I don’t see it. Oakminster didn’t violate any rules. He didn’t disrupt the thread. He did raise an objection to the assumptions of the thread. Contrary to your assertion, his comment is reasonably polite (as opposed to the title of this thread). His point may or may not be valid to the OP, but that is not grounds for moderator intervention.
Your comment would have been perfectly fine as a regular poster. As a mod note, it makes no sense.
You could have made an instruction to not derail the thread without including the statement “lighten up” or commenting on the validity of his interpretation of the OP.
How was my post not polite? I did not insult the guy, I merely stated that I object to the way he phrased it, and I explained why.
My reply was a fair comment on what he posted. Your interpretation of the OP’s intent is not the only one possible, nor is it the most likely from the plain meaning of the words used.
On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being “the unbearable lightness of being” and 10 being “total uptiightitudeness”, I’d say Oakminster’s post was maybe a 3. Posts in GD routinely break the 5 barrier, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post that low on the meter getting a mod note. “I object to…” wasn’t necessary, but it was hardly a launching pad for thread derailment. It’s SOP to correct factual errors made in an OP, and sloppy errors often get a little snark in the side. The OP made a sloppy error.
Here’s the deal oak-a-rino…you’ve just admitted what pretty much anyone with a pulse can recognize, that the OP could be interpreted in more than one way. (Note: this is not an insult, just a positive confirmation that you do have a pulse).
You chose to write a tunnel-vision post, focusing with laser-like guidance on the one interpretation that any rational collection of even loosely coupled cells would immediately realize seemed suspiciously trivial, given that, for someone to “get a pass” there would almost have to be some sort of requirement, maybe, perhaps, could it be…yes, a draft.
Which is completely irrelevant to the situation. It’s totally acceptable (if mockable) for a poster to harp on a suspiciously trivial interpretation of a remark and point out the obvious. It is rather bizarre for a moderator to make an official note over it.
An instruction “let’s not hijack this thread before it even starts” might have been appropriate. The remark to Qin was completely valid. The remark “lighten up” and the correction of the interpretation of the remark don’t really belong in moderating tags.
Tom, I say this with respect. I’ve read a number of the complaint threads against you over the years. In the vast majority, I support you. Claims that you are biased in moderation have not held up for me. In this particular instance, I do not see how your remark to Oakminster belongs in mod tags. It does not relate to board behavior or even approaching a rule violation. I grant you the first two posts out the door didn’t really address the question per se, and for that matter, I’m not sure why that question is in Great Debates in the first place, and not in GQ. I can see why you might have felt an instruction was in order to try to keep the thread from getting tanked before it started. But the particular remark you made to Oakminster just doesn’t read like an issue for moderation. It reads like a response from a poster to a poster about the content of a post. And I really don’t see how his comment is inappropriate for that thread.
I’ve got to ask: Exactly what type of response was the OP fishing for when he worded the title of this thread? How was he expecting a moderator of this message board to react? How would most message board moderators react to such a calm and reasoned request for clarification?
I’ve got to ask: Exactly what type of response is this poster fishing for when he worded this post? How was he expecting anyone else to react? How would most people react to such an unnecessary and prodding request to get angrier?
Oh no, a moderator isn’t being treated like a precious flower! I must respond - but is there time to don *all *of my white knight gear? Too late - I must come to their defense!
This wouldn’t have been a problem if Tom had waited long enough for the OP to respond. The whole thing is making a mountain out of a speck of dust. It’s beginning to remind me of the voter ID laws trying to avert crimes that don’t exist.
I disagree. “Giving them a pass … nowadays” implies special treatment is currently given to Orthodox Jews. This isn’t true, and it is fair to point that out, and even object to it, if the inaccuracy bothers you.
Whether or not we re-institute a draft is irrelevant, because “nowadays” we don’t have one.
You seem to be implying that there’s some meaningful chance that Tom would have acknowledged his error if only Oakminster would have asked nicely. Based on what I’ve seen of him in similar situations, I disagree.
The answer to your questions is that it was a public protest, and not necessarily aimed at Tom specifically. (Much like most other threads of this sort.)
When I read the OP I thought to myself, “well obviously the OP is referring to a broader time frame than what is in effect today because that interpretation is trivially incorrect, therefore they are including the last time a draft was instituted, which I believe was vietnam. Coupled with the explicit mention of the draft in WWII, this seems logical and correct”.
The term “nowadays” can vary depending on the context, here’s an example:
“Nowadays we don’t sacrifice virgins to the gods”
Unless you’re talking geologic time, nowadays isn’t going to include something that went away 40 years ago.
I think you’re being overly generous with your interpretation. Even if you’re not, this interpretation implies that Orthodox Jews got a pass on the Vietnam Draft.
If that’s the statement he intended, it’s an even more volatile claim, and had better be right, which I don’t think it is.