spirit of it. Is that enough to merit a comment from the moderator? I think so, FWIW. Especially if said moderator is already in the thread commenting against another poster.