In this thread my post comes nowhere close to breaking any rule here. It was a polite statement of fact. You have no business moderating that comment in any way, shape, or form. I don’t care what you think is going on…no rule was broken, and your personal preference is not board policy. If you want to challenge my comment without hiding behind your mod hat, you can, but there is nothing there to moderate.
I infer that he was moding **Qin Shi Huangdi **, not you.
I think he just misplaced his ‘Mod’ tag.
I don’t think so. He quoted and modded QSH directly beneath that one, and quoted Oakie directly in his.
Frankly, “borderline insanely Orthodox” doesn’t seem so impolite, either. Even most Jews would concede that there are some extremes of Orthodoxism that seem fanatical to the point of craziness. Tom seems to be saying, as is his wont, “I might have chosen different language so, because I have little else to do with my life, I’m going to TWEEET! and [Mod Note] and [Mod Warning] and generally take a [Mod Dump] all over this entire thread. Why, oh, why, can’t all posters on all sides of all debates post exactly as I would post all the time?”
Hmm, apparently Tom needs to not just lighten up, but lighten the fuck up. That sounds serious.
There are two contexts in which the phrase can be applied.
- When there is a draft
- When there is not a draft
You made the incorrect assumption that the OP must be referring to context #2 completely and ignored context #1.
I think the moderation should have been:
“Oakminster, in the future, please make sure your posts are good before hitting the submit button. I recommend you review what was written in your post as well as the post you are responding to, and see if they actually match up or not”
I agree with Oakminster. The OP of that other thread made reference to the actual current prevailing situation (“Orthodox Jews nowadays rarely serve in the US (or Israeli) militaries”) and it’s completely reasonable to infer that the sentence which immediately followed was a reference to the actual current prevailing situation cited in the prior sentence.
FWIW, if I had to guess, I would say that OP was referring to the Israeli situation only in saying “give them a pass”, but it’s also possible that Tomndebb was right.
Nonetheless, Oakminster’s interpretation is the most straighforward one, and if Tom wanted to quibble with it, he should have done so without a “moderator hat” on and without the “lighten up” comment.
“In WW2 were American Orthodox Jews drafted?”
The term “draft” doesn’t provide you any additional context?
It did for me, and for most posters I think it would, but I can’t guarantee it.
Even if I were to concede your point, which I don’t, there is still absolutely no basis for moderation. There is no board rule requiring that every possible interpretation of a post be considered, and only the most benign interpretation answered. My post was not even rude, much less anywhere close to breaking any known rule of GD.
The fact that this thread has been up for over a day now may speak volumes.
It’s situations like this that make me glad I don’t even read GD, much lest post there.
It what way?
It appears to be up for less than a day. I don’t know what Tom’s schedule is, but maybe he hasn’t even seen this yet, and that’s why he didn’t address it. I think Oak is right, but I’ve noticed Tom usually addresses these things.
Anyway, Oakminster didn’t do anything to deserve modding.
You should concede the point, because it’s clearly valid. Your contention in this OP that it was a statement of “fact” was extremely sloppy (in that it ignored one of two contexts in which it wasn’t fact), thus my disagreement with you.
But having said that, I agree, it didn’t require moderation.
My post was a statement of fact. Multiple facts, actually:
- I do object to the language used.
- The U.S. has an all volunteer force.
- Nobody gets a pass in a draft with an all volunteer force.
- People either join up, or they don’t.
All facts. None of which become more or less factual depending on the interpretation of the post to which I replied.
You think #2 is a fact under all conditions?
Are you trying to state that even during a draft the U.S. has an all volunteer force?
Now you’re just being pedantic. The statement is obviously referring to the present situation.
The term draft did not change the context of the sentences which preceded it.
The most straightforward way of reading Paul’s OP is that he was implying that they are currently getting a pass, but that we can afford to do that now - were they similarly given a pass when circumstances were more dire (i.e. the WW2 draft)?
Again, this is not to say that no other readings are possible, but that this is the most straightforward reading, and someone who reads it this way does not need to be told by a moderator to lighten up.
Would you agree that the OP had a particular context in mind when creating the post and it’s possible your interpretation doesn’t match the OP’s intent?
Oakminster’s post was the first response to the OP. Qin’s was the second. Despite Oak’s claim of a “polite” statement of “fact,” it was not all that polite and it was irrelevant to the point made in the OP. Thus, a thread that was looking for information was immediately followed by two posts that could spur contentious hijacks.
My post was to mitigate against the possibilty that the thread would be derailed before it could even get off the ground.
No one was Warned. No one was accused of breaking any rules.
If you want my opinion, tomndebb (and I don’t see why you would), your comments would have been more appropriate without the Mod Hat on.