[QUOTE=elucidator]
There is a simpler explanation, of course, and that is, in the course of free exchange of ideas and argument, the conservative slant has become so discredited that reasonable minds have abandoned it. It doesn’t require conspiracy or collussion, simply a function of an argumentive dialectic.
Simple. Occam’s Phazer.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t be serious about this. If that were true, wouldn’t America reflect a similar liberal:conservative ratio to the sdmb?
Or are you one of those “dopers are way smarter than everyone else” idiots?
[QUOTE=Gukumatz ]
I don’t think this list, on it’s own, is conclusive to a verdict of sub-bridge-denizen, but once you start posting his OPs . . . One of the reasons he’s such a successful troll is because he’s obviously very careful about toeing the line. It’s easy to see through, when you break it down into patterns, but a single observation of him in his natural habitat can appear relatively harmless.
[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of “logic” that will allow you to support your preconceived opinion with confirmation bias, and dismiss any evidence to the contrary.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
It’s not just the threads he starts-or at least, not the names of said threads. It’s HOW he posts them, how he posts to any thread, and how he acts.
Basically, the way he presents himself.
[/QUOTE]
Rubbish. It’s what some people perceive about HOW he posts them, how he posts to any thread, and how he acts.
Basically, the way they choose to take him.
There are plenty of others who just take his posts at face value without the need to label him a troll. Most of the questionable ones are in the Pit after all aren’t they? Who goes there looking for reasoned discourse?
It appears that you, too, should reread what I wrote. Show me where I said what you conclude here.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes, the “go back though twenty of my posts and tell me what I said” defence. Sorry, I’m not interested enough to waste my time futher. You have given the clear impression that you believe 2.5 was suspended, in part or entirely, based on his politics. If this was not what you intended to say, next time try to be a little more clear.
[QUOTE=don’t ask]
Rubbish. It’s what some people perceive about HOW he posts them, how he posts to any thread, and how he acts.
Basically, the way they choose to take him.
There are plenty of others who just take his posts at face value without the need to label him a troll. Most of the questionable ones are in the Pit after all aren’t they? Who goes there looking for reasoned discourse?
[/QUOTE]
Or, someone’s just pissed because he wasted his money and trying to blame the rest of us?
[QUOTE=don’t ask]
I Listed below are the first page of the search of threads he has started with the number of views and the odd editorial comment for context. I love the way people can choose to characterize him as a remorseless troll supposedly playing some fiendish mind game with us, his intellectual betters. Yet most threads he starts receive polite interest.
So which ones are trolling?
[/Quote]
I didn’t characterize him that way. Cervaise certainly did, and though I don’t necessarily agree, the bluntness of his response really cracked me up.
There is no ambiguity, however. Marley23, in this thread, has stated precisely which threads were the primary contributers to the Mods’ decision.
If you feel that there should be a higher minimum number of threads required to deem someone as having been deliberately trolling, I’ll be happy to listen to your argument.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
** I think he was banned not so much for his strange and extreme positions, but because they were strange and extreme that was too far to the right. **I think calling him a troll is wishful thinking. There are those who cannot fathom that someone would have a position so far from their own. If they do, especially if it deviates wildly from the groupthink that can occur here, that person MUST be posting to just cause others angst, not because they have a position they sincerely want to explore.
This reflects as poorly on the SMDB as some think 2.5 does.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding is mine–sc
Perhaps your first post in this thread wasn’t clear enough. I can see how many here would think you were talking about Conservatives vs. Liberals. Of course, you weren’t. You just didn’t choose your words carefully enough.
Care to expand on what you meant by my bolded part?
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Ah, yes, the “go back though twenty of my posts and tell me what I said” defence. Sorry, I’m not interested enough to waste my time futher. You have given the clear impression that you believe 2.5 was suspended, in part or entirely, based on his politics. If this was not what you intended to say, next time try to be a little more clear.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, very good. “In part” being the operative phrase. Now that we’ve determined what I’ve actually said, feel free to ask a question. Or not.
And I thoroughly enjoy the humor in you 1) mischaracterizing what I said, 2) going back and seeing that you were in error and correcting yourself, then 3) turning it into my fault for simply wanting to be held responsible for things I did say and not things I didn’t say.
Now smash yourself over your head with an electric guitar a few times and we’re good.
Perhaps your first post in this thread wasn’t clear enough. I can see how many here would think you were talking about Conservatives vs. Liberals. Of course, you weren’t. You just didn’t choose your words carefully enough.
Care to expand on what you meant by my bolded part?
[/QUOTE]
Sure. That there is more tolerance in posting extreme positions if those positions are off the left side of the scale as opposed to the right.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Sure. That there is more tolerance in posting extreme positions if those positions are off the left side of the scale as opposed to the right.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, some of 2.5’s stated beliefs were extremely leftist, or at least that how I assume constitutional amendments securing the rights of homosexuals and the right to an abortion could be viewed. He submitted a list of his core beliefs once and politically they looked all over the place to me.
I respectfully request a response to my post #107.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Ahh, very good. “In part” being the operative phrase. Now that we’ve determined what I’ve actually said, feel free to ask a question. Or not.
[/QUOTE]
OK. What, other than your own opinion, is your evidence that bias played a part in 2.5’s suspension?
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
I didn’t characterize him that way. Cervaise certainly did, and though I don’t necessarily agree, the bluntness of his response really cracked me up.
There is no ambiguity, however. Marley23, in this thread, has stated precisely which threads were the primary contributers to the Mods’ decision.
If you feel that there should be a higher minimum number of threads required to deem someone as having been deliberately trolling, I’ll be happy to listen to your argument.
[/QUOTE]
The linked thread from Marley23 contains two of the threads in my list but only one has a warning, the Kennedy thread. His felony thread is just closed with a reference to his suspension.
As I noted another thread was started about whether it was appropriate to close the Kennedy thread. For mine the stupid OP was no dumber than Helms thread to which it referred.
Another warning is in January in a thread where he asked if he should join and was told by a moderator that he was a troll but not because of anything he said in that thread.
The final link is to a thread where 2.5 posted this
in a thread about express lane decorum at the supermarket. Again he was warned because
. I take that to mean “this post isn’t trolling but you are a troll.”
I am not going to invest any emotional energy in pursuit of this but it strikes me that it almost requires that kind of predisposition exhibited in two of the warnings to get wound up about any of these posts.
The Kennedy post is a stupid post about a tasteless thread.
The felony thread is just an ill thought out OP from someone with a barbaric sense of justice.
His attitude towards express lanes is that of a jerk but I don’t see anything jerkish about the post.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I repeat, you were begging the question. If you as a mod seriously can’t see how you were, you have more serious problems than simple bias.[/question]
What question do you think I am begging?
My mistake. Frank expressed no disagreement with the assessment of trolldom in discussion, so I made the assumption that he agreed with it. I overlooked his post in this thread.
Are you or are you not claiming that we made the decision to suspend 2.5 on the basis of the political content of his threads? Please state clearly what your position is.
Unless you can demonstrate that we make decisions on the basis of politics, this is, once again, irrelevant.
So if we are NOT making decisions on the basis of our political orientation, what exactly is the problem?
If anything, I deliberately try to err on the side of giving more leeway to posters who express views contrary to my own. I’m sure I have warned/cautioned many more posters for anti-conservative cracks in GQ than otherwise. If you want to try to demonstrate bias in my moderating against those who don’t share my views, it’s up to you to produce some actual evidence rather that insisting it must necessarily be true. The fact that you believe this says much more about your own pinched viewpoint than it does about reality.
Honestly, I’m not all that het up about the situation either, so I’ll comment on just the points below and leave it at that.
[QUOTE=don’t ask]
The Kennedy post is a stupid post about a tasteless thread.
[/Quote]
As was discussed in a followup thread, at any time he could have objected to the tone of the Helms thread in the thread itself, which he never bothered to post to. Plenty of other people had no trouble objecting in that manner. It’s hard not to get the impression that he was grandstanding.
I’ve gotta disagree. He was taking some flack for his (rather extreme) position in the ‘chemical castration’ thread and it doesn’t seem a wild leap into illogic to think that he might have launched the other one just to piss people off further.
Well, you’ve got me there. I’m afraid that distinction’s a little too subtle for me.
Seriously, though, we all can argue endlessly (and apparently always will) about what constitutes a sufficient degree of jerkitude to result in a Mod action, but my main point is that there is no particular mystery as to what sorts of things got him suspended.
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Seriously, though, we all can argue endlessly (and apparently always will) about what constitutes a sufficient degree of jerkitude to result in a Mod action, but my main point is that there is no particular mystery as to what sorts of things got him suspended.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I can see how it all comes about and I concede all your impressions may be correct it’s just, as I said, you have to presuppose things to assume he is trolling.
Grandstanding isn’t, to my knowledge, trolling. And you yourself admit you assume he starts the felony thread because it will piss people off.
I find the accusation of trolling in the express lane thread bizarre. Does the moderator know that 2.5 doesn’t act in the way he says he does and is just saying it get a rise? Or does the moderator object to him revealing how jerkish his behaviour is.
Mind you on checking this and seeing Omegaman’s link, an explanation for why the question was being asked would have been an improvement. No good reason for having the thought springs to my mind.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Actually, some of 2.5’s stated beliefs were extremely leftist, or at least that how I assume constitutional amendments securing the rights of homosexuals and the right to an abortion could be viewed. He submitted a list of his core beliefs once and politically they looked all over the place to me.
I respectfully request a response to my post #107.
[/QUOTE]
I actually never paid too much attention to 2.5, and rarely contributed to those threads. I would often scan them (GD and The Pit), but rarely posted in them, so I’m not sure of the full range of his politics. I did notice from what I did read, that most of his extremism, and most of the vitriol delivered his way had to do with threads and posts that were more “extreme right” in nature. This impression was supported by the reasons cited for his suspension. And defense thereof.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers (Post 107)]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Once that happens, the true value of their positions don’t matter much
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. 2.5 was invited to explain the true value of his position on legal castration and felony execution repeatedly. He either ignored such requests or found (or claimed to find) hairsplitting semantic justifications for his position. Though some users did label him “troll”, many others (myself included) did not, and made the effort to give his arguments serious analysis, even far more than deserved.
[/QUOTE]
The comment you were responding to was a general one. It had to do with when a collective stance, held by a majority, is assumed to be correct and a tendency surfaces to demonize or marginalize all counter opinions. Especially those that go to the underlying orthodoxy. This can simply shut down debate, which is often the desire.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I repeat, you were begging the question. If you as a mod seriously can’t see how you were, you have more serious problems than simple bias.
[/quote]
What question do you think I am begging? Whether **2.5 ** was trolling, or whether he was suspended because the administration is politically biased against right wing opinions?
My mistake. Frank expressed no disagreement with the assessment of trolldom in discussion, so I made the assumption that he agreed with it. I overlooked his post in this thread.
Are you or are you not claiming that we made the decision to suspend 2.5 on the basis of the political content of his threads? Please state clearly what your position is.
Unless you can demonstrate that we make decisions on the basis of politics, this is, once again, irrelevant.
So if we are NOT making decisions on the basis of our political orientation, what exactly is the problem?
If anything, I deliberately try to err on the side of giving more leeway to posters who express views contrary to my own. I’m sure I have warned/cautioned many more posters for anti-conservative cracks in GQ than otherwise. If you want to try to demonstrate bias in my moderating against those who don’t share my views, it’s up to you to produce some actual evidence rather that insisting it must necessarily be true. The fact that you believe this says much more about your own blinkered viewpoint than it does about reality.
[QUOTE=don’t ask]
The linked thread from Marley23 contains two of the threads in my list but only one has a warning, the Kennedy thread. His felony thread is just closed with a reference to his suspension.
[/QUOTE]
Politics my ass. I don’t like using the T word at all because of the degree of psychologizing involved - it’s hard to prove conclusively and people here can’t stand it when that happens. But the guy had a long pattern of being as inflammatory as possible.
