Nope. You are quoting someone’s use of that term and then saying it actually doesn’t apply. Leave off the last sentence, and you are quoting someone else using the term and using it yourself. That is no different from referring to “under bridge dwellers” as a way to get around using the word “troll”. Or, poster A saying “I’m not trolling” and poster B saying “Yes, you are”. Poster B is clearly calling poster A troll, even though he doesn’t use the term.
I mostly agree with the characterization, but opine that that the statement, taken as a whole, would not deserve moderation. The poster in question describes usage, veers off and says that he agrees narrowly with the characterization – but then points out that it’s parody. Taken as a whole it doesn’t insult anyone. But a foolish consistency would have the discussion inappropriately curbed.
I think we have sufficient guidance. The suffix is ridiculous and makes the speaker appear addled. It will be modded from time to time, if only to save valued members from themselves. We are a community after all and need to look out for one another.
What about tardfest?
While the staff would like to think that the majority of posters have the capacity to make some judgments on their own, we do realize that this is not always the case.
That’s a prefix. Totally different from using it as a suffix.
Quiet, you.
It depends.
They do, but it’s somewhat difficult to understand the implications when you immediately indicated that it’s not ok to use libtard but won’t do so with regard to freeptard. What does that mean? Are the two words subject to different rules or the same rules?
They’re subject to the same rule. We just don’t know what the rule is.
[QUOTE=IvoryTowerDenizen]
This is the second time you’ve said something to this effect and I think this is an uneccessarily negative characterization. Jonathan Chance did not say it’d be modded capriciously or on a whim. He said he’d take into account context, tone and other factors. That’s the opposite of modding based on a whim, but applying thought and judgement to the usage
[/QUOTE]
.
He said -
They agree that the terms add nothing to a debate and should be avoided, but each individual mod may see fit to do nothing about it anyway. Just as I said, there is no way to predict how a given mod may feel on a given day, and the same statement in the same forum may be moderated differently, based on which mod acts first on a report.
In light of a “ruling” like this, the complaints of the mods about “rules lawyering” are more than slightly ridiculous. As LHoD says, this “it depends on which mod and context and how he feels and other undefined and undefinable circumstances” is absolutely guaranteed to maximize contention.
‘We aren’t going to be consistent, so just don’t guess wrong’ is a Down syndrome standard. This will not reduce arguments - just the opposite.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps you missed this post, though I don’t think so since you quoted it where you claim modding will happen on a whim:
To characterize it as “on a whim” is misleading. It is clear that the intent is not to mod with respect to the moderators mood, but to take into account context etc.
I’m still trying to reconcile the statements about taking things into context, etc. with Jonathon’s earlier indication in this thread that it’s not OK for posters to use the word libtard - full stop - and his declining to make such a indication with regard to the word freeptard.
I don’t think I’ve ever said it was out-of-bounds full stop. I’ve said that it is - as all mod rulings are - context dependent.
I’ll say again that the usage is detrimental to debate and - IMHO - reflects poorly on the poster who uses it. But if I were to attempt to control everything that didn’t advance debate and might reflect poorly GD might well be a lonely place. It’s a balance between direct debate rules and a sort of informality required of a social message board.
As for Shodan’s assertion (and don’t think I haven’t noticed your use of various constructions avoiding the word ‘retarded’, my friend) that it appears to be whim-based, I certainly disagree. As anyone who spends time on message boards should have found by now, context is enormously important in a format in which informal cues (tone, body language and so forth) are unavailable. Context-sensitive moderation is not only preferred by downright required.
I did not say it was whim-based, I said it was based on what different mods saw fit to do, and on context and circumstances that were left undefined.
tomndebb rules out “libtard” absolutely, without reference to context of any sort. He rules out “Freeptard”, but with no explanation if this is a one-off, what the context or circumstances were that triggered the ruling, if the ruling applied to only that poster, only that thread, or anything else.
Both “libtard” and “Freeptard”, the mods agree, add nothing to a debate and should be avoided. Excepts sometimes “Freeptard” need not be avoided. Because… well, because.
Regards,
Shodan
Your allegation that I claimed modding will happen “on a whim” is untrue. Please do not use quote marks to falsely attribute quotes to me.
Regards,
Shodan
I apologize, that was tomndebb.
This seems like a bright line rule to me, which is different than some of the other statements.
I don’t think anyone has an issue with the context dependent part - where someone is quoting other language, making an obvious joke in a confrontational and non-aggressive manner (such as the quote a mod used upthread), discussing the usage of a word (such as here), etc.
My concern is around creating a perception that mods may choose to mod one word rather than another. It seems to me that it would be better to simply consider these ‘names’ clear and inappropriate insults and not permit them to be used as a way to denegrate a political pov.
I understand your concern, but I don’t agree that freeptard is some kind of Rubicon where libtard wasn’t.
I’m concerned that this issue will do nothing but feed the persecution complex that a segment of this board has, which sometimes poisons the well of discussion here, degrades from the quality of conversation, or subjects various mods to unfair criticism.
Just a clear statement that freeptard, or whatever chidlish equivalents may arise, would be modded the same as libtard has been in the past seemed to me to be a layup in terms of combating that issue, and I just don’t see benefit of the equivocating here, or the reasoning behind it.
I meant to write non-confrontational.
Generally, the phrase “on a whim” implies an action based on a fancy, such as mood, or taken arbitrarily, impulsively, or irrationally. It seemed to me you were suggesting such an approach with the way you summarized Jonathan Chance’s posts. If that is not what you meant, perhaps some clarification would help.
Since the mods are loath to state a bright line rule, but seem to be strongly discouraging its use, and since some posters seem to be especially uncertain what that means in terms of future usage, how about this guidance (not a rule, mind you, but guidance):
*The use of -tard as an insulting suffix in GD is highly discouraged. Assume that any use of such will be moderated, either with a mod note or a warning. We recognize that in some instances it may not be mod’ed, but the risk is on the poster using the term, and you better have an awfully good reason for using it if you expect NOT to be mod’ed. *
I happen to like rules lawyering. It is a character flaw I know, but alas. So if “libtard” is verboten, what if there was just a global replace using the phrase ‘liberals who are developmentally delayed’? Is there a meaningful difference? The problem I see with banning the original word is that what you are actually banning is a poorly fleshed out idea.
I personally think the name calling is juvenile and don’t engage in that sort of discourse. The rule though just stinks. Not insulting people on this board while allowing a free for all for off board people is easy to follow. With this type of rule there’s just another asterisk.
Previous rulings have made it clear that text within quote boxes or quotation marks was sacrosanct. Apparently that’s not the case.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan