I don’t agree with handsomeharry’s opinion and I’m not sticking up for him. I love dogs and I especially love my own dog to death. But I’m not offended to be called a goober. As I said in the Pit thread, I am a goober and proud of it. I don’t feel that I need to defend my position on loving dogs. It’s up to the other side to defend theirs, if they can.
What he really said is “I am actually stunned, no, STUNNED by the people who are such goobers when a K-9 dog dies”.
That’s not calling anyone a goober except people who are goobers. Which could be anyone, or no one.
Furthermore, I’m not sure taking the side of Israel or Palestine in a thread is equivalent to taking the pro-going-to-funerals-of-a-dog-I-didn’t-know-existed-until-it-didn’t side. Is anyone really taking that side? The real disagreement seems to be over the dismissal of dogs in general.
Rants such as that OP don’t belong in MPSIMS. The Pit is for rants, mild or paint blistering or anything in between.
The decision to move the thread was correct.
Give me a break.
mhendo, I understand your complaint has nothing to do with dogs or dog lovers or dog haters or cops or whether this thread belonged in the Pit before or after any particular point. As I understand, your complaint is the attitude by the moderators that there were several potential rules violations for the thread in MPSIMS that would not be rules violations in the Pit, and the moderator elected to give all of those rules violations a free pass and just move the thread rather than directly deal with the rules violations.
In fact, if I understand you correctly, you wouldn’t have even minded moving the thread as belonging in the Pit as long as there was some effort to address the rules violations that occurred before the move. Is this a correct summary?
Practically speaking, I can understand the concept of coming in to a mess late and taking the most expedient means to solve the problem. Speaking in principle, I do agree that at least some nod should be made to maintaining order and enforcing the rules that exist at the time of the infractions.
In this specific incident (and as a general practice), a minimal effort could have been made by the mod in the move to the Pit by commenting (a) the thread was more of a rant so belonged in the Pit rather than just saying “so y’all can just let loose”; (b) some form of admonishment that posters should abide by the rules of the forum the post is in rather than assume it will be moved and post as if the move has already occurred.
This would not have required actually handing out any Warnings or specific mod notes, but rather a general admonishment. That would not have taken much time to compile (like referring to specific individuals) and should have precluded most objections to moderating individuals (why did I get a mod note and not him?) while making it clear that forum rules apply to everyone.
I think the objection is the idea that if I can get enough people to join in the rules violation, we can overwhelm the mods and thereby get everyone a free pass. I’m not sure there really is a good answer here. A “jackbooted thug” (or strict disciplinarian) would hand out the appropriate mod notes and/or warnings to defend the principle of following the rules of the forum where the thread currently resides. A “softee” (or practicalitarian) would decide that the string of mod complaints following that would not be worth the value and handwave them away. That answer, however, has the downfall that later “similar incidents” (whatever that means) that were handled more strictly would get whines because of the “precedent” established here.
I would probably go for at least a mod note to the thread. Not being a mod, that’s easy for me to say.
What Irishman says makes sense, I believe.
Another point that might have been better advised is to lock the thread rather than move it to the Pit. The impression to me of moving it to the Pit is to more-or-less condone the previous rule-breaking by enabling it to continue in a different forum, albeit one where insults are allowed. Locking the thread with a note that anyone who wants to can Pit the OP might have given a better impression than “well, there were lots of insults flying and that will be OK in the Pit”. Moving it Pit-ward enables and encourages, or at least does nothing to dissuade, insults elsewhere on SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
In the interest of clarity for all, please enlighten me (and us) as to exactly what rule I broke with the first reply. I didn’t call the OP names, I didn’t wish death or harm on him, and I didn’t use obscene language in any way. I didn’t directly insult him either. I merely disagreed with him, and his post. If that’s the kind of thing you are going to start handing out warning for, you all are going to be very busy, in every forum.
You shouldn’t be namecalling anybody on the board in any kind of derogatory fashion in MPSIMS; it’s not that kind of forum.
“Goober” is not a compliment. Unless you’re talking about peas. 
Can’t please everyone, I guess. Some days you can’t please anyone; those are probably the times we really got it right.
Those would all go to Great Debates, our forum specifically for heated debate. That’s why that forum exists–to keep that sort of stuff out of the lighter forums.
If the OP were set up as a debate, I guess it could have gone there, too. But it was set up as a rant, and I’ve seen threads both of those subjects moved to the Pit because they were rants.
(Though I would point out that there is a type of rant that does go in MPSIMS: the one where you are ranting because something really bad happened to you, and you’re just wanting sympathy. That’s directly in the rules for the Pit.)
You can’t really be so ignorant of the rules as you seem to be here. You broke the rule against insults and personal attacks.
You said that he “richly deserved being torn a new one.” Being torn a new asshole, which is clearly what you meant, is generally considered to be harmful. You said he was making a “complete ass” of himself, and that you would “hate to live in his world, or his head.” These are quite clearly intended to insult. You might possibly try to rules-lawyer by saying the “complete ass” comment was directed at his behavior instead of him, but the entire tone and intent of the post was a personal attack.
You certainly didn’t “merely disagree” with him, you attacked him in a very insulting manner. And I certainly don’t see attacks of that kind frequently enough to make me worry about handling them. If I had seen such a post in GQ, it would have unquestionably have gotten a warning from me.
[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
“Goober” is not a compliment. Unless you’re talking about peas.
[/QUOTE]
What about if the poster you are talking to is a big fan of George Lindsey? What’s the ruling on that?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? So a figure of speech, that usually refers to verbally assaulting someone, is somehow wishing harm on them?
Jesus Christ. :smack:
But he didn’t say “you goobers.” It wasn’t addressed specifically to any group of Dopers.
I recognize that hh probably didn’t mean it as a compliment and that people who took it as an insult aren’t unjustified.
It was mainly describing a group of people at his office. It seems to me there are worse insults worth taking offense to. Unless you actually work with hh. We can call bad drivers on the road “goobers,” can’t we? This doesn’t seem to be any different. No actual Dopers were insulted. I recognize it’s a hot-button topic, though. It just seems such a goofy insult, though, worth laughing at more than anything.
I want to remind everybody that handsomeharry’s thread was “inspired by” a thread that about the death of a police officer. He made a point to lead with that.
Whatever. It’s clear silenus’s post was not meant as good wishes.
But the rule has always been that it’s ok to attack A) groups and B) off-board people.
By the interpretation of the rules above (“Yes, he’s calling the group of people who go to dog-funerals “Goobers” but there are people who go to dog-funerals on the SDMB, so he’s attacking them”), suddenly GD should be closed, since people attack Atheists, Republicans, Catholics, Israelis, etc. all the time, and each of those groups includes members on the SDMB.
The move made no sense at all.
I don’t usually stand by the mods, but in this one I do. The guy opened with a link to a death and his point was that he was “stunned, no STUNNED” that people would mourn that.
It’s a rant, plain and simple.
And that is relevant how? He’s clearly speaking in his thread about K-9 dogs, i.e. police dogs in the K-9 unit. And the people who go to the funeral of a dog, a dog whose master they don’t know personally.
What does that have to do with whether or not the thread should have been moved? Or how the moderators could have explained it better, or possibly moderated differently to be more appropriate? Those are the ATMB topics.
And the tone of silenus’s post was entirely wrong for MPSIMS.
That sums up my position pretty well, and i have no bone to pick with the rest of your post, either.
I would just add something, in the hopes of further clarifying: There are times when threads get moved to the Pit because the OP constitutes a rant that is inappropriate for a forum like MPSIMS. There are also times when a thread gets moved to the Pit because the debate gets too heated, and people either start, or look like they’re about to start, breaking the rules.
But if you’re going to move a thread for the first reason, it behooves you to make that clear when the thread is moved. And if you’re going to move it for the second reason, at the very least you should make a nod in the direction of enforcing the rules regarding no insults outside the Pit.
My friend, you’re one of my favorite people around here, and i have no desire to see your warned or anything, but i’ve seen people (including me!) warned for less.
The really depressing thing is that you sometimes seem to adopt this philosophy as a guideline for your moderation. “Let’s see, how can we address this issue in a way that will please the smallest number of people possible.”
Well, if someone took it literally, it could certainly leave the victim butthurt. 
But you weren’t seriously suggesting an actual, literal interpretation of this commonly-used figure of speech, were you? My god, it seems that you were.
You had just told silenus a couple of sentences prior: “You can’t really be so ignorant of the rules as you seem to be here.” Well, you can’t really be so ignorant of the definition of “being torn a new asshole” as you appear to be here. I know you shrugged it off in response to Guin, but it’s precisely this sort of willful misinterpretation that gets some people frustrated with some moderating decisions.
So it seems that you agree that twickster’s moderation of the thread in question was, at the very least, excessively lenient.