Possibly, but probably not. Like i said, i can see the mod’s point, I’m not arguing this was bad moderation. Especially since it was just a note. Possibly inconsistent with the other examples given for linking to calling out racists, but I don’t expect too much consistency in moderation here, especially when it comes to what’s considered an insult or not.
The thread he linked to was about the poster and his trolling. It was simply the most accurate thread MrDibble could find. I think this decision reflects the special sensitivity this board exhibits for racist debates instead of MrDibble violating any longstanding practice.
Only in terms of my personal effort is there a difference between my linking to a pit thread I wrote and a pit thread I would have written.
Bolding mine. Well, except for the “kayaker” part.
Did he call the OP a troll, or did he merely point out that a bunch of people had accumulated circumstantial evidence of trolling and does that difference matter?
It was pretty straightforward: He said
, and the words “this link” linked to the “Omnibus Trolls R Us Thread”.
So, if the thread were titled “Please Read This” and was otherwise the same thread, it woulda been ok?
I get it now. I’d assumed that Mr Dibble was linking to a thread that he’d begun in the Pit, ‘taking it to the Pit’ in other words, a practice which has always been allowed.
But that isn’t what he did. He linked to the troll thread in a none-too-subtle attempt to characterize GlowingDarkness as a troll. It was a clear breach of GD rules and I see that now.
Don’t take it personally.
So, if he had started his own Pit thread it would have been OK, but it’s not OK to link to a Pit thread started by someone else? Not seeing any significant space between those two actions.
From a technical standpoint I agree with the moderating and think there’s a clear distinction.
If you merely say “I’ve started a Pit thread” or even link to it, you’ve not said anything negative in GD. You’ve only provided a link to somewhere else where the astute reader might guess has a high likelihood of containing negativity. But if you say “what I think of you is in this thread” then - even without a link - you’re made an insult in GD itself. It’s no different than if you said “I think you’re a 4 letter work ending with -erk” - you’ve essentially made the insult but just used a bit of a roundabout way to reference the insulting words without saying them.
It’s a technical difference, to be sure, but technical differences are what remove subjectivity and allow people to follow things more easily.
Honestly, when it comes to this messageboard, I agree with you, I’m one of the great ones. Lord knows this board could use a few more perks.
Just my opinion, but I think that when the mods make a rule they’d much rather posters try to actually follow the rule then try to make an “elegant workaround” to it.
“Don’t do ‘such-and-such’”
“What if I do ‘such-and-such’ in this special way that I think follows the rules if they are interpreted in a strict manner?”
“:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:”
Indeed.
I moderate a subreddit, and we explicitly don’t make precise rules for this reason. We want the flexibility to say “we both know this was inappropriate, it’s getting modded” without having to split hairs over whether something is against the rules by a strict interpretation.
That wouldn’t work in a court of law, but it’s fine for a message board.
How can a debate be racist?
The same way it can be stupid, angry, nitpicking, or polite. Are you not clear with this particular use of adjectives?
I’ve had some time to chew on this - as well as consult the mod loop - over the last day or so. Forgive the delay.
The note is rescinded.
It has long been custom here to ‘invite someone to the Pit’ when one wishes to confront another poster with language and insults not suitable for Great Debates or other fora (though I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of such posts are in Great Debates). I have no wish to interfere with this custom. It provides a useful outlet and - hopefully - allows debates to continue without being sidetracked by invective.
However…
I can see a circumstance where such custom is exploited as a backdoor means of insulting other posters. Repeated instances of such or instances where the linked thread is nothing but an insult without further discussion could still be sanctionable by your friendly and tolerant moderators. The above examples do not constitute the entirety of posts on the subject that could result in notes or actions. If you find that vaguely defined then you are correct. I have no interest in trying to define bright lines here.
In short, use it in good health but don’t be a jerk about it.
Interesting point. I wouldn’t regard the threads as debates about the nature of running speed or intelligence or civilization. So I wouldn’t call them Running Debates or Intelligence Debates. I can only think of them as places where racists and open-minded, curious people argue the validity of racist ideas. The best label seems to be “Racist Debate” because it’s more about debating what racists think rather than anything else.
Thanks. Like I said, I could see the point of the moderation, and will certainly consider the wording of any such linking I do in future more carefully.
Thank-you. I was sort of wondering if the was some “looping” going on.
All I’m seeing is a distinction without a difference. How does that differ from the time-honored and long-accepted, “Czarcasm, would you be so kind as to join me in The Pit?” with a link to my “Czarcasm is a doo-doo head,” thread?
Oh, I get it. It’s because “doo-doo head” and “troll” aren’t necessarily synonymous. :classic rolleyes: