There were multiple offenses. Just because they didn’t get caught until after reoffending doesn’t mean they should get away with it.
Common, man. You know the issue wasn’t the word “beg”, but “invent”.
The only claim that was being made was that Trump said that they needed to find 11,000 votes. That was based on the words that Trump had said.
No one in that thread, had used the word invented until the poster in question brought it up.
This is pretty much a perfect example of strawmanning.
And it’s not about the word “beg”. I wouldn’t use the word beg, personally, I would say demanded, threatened, extorted. Begging would be a much softer accusation.
I’m not entirely sure if we are on the same page as to what the actual offense was here.
Strawmanning in a thread protesting the warning another poster received for strawmanning is ballsy, I’ve gotta say.
I think k9bfriender was explaining to Velocity what the strawmanning in question was about, not saying that Velocity was strawmanning.
Well, I was, yes.
But, as I haven’t seen anyone in this thread make any arguments pertaining to the word “beg”, I suppose it’s more of a twofer.
The poster came into the thread to rebut a claim that Trump literally asked Georgia to “invent” votes. They even had a handy excerpt with bolding to highlight that he never used the word “invent.”
“…In that last quote, Trump was addressing one of his attorneys, Cleta Mitchell, who was also on the call. At no point did he utter “invent.”…”
This was not a claim that had been made in the thread.
The cite did back up the actual claim - that Trump used the word “find.” Which… He did.
I believed - and still do- that this was intentionally inflammatory, and designed to derail the thread. Hence the warning.
NOTE: This is NOT directed at any poster or moderator.
I think Jonathan Chance explained it nicely in the board sticky:
“Posters stating things you don’t like are not necessarily trolling.
Posters disagreeing with your posts are not necessarily trolling. Try to listen to the other side. Don’t try to shut them out because they have a different opinion or belief.
Posters you don’t like - or have a history with - are not necessarily trolling.
Posters and their opinions may offend you. This does not necessarily mean they are trolling.”
In any case, isn’t any post in Politics and Elections going to be inflammatory to somebody? Partisan politics go back to the beginning of civilization.
Did you read the thread? The poster was warned because he came into a thread, built up a strawman, and demolished it, in such an obvious way that it could be nothing except trolling. He then doubled down. The warning had nothing to do with his politics.
I didn’t say that it did. In any politically based thread, someone, somewhere, is bound to take offense.
As I posted earlier in the Pit, I agree with this take - I don’t think two warnings are merited.
I have no strong opinion on whether the poster in question was deliberately trolling or simply…something else. But I don’t have any particular issue with A warning per se. It’s a judgement call and from where I’m sitting this one looks close enough for government work. But two without allowing the poster to back down between them looks a bit unbalanced to me. Warnings are theoretically supposed to help moderate behavior, not pile up offenses to speed up the race towards sanction.
But eh, I’m not that incensed either. Just looks a little off to me.
Cool. Since he was not warned for being offensive, I’m a bit confused about why you are posting that here, though.
I don’t see much difference between calling a post “offensive” vs. “inflammatory”. YMMV.
Neither warning was for being “inflammatory” either.
Here are both warnings:
He was warned for arguing against a point no one was actually making (a form of trolling). Not for being offensive or inflammatory.
Eh, I think, in this case, you’re overestimating the reading and debating skill level of the poster. S/he made a leap that wasn’t warranted, but I can see how s/he thought that way, based on many, if not most, other illogical arguments made by them in the past. This fits right in with those. I think s/hw was sincere, just wrong per usual.
Yes, exactly this.
Well, he then argued the warning in thread- which usually gives you a warning. So, he is evens.
Oh, is that what he meant when he said he thought only the mod could see his comment?
The poster was apparently under the mistaken impression that a reply to a warning would be visible only to the mod issuing the warning.
I’d take that claim at face value, and call it a good-faith error.
Unless your argument is that if a post is inflammatory and/or offensive, it cannot be trolling, I’m not seeing your point here.