Why Is Liberal Allowed To Use GD As A Personal Blog???

[Fenris]

@tomndebb

I am disappointed at this bullshit.

I have never mentioned any reported post or who posted it at any time.
< snip >
I noted that he reported lots of stuff in my forum.

At no point have I ever indicated any reported post by any poster.
At no point have I ever breached anything resembling the confidentiality of a reported post.

That’s true, but only in the most literal sense. You never reported any specific post, but you used mod info and mod privilige to say that Shodan was a tattletale, crybaby, hypocrite and cried wolf. No, you didn’t say the actual words, but

You (Shodan) report so many borderline (or even clearly acceptable under the rules) posts in GD that you have earned a reputation for crying “Wolf!” (And since you frequently report “insults” toward the Right in threads where similar or worse “insults” have been hurled at the Left that you do not report, I tend to “consider the source” whenever you spew these accusations in the Pit.)

This is not to say that you have not correctly reported improper behavior. You have. You have also reported a lot of behavior (usually from Left leaning posters) that you went out of your way to find offensive (while ignoring similar behavior from Right leaning posters). (It is good that you contribute something to the board as a counterbalance to your general behavior in GD.)

You can use whatever excuse you wish for failing to report a post or a thread, but a claim that you fear a breach of confidentiality is without merit or substance.

If we’re going to play the “let’s be stupidly literal” game, I could point out that this post is such idiotic gibberish that it boggles the mind. I do fear a breach of confidentiality. This is a fact. This fact is not without merit or substance because it is true. You probably meant to say “Your fears are unwarranted.” Too bad that the rule you’re establishing here is that the word order and phrasing is all that matters and clear intent is irrelevant.

But that aside, given the two quotes above, where you pulled the you’re a tattletale, a whiner and a hypocrite bit with Shodan using mod-only knowledge (and Shodan got flack from those deliberate breaches for at least a few weeks that I was aware of: stuff like “You gonna report my post, crybaby?”), given that you don’t even see this as a problem and given that you’ve already called me a hypocrite in this thread (the whole rationale that the only reason I’m complaining is that my ox is being gored and not because I object to special privilege for certain protected posters) doesn’t fill me with a lot of trust in your evenhandedness, judgment or discretion.

[Fenris]

[quote=fenris]

So…to be clear, if instead of saying (paraphrased) “I wish I could call you a liar, but I can’t here”, I had said “Jews are not polytheists; it’s the denial of their faith. Pretending otherwise is a lie; an attempt to pretend that their beliefs are something they’re not.” I’d have been fine???]/quote]

@tomndebb

In no way. Accusations of lying are prohibited.

I’m glad to hear it.

You do realize that my hypothetical is an almost word-for-word quote of a Der Trihs post in a thread you modded in and that I quoted earlier in the thread? I just changed a few of the nouns and fixed some of the grammar and spelling.

Right here

@Der Trihs

“Atheism is not faith; it’s the denial of faith. Pretending otherwise is a lie of the beleivers; an attempt to pretend that their beliefs are of equal worth.”

[furt]

@tomndebb

Gored oxen.

Bullshit. Gored oxen would be the case if I were saying it was okay when someone were attacking a group I don’t like. I am not.

Over half the consistent posters in GD use the same tactics regarding one group or another. Some posters are trickier about how they phrase it so that they can play the game of plausible deniability: “Show me where I said that.” after they have clearly conveyed their contempt for their fellow posters, (talk about your magic words defense), but it has been a standard practice on the board since its inception.

I think you’re right about half the people doing it, but that’s the wrong standard. It’s not a matter of whether or not posters want to play the “I’m not touching you” game … it’s a matter of whether or not you want to let them. The purpose of rules is not to codify the way people already behave (else why have them?), but to set forth the way the people in charge want them to behave.

And as far as comparing it to the board’s inception, I’ll we get a different kind of average poster now than we do then. Weeding strategies must adjust.

When I begin to see the posters complaining about Der Trihs reporting or challenging the posters who are on their own side of an argument who are engaged in the same behavior, I will review the situation to see whether it has moved beyond complaints of ox goring.

So what, we need a sinless poster to cast the first stone? It’s not a matter of the behavior, it’s a matter of who reports it and whether or not they have been spotless? Silly.

Here’s a serious suggestion that may or may not be technically feasible: post reporting should be anonymized.

[Sarahfeena]

@tomndebb

Gored oxen.

Over half the consistent posters in GD use the same tactics regarding one group or another. Some posters are trickier about how they phrase it so that they can play the game of plausible deniability: “Show me where I said that.” after they have clearly conveyed their contempt for their fellow posters, (talk about your magic words defense), but it has been a standard practice on the board since its inception.

I am generally on the side of “no censorship,” but some of this conversation is starting to change my mind about what’s better for the board in the long run. If over half the consistent posters in GD use these kinds of tactics, maybe there’s a problem with the rules or the way they’re enforced. Where are the posters who DON’T use those tactics? Why don’t they want to participate in GD? Why do the ones who are there try to find tricky ways to get around it, instead of abandoning it as a tactic altogther? Is this the way we want GD to be?

There is no indication that Der Trihs is aiming his nonsense at the posters with whom he is engaging. His comments are consistent regardless whether or not there are any members of the groups he condemns posting in any given thread. (The same is generally true of the rest of the crowd, as well.)

Well, of course he is. If he is talking to me, and he knows I’m Catholic, for instance, and he tells me all Catholics are X, Y, and Z, then he is calling me X, Y, and Z. How can logic tell you any differently? It’s not that big of a deal to me, in the sense that I don’t take it personally, but it does tend to drag down the discussion.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Xploder

So…Why is liberal allowed to use Great Debates as a personal blog???

You’ve admitted that the thread topic doesn’t interest you. You’ve also admitted that your only contribution to it would be to state categorically that there is no god. Why exactly do you have such a hard-on about this?

[Guinastasia]

@Lord_Ashtar

You’ve admitted that the thread topic doesn’t interest you. You’ve also admitted that your only contribution to it would be to state categorically that there is no god. Why exactly do you have such a hard-on about this?

I think the point is, if someone else starts such a topic, and said topic is closed down, is that not a double standard?

[BigT]

@Lord_Ashtar

You’ve admitted that the thread topic doesn’t interest you. You’ve also admitted that your only contribution to it would be to state categorically that there is no god. Why exactly do you have such a hard-on about this?

Because they don’t want to create a I hate Liberal blog, but use ATMB. They know their comments aren’t going to change anybody’s minds, but they do it anyways. Isn’t hypocrisy grand?

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Guinastasia

I think the point is, if someone else starts such a topic, and said topic is closed down, is that not a double standard?

Someone else would have to start such a topic first before it could be called a double standard. Lobsang’s posts have been mentioned, but his were drunken “she doesn’t love me anymore” ramblings. I hardly think that’s comparable to what Liberal is currently doing.

[Xploder]

@Lord_Ashtar

You’ve admitted that the thread topic doesn’t interest you. You’ve also admitted that your only contribution to it would be to state categorically that there is no god. Why exactly do you have such a hard-on about this?

I don’t recall saying that the topic didn’t interest me. In fact, I kind of recall saying that I enjoy reading debates and there was none within any of these four threads. I did not “admit” that my only contribution would be to state categorically that there is no god. I said, if I were to come into the thread and state that, would I get a response. I was then told no. Things sorta went downhill from there.

And I have a hard-on about this for the same reason I get a hard-on about anything. I’m a guy. That’s what we guys do. Besides taking a leak, that’s pretty much what it’s there for ya know.

[Xploder]

@BigT

Because they don’t want to create a I hate Liberal blog, but use ATMB. They know their comments aren’t going to change anybody’s minds, but they do it anyways. Isn’t hypocrisy grand?

Sorry, I don’t hate Lib any more than I hate any other poster here or elsewhere. I just think, and believe, that there’s something not right here. Liberal is treating those threads as a personal blog. A blog is where the initiating poster starts a topic, makes the rules and there is no argument allowed. If I wanted to start a thread about how much I hate Lib, which I don’t (hate him that is), then I’d go start a damn Pit thread. Just like all the other Pit threads that have been started over the years. Ya know what would happen? Same as always. Nothing. He isn’t gonna change until the Mod’s/Admin’s make him. From where I sit, that is going to be precisely never.

[ashman165]

@Xploder

I don’t recall saying that the topic didn’t interest me. In fact, I kind of recall saying that I enjoy reading debates and there was none within any of these four threads. I did not “admit” that my only contribution would be to state categorically that there is no god. I said, if I were to come into the thread and state that, would I get a response. I was then told no. Things sorta went downhill from there.

This reminds me of Douglas Adams: when it comes to religion, you can’t question it. Because you can’t. Why not? Because you can’t. If god is involved, you have to play by the covert’s rules, or you’re a mean, mean man who needs to be censored, of course.

And I have a hard-on about this for the same reason I get a hard-on about anything. I’m a guy. That’s what we guys do. Besides taking a leak, that’s pretty much what it’s there for ya know.

I guess this explains your name then, huh?

[Xploder]

@ashman165

This reminds me of Douglas Adams: when it comes to religion, you can’t question it. Because you can’t. Why not? Because you can’t. If god is involved, you have to play by the covert’s rules, or you’re a mean, mean man who needs to be censored, of course.
I guess this explains your name then, huh?

HAH! Nope but that’s what my wife thought. I actually got it from a programmer friend way long time ago when he edited the windows code to make file explorer read file exploder. I thought it was funny and had him change mine to file mangler. When I first got online, I screwed up and made my name Xploder and have kept it that way ever since.

No you know…THE REST OF THE STORY.

[Xploder]

Obviously…No=Now…I are dum and misseded the edit thingy agin…

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Xploder

I don’t recall saying that the topic didn’t interest me. In fact, I kind of recall saying that I enjoy reading debates and there was none within any of these four threads.

Fair enough. I guess I misinterpreted what you said back in post 31 (bracketed text added by me for context):

@Xploder

I didn’t say that I WAS interested in discussing things [in Liberal’s thread].

[Fenris]

@Marley

Calling it a blog over and over does not make it more blog like than it initially was. Liberal makes some presumptions as far as the terms used in the thread, but he’s not blogging, he’s discussing a topic with other posters.

Fascinating change of heart, Marley.

From here

@Marley23

focusonz, I’m getting the sense you plan to fire off a whole bunch of these. This is a message board, not a blog. (Check the rules.) Please don’t clog up the first page of the Pit with a stream of one-off threads. Either post on one topic at a time, or combine your multitude of complaints into one thread. If you keep doing this I’ll either lock or combine them.

Note that the poster had only done two or three posts (not four, like Lib) and they were more coherent (barely), less masturbatory and most importantly, more interactive than Liberal’s. At least Focusonz was willing to interact with people who disagreed with him. Lib has specifically said that he won’t pay attention if you don’t agree with his whacked out definitions. (“God is the medium through which goodness passes”? So…he’s like the aether or salt-water? What?)

From here, Fluiddruid, mod hat on

you have three OPs of vaguely the same gist between GD and the Pit, and the remainder of your posts are in only your threads. This is obnoxious behavior, knock it off. This is a community, not a blog, and you’re moving pretty briskly toward one-trick-pony territory.

Lib has 4 OPs with at least one more in the offing of exactly the same gist.

Huh–and another from Marley, sounding like he’s speaking as a mod

I think about it in terms of space on the front page of the forum: if somebody monopolizes a large chunk of it with stuff that’s pointless and uninteresting, there’s less room for everything else. So we do have a (very low) minimum standard in MPSIMS. Can people scroll by? Yes, that’s always an option. But it’s a discussion forum, not one person’s blog, and I think a little bit of pruning keeps it more diverse and leads to more interesting topics.

Given that by Tom’s own reconing his threads had (including lib) 8, 5 and 4 “serious posters”, it’s certainly uninteresting to most posters here. The thread-views is irrelevant since it’s been linked to everywhere and people are flocking to point and laugh.

and

I have a blog to share things with a small number of people, most of whom I know very well. It’s not the same thing as a message board. On a blog, generally one person talks and asks for feedback. This [ the SDMB ] is more of a conversation with many voices.

Since Liberal has point blank said that the whole purpose of this series of threads is to share his…um…insights and get feedback on his definitions and since he won’t entertain any debate about his definitions

[“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11327504&postcount=111”]Here

I am giving my interpretation of what the Beloved (and a few other sources) says that Jesus teaches us all. It is MY interpretation that WE are incapable of judging one another’s morality.

Hmmm… what else can we find?
Marley in mod-mode again

It’s not a debate, it’s not witnessing, it’s not mundane… I don’t know what it is. The second paragraph appears to be MadLibs.

Thanks for sharing, mburnquist (and I use the term loosely), but this is not a blog where you post everything that pops into your head and then go away. If you want to contribute here you’re welcome to, but doing this “post and run” thing is a waste of time for anybody who can muddle through what you’re saying. This is an official Warning: Stop doing it.

(yeah, you can play funny semantics games again saying that Lib IS witnessing, but Peter 3:16* disagrees. And “post and run” is no different than Lib’s lalalala! I’m going to ignore you if you ask tough questions stance)

So…why the about-face Marley?
[ul]
[li]It’s clear that posting multiple threads on a topic is a no-no. Lib has four, with at least one more in the offing.[/li][li]It’s clear that not interacting with people is considered blogging. Lib explicitly stated that he won’t interact with you and will accuse you of trolling ("Look, I realize that you’re here mostly on a seek, kill, and destroy type mission. "–with no warning, I might add) if you ask any question that challenges his blogging.[/li][li]You yourself said “On a blog, generally one person talks and asks for feedback. This [ the SDMB ] is more of a conversation with many voices.”–Lib is explicitly doing the first. [/li][/ul]

Why does Liberal get special rules? I gave three examples of people who were warned, threads closed and in one case banned for doing exactly the same thing Lib is doing. But Lib gets mod protection, up to and including having a mod hovering over Lib’s thread looking to
*“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

[Xploder]

@Lord_Ashtar

Fair enough. I guess I misinterpreted what you said back in post 31 (bracketed text added by me for context):

No problem. I have a tendency sometimes to not be very clear and I apologize for that. I probably should have said that I didn’t say that I WAS interested in discussing things in Lib’s thread and I didn’t say that I WASN’T interested in discussing things. It’s impossible to enjoy reading a debate when there IS NO DEBATE. I read all four of those threads trying to find it and it’s not there, so I posted, only to enventually be told by Lib that he wouldn’t even bother to respond to me unless I followed HIS rules set out in the thread. To me, that’s total bullshit. He wants to describe words as meaning whatever HE wants them to mean and noone is allowed to dissent in a debate? Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

Except here. With Lib…along with some very willing help from tomndeb. If anyone can show me an actual debate that’s going on within those four threads, I’ll shut the hell up about it. I’ll still bitch that it’s a blog but hey, it is.

[Marley23]

@Fenris

Note that the poster had only done two or three posts

I am skeptical that you can’t see the difference here, but I’ll humor you:

In his first day on the boards, Focusonz started one thread in Great Debates, and a four hours later, he opened two Pit threads in 45 minutes. The numbering on the titles of the Pit threads (“I am Mad as Hell #1” and “I am Mad as Hell #2” and the pace he was working at suggested he was going to keep going and open more threads, all of which were on the same theme, so I intervened. (The threads were also rambling nutjobbery, but that’s a matter of taste.)
By way of comparison, Liberal has started four threads on his topic in a period of a month, so the comment about clogging up the front page does not apply to him. If you start four threads in one night, it’ll clog up the page and a mod will probably tell you to cool it. If you start four threads over four weeks, nobody will notice.

This may be a failure of your method of citation: you dug up a post of mine from last spring, but didn’t pick up on the context because you were attempting to show a contradiction in my use of the word “blog.” Two threads in 45 minutes, four threads in four weeks. Last I knew, Liberal was intending to open one more “Aesthetical Jesus” thread; that would make for five threads on the subject since May 15.

Your link to my second post goes to a post by fluiddruid. However you were quoting a post I made in March where I talked about the difference between blogs and threads. Alas, you missed a more recent post - only two months ago - where I said I’d loosen up my reading of pointless or nonsense threads. Since that time I have not shut a thread down for being pointless or blog-like. I think the only thread I ever closed for being blog-like was by Lobsang, and it wasn’t any time recently.

I’d ask you to do your homework, but if anything, you’re doing too much homework without reading for comprehension. But I object to you quoting my own posts at me and then assuming I won’t know what I was talking about.

The mburnquist thread wasn’t closed for being “like a blog,” it was closed for being crazy jibberish.

[quote]
[li]It’s clear that posting multiple threads on a topic is a no-no. Lib has four, with at least one more in the offing.[/li][/quote]

Multiple threads in a short time on the same topic, where one will do, is a no-no.

[quote]
[li]It’s clear that not interacting with people is considered blogging. Lib explicitly stated that he won’t interact with you and will accuse you of trolling ("Look, I realize that you’re here mostly on a seek, kill, and destroy type mission. "–with no warning, I might add) if you ask any question that challenges his blogging.[/li][/quote]

He’s willing to argue some points - his definitions, from what I can tell - and not others. I don’t think that counts as failing to interact.

I gave three examples of people who were warned, threads closed and in one case banned for doing exactly the same thing Lib is doing.

All of your examples were very dissimilar from what Liberal is doing, and a full reading of the posts (rather than, say, a search for posts where I used the word "blog) would have made that clear. You may have known the cases were different you may not, but you failed to prove your point. We have rules against recreational complaining and you’re straying over the line.

As a point of history, I note that when Liberal came back to the boards in May, some people excoriated him for things he had said about the moderators here. And in July, Liberal is being described as a special favorite of the staff. I’ve got no strong feelings about the man, as we haven’t interacted very much despite our post counts. But the two ideas don’t make sense together. He’s not a staff favorite, he’s one poster among many.

[tomndebb]

@Fenris

. . . given that you don’t even see this as a problem

Not true. I have acknowledged in one of the many places that this has come up that I was out of line. I was being, for the umpteenth time, falsely accused of a behavior for which I am prohibited from defending myself and I reacted badly. Given that it was one incident in multiple years of modding and that I still have never shared a reported post with the board, I would say that fears of breaches of confidentiality are unwarranted, to use your preferred term.

@Fenris

. . . and given that you’ve already called me a hypocrite in this thread (the whole rationale that the only reason I’m complaining is that my ox is being gored . . . doesn’t fill me with a lot of trust in your evenhandedness, judgment or discretion.

No, I haven’t. At the time I posted that comment, you had not even posted to this thread and when your name was raised, I explicitly noted that I saw your issue as one of a different nature. A number of posters have submitted comments to this thread since my remark, which I have not repeated, and I would describe only a few of them as falling into the grudge-holder category. It is possible that with three different threads and numerous e-mails and PMs on the topic over the last week or so, I had noted a strong trend among the majority of complainants and my generalization was too broad, to begin with, but I have not said nor implied that you were a hypocrite.

[ashman165]

@tomndebb

Not true. I have acknowledged in one of the many places that this has come up that I was out of line. I was being, for the umpteenth time, falsely accused of a behavior for which I am prohibited from defending myself and I reacted badly. Given that it was one incident in multiple years of modding and that I still have never shared a reported post with the board, I would say that fears of breaches of confidentiality are unwarranted, to use your preferred term.

I know it’s taboo to bring up the misdeeds of staff: but how often is it that the staff here use alleged confidential information to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the mere users? I mean it’s rather clear that you have nothing against using your position to ensure that you a.) harangue someone based on their mod-only knows contributions, b.) close threads to ensure you get the last word, and when this is done, your little buddy TubaDiva, who apparently has no objection to using people’s confidential information either, makes sure that those who speak against you doing as much are a.) ridiculed, b.) personally insulted and c.) silenced.

But yes, the fears of the breech are completely unwarranted despite the fact they accidentally (on purpose) happen.

[Fenris]

@tomndebb

A number of posters have submitted comments to this thread since my remark, which I have not repeated, and I would describe only a few of them as falling into the grudge-holder category. It is possible that with three different threads and numerous e-mails and PMs on the topic over the last week or so, I had noted a strong trend among the majority of complainants and my generalization was too broad, to begin with, but I have not said nor implied that you were a hypocrite.

I was thinking the “ox is gored” thing=hypocrite. In fairness, that’s not really a fair leap, so let me retract that.