Why not just ban people you don't like/agree with outright?

[Joey_P]

@CitizenPained

Once I was chided for inquiring about one’s reading capabilities. I was new. But in every case after where someone did the exact same thing to me, it was never checked. Even if I reported it.

IME if you point that out to a mod (even if it’s just via PM) about 50% of the time they’ll warn the other poster or take away your warning and the other 50% of the time it’s really not “the exact same thing.”

[Oakminster]

If you want to build a case, you might do better to use a format like:

I received a warning for a personal insult in <link to thread> for posting <insert text here>.

Moderator01 said <insert text of warning given here>.

I feel this is unjust because <cite rule, or present logical argument here>.

[Munch]

@CitizenPained

Well, I got a PM from a mod without links, otherwise I’d copy and paste. But since the latest cited infraction was the kicker, the citation posted works as the point of contention.

That’s not the point. If you want to make a coherent argument, provide a link to what you feel was unjustified. If you can’t muster that, you’re not going to get much, if any, sympathy. It’s not hard - copy the URL and paste it.

And when your defense to “you called someone stupid” is “but listen to all these things that person called me!”, then you’ve lost. Like samclem said - you’ve been here long enough to know better. Argue the point, not the poster (or at the very least, don’t directly insult the poster). Since you seemingly can’t draw that distinction, then stick to just arguing the point.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Oakminster

If you want to build a case, you might do better to use a format like:

I received a warning for a personal insult in <link to thread> for posting <insert text here>.

Moderator01 said <insert text of warning given here>.

I feel this is unjust because <cite rule, or present logical argument here>.

Fair enough! I was irritated. Agreed.

But following the above format now would just be a copy and paste issue as it’s been addressed.

I have reported posts many times and have seen maybe two warnings. And I don’t even think they were ‘official’ warnings.

I would really like to see that some of the most-cited rules are the ones that are enforced. It shouldn’t be an issue. With so many mods, it should be easy. Especially if people are reporting them.

[Munch]

I have reported posts many times and have seen maybe two warnings.

And? Could be that you have a misunderstanding of the rules. You’ve been here for 2.5 months, and are posting at a rate that you can barely breathe between posts. Seriously, 30 posts/day - I strongly suggest you post less and read more. Most of the threads you’ve been in and get warnings are clear from the outside that you’re in the wrong - slow down and get some perspective.

[zoid]

I think I see the disconnect.

There are post in the thread directed at CitizenPained like “You come off as someone who is homophobic” which is really not all that different than a remark like “It makes you look stupid”.

The problem CitizenPained is that you didn’t point this out to the mods.
I can see where based upon the other comments in the thread you feel like you went no further over the line than other posters did. But the mods don’t memorize entire threads. Give 'em a hand and point it out like “I don’t see how I’m over the line if this (quoted post) is allowed.”

[Farmer_Jane]

I actually wasn’t aware that we couldn’t say someone’s argument was BS and/or made them look stupid.

It’s along the same lines of, ‘Bullshit! That’s a stupid argument.’

Me saying, Can I call you a liar for misrepresenting me on purpose? Probably not. So don’t pull that bullshit. It makes you look stupid was me saying, You are not an idiot. Stop saying things you know aren’t true. It makes you look stupid because a quick read of this thread shows it’s baseless and horribly wrong.

[Farmer_Jane]

@zoid

I think I see the disconnect.

There are post in the thread directed at CitizenPained like “You come off as someone who is homophobic” which is really not all that different than a remark like “It makes you look stupid”.

The problem CitizenPained is that you didn’t point this out to the mods.
I can see where based upon the other comments in the thread you feel like you went no further over the line than other posters did. But the mods don’t memorize entire threads. Give 'em a hand and point it out like “I don’t see how I’m over the line if this (quoted post) is allowed.”

My comment was in response to that (and other odd claims about beliefs I didn’t hold). I see what you are saying, but Marley had been active in the thread, so I assumed he read some of that, and since Miller also allowed the homophobic line in another thread (it’s the pride one, and I am sorry. I do not know the title), I was under the assumption it was OK if directed at me. (Because calling someone that is a violation of the rules.)

I am not even allowed to suggest that someone is a bigot or their thoughts are bigoted.

What do you say when someone misrepresents you and outright lies, anyway? I’ve had this before. Sometimes it’s just a red herring or whatever, but other times it’s repeated. As if people on SD think that if someone disagrees with them, they must have polar opposite views and it’s OK to start labeling people as homophobic, racist, sexist, whatever.

Sheesh.

And when someone said, ‘it makes you look’, it was after more than one post on the subject about my supposed ‘views’. When I said, ‘it makes you look stupid’, it was in response to that, kind of tongue in cheek/pointing out irony there, and did not come after repeated posts of hinting that one was an idiot.

[Oakminster]

Instead of saying “it makes you X”, say “that argument is X because…”

You can easily give the impression that your opponent is a blithering idiot without actually attacking him directly. Shred his argument, and let the reader draw the “this guy is a fuckwit” inference for themselves.

[BigT]

Here’s the real deal that no one else will tell you, as their minds seem to work differently about this stuff. Things are different here.

The mods here really don’t care about insults or hostility. They care about direct, personal insults. All they want you to do is obfuscate anything you say about someone else. The more hostile your post, the more you have to hide it behind a good sounding post. It’s kinda similar to when Southerners say “Well, bless your heart” when they really mean “Fuck you.”

Basically, these people know how to insult you without breaking the rules, and you don’t. It’s something you learn over time. Yeah, the number one rule of this message board is “Don’t be a jerk,” but jerk is very narrowly defined, and leaves out obvious insults and hostility if done properly.

Another thing you need to understand is the moderating policy of taking your character and history into account. Yes, everyone does this, but the mods here do it blatantly. For example, “makes you look stupid” is not an insult, and would normally not be punished as one. However (despite what seems to be blind adherence to the letter of the law rather than the spirit) because of your previous warnings, your hostility in that thread, and the previous need for a mod note telling you to drop that hostility, it became a bigger deal.

It seems unfair to outsiders, but it makes sense in the overall framework. It just takes a while to get used to it.

Oh, and the crap about waiting until you have been here a while before posting–they take that seriously. This is an older message board that eschews the the modern trend to just to come in and post. They really perceive this place as a community first and a place to post second. It’s weird, but you get used to it.

IOW, they aren’t very forgiving to people who come in and don’t fit in or at least seem to be trying. You are quite lucky that you are being given a chance. When you get warnings, you are supposed to stop being hostile. If you don’t understand this, you just get more warnings. It doesn’t matter that other people get away with it. You just don’t know how to do it right, yet.

It contradicts everything I know about how people are supposed to behave, and people may argue it isn’t true. But it is, and, when in Rome, etc.

One last thing: My suggestion for someone with your temperament and righteous anger is to start out in the Pit. I think you could outdo the mamby-pamby stuff that goes on in there lately, and still come out on top.

Just don’t expect people to not call you a ton of crappy names for it. It comes with the territory.

[Farmer_Jane]

Big T, I’m ok with insults if they’re in the Pit. But ‘hostile’ is another word for ‘disagrees with’ at times.

I mean, IRL, if someone were hostile, I’d probably respond accordingly. I don’t think I come into threads with the premise of, “Oh you’re a fookin idiot!”

But too often I disagree with a point and I’m painted to look like the antiChrist.

Or someone who just can’t read/write/understand/get the bigger picture.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Oakminster

Instead of saying “it makes you X”, say “that argument is X because…”

You can easily give the impression that your opponent is a blithering idiot without actually attacking him directly. Shred his argument, and let the reader draw the “this guy is a fuckwit” inference for themselves.

Note to self: Let blithering idiot opponent show his own colors.

(:

I just read pages 1-3 and so far, I’ve kept it impersonal. This is personal.

@YogSosoth

CP, I think you need to go back and read the decision and familiarize yourself with how laws fundamentally work. You are a person who has a partial grasp of the subject and tries to stretch that out into an argument. It’s not working, everyone can see it but you, and further arguing is not going to help anyone because you either can’t or refuse to become more knowledgeable in the subject.

So I clearly tried to address that before my final exasperation on the subject.

@CitizenPained

YogSosoth, your demeaning post does nothing to bolster your claim. As it stands, Walker’s ruling is not the law of the land, nor is it immune from critique. Nor is Walker himself immune. Dio and others wanted to conflate the constitutionality of same sex marriage with recusing one’s self, but whatever.

Others clearly violated the ‘drop the polygamy’ rule hours before and after I did. No warning.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Marley23

That’s a good stopping pont for the polygamy hijack. Please drop that tangential discussion or take it to another thread.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Incorrect. They are not a class. By definition, polygamists…

I respond…lengthy, but trying to steer it back to the point.

@CitizenPained

You can buck societal norms all you want, but you can’t buck science because you don’t like it. When I say that gays are a biological anomaly, that’s not a mean thing. It just is.

@CitizenPained

**
My point is one that other liberals have echoed: the argument is largely the same. **It takes a village to raise a child, and if Jenny can have two mommies, why not two mommies and a daddy?

Men marry women and have mistresses on the side all the time. Half of married couples have a cheater.
**
Marley, I am not trying to derail the thread. The thread has been derailed enough as we’re now talking about marriage and not the original Q. But if we’re talking about marriage, it’s only fair to talk about the reasoning behind it - and the reasoning behind legislating it.**

The same-sex marriage debate forces us to reexamine our views on marriage.

Arguments for same sex marriage have been:

[ol]
[li]You can’t punish someone for what is biologically natural (to them)[/li][li]Married couples get rights that non married couples don’t[/li][li]Gay people will have sex anyway, and legalizing same sex marriage discourages promiscuity (resulting in a decline of STDs and AIDS)[/li][li]Children that are raised by these unions need protection[/li][li]It doesn’t hurt anyone else’s marriage[/li][li]It’s unconstitutional to outlaw it[/li][li]Denying them is a violation of religious freedom[/li][li]Financial benefits[/li][li]Legal protections[/li][/ol]

So when tom argues about polygamy, it was fine, even though it was a hijack. But the thread had already been hijacked! Why ban one hijack and not another?

@Strassia

Rational basis is the level that Judge Walker used to reject Prop 8. I don’t want to bring up the polygamy thing again, but a rational basis for limiting marriage to one person is that adding multiple parties increases the complexity of marriage laws (divorce, inheritance, power of attorney, next of kin). That argument does not work for SSM. In fact the only way it really practically impacts governments is that they may have to change some pronouns on forms.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Yes. That is an extraordinary claim unsupported by any available evidence. “Intended” by who or what? Cite that any part of biology or the universe has any “intention” to it?

You are conflating biological urges with some kind of higer “intention?” Cite that anything is “intended,” and specify who is the “intender.”

Three daughters.

Over my dead fucking body

The “norm” for human beings appears to be serial monagmy. Not just one partner throughout a lifetime, but generally one partner at a time.

This is horsehit. There’s nothing “anomalous” about them. It is a normal orientation. Calling it “abnormal” is like calling left-handed people abnormal. Homosexuality is ubiquitous not just among humans, but among mammals and other animals in general. It’s not anamolous in the slightest. Read some fucking literature.

There’s nothing biological about** polygamy. Polygamy** is a cultural practice, not a characteristic.

So your attempt to say that same-sex marriage bans don’t deprive gay people of rights is specious, fatuous sophistry. Just as with miscegenation laws, they deprive people of being able to marry the person of their choice, absent any rational basis for the government to do so.

there is no such thing as “meant for” in nature

What the fuck makes me a “militant atheist?” In what way am I “militant?”

Marriued gay people in South Dakota, in fact, do not exist and therefore cannot be a protected class. Unmarried gay people exist in South Dakota and are a “class,” but unmarried polygamists do not exist, by definition, and cannot eb a 'class."

I don’t give a fuck about polygamy one way or the other. I don’t care if it’s legal or not. The merits of polyygamy are not germane to the point that polygamy bans don’t discriminate because there is no class of people who are affected by it any more than any other class.
Why should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again?

I don’t care if you’re in favor of it or not. I’m just trying to explain that it’s discriminatory in a way that laws against** polygamy** are not.
[/QUOTE]

WHY was he not ‘warned’?! Dio can rail on my views and I can’t respond?

@Strassia

I guess I don’t understand your point about singles being discriminated against.

To avoid further hijacking(and the wrath of Tom) I started a thread on the polygamy issue.

So I don’t say the P word, but I do talk about biology, a little tongue in cheek, but I wasn’t going to say, Your dick is my cite.

@CitizenPained

Step 1: Open pants.
Step 2: Look down.
edit: Left-handed people are abnormal.

Medical anomaly

Dio, if reproduction weren’t an innate desire, then why the fuck to lesbians get sperm donors to have their own children? Duh.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is not an answer to the question. If you can’t cite your claim (and you can’t), just admit it. You asserted that biology has an “intention.” Cite?
Left-handedness is not a medical anomaly. Neither is homosexuality.

Your claim was not that people desire to reproduce, but that they are intended to? Intended to by who? You can’t have intention without an intender. Who is the intender?

@CitizenPained

Dio, I just cited what a medical anomaly was. Let me guess. Your post is your cite? When will you understand that you don’t get to redefine things because you feel like it?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Left-handedness is not an example of a medical anomaly. Citing the definition of an anomaly is not a cite. Left-handness does no meet the criteria. There is no anatomical difference between left-handed people and right-handed people.

Now, when are you going to explain who that “intender” is?

@CitizenPained

Dio, humans were built to reproduce. It’s not a new concept. Unless you’re under the age of 10, I can’t imagine why you don’t understand. This is backed up by both social and physiological factors.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite?

Built by who?

@boytyperanma

**I find questioning a judges ruling solely because he is homosexual to be homophobic behavior. **So I think it’s an appropriate description.

@YogSosoth

When you talk about **polygamy, **you are talking about ‘groups’. Polygamists are not an officially recognized Protected Class, so you can discriminate against them in marriage. Whatever you think of that situation, it stems from the fact that a gay person and a polygamist are fundamentally different in how they achieve their statuses. And that difference contributes to the reason that one is a Protected Class and one is not

You want to claim they are the same, or should be the same, based on the simple notion that both can be called ‘groups’. But you’re wrong. Just because they are both part of a group does not mean they both deserve to be a Protected Class. Polygamy is illegal and I have no real problems with that. But discriminate against gays and I have a huge problem with it. Any rational person would agree with me

YogSosoth was wrong re: class, but again, no Warning.

@Marley23

I did not say you were doing anything malicious, but frankly, you are leaving me with no choice here. I understand how the issue of polygamy came up in this thread. It’s tangential and was detracting from the main topic, so** I instructed you and the other posters were to drop it. **You might think this thread is already irredeemably off-topic, but that doesn’t entitle you to ignore what I said. (If you think I got it wrong, message me or post in ATMB.) Continuing to post about it here is a deliberate hijack and is ignoring my instructions. This is a formal warning not to do that again.

@CitizenPained

So does this mean no one in this thread can talk about marriage definitions, or is it just me that’s restricted from saying the word polygamy? The actual hijack of the thread had nothing to do with polygamy, but rather the moral and legal rights and wrongs of marriage.

@CitizenPained

I didn’t question Walker himself. I asked if naysayers actually had any precedent for something regarding this unusual minority.

Can I call you a liar for misrepresenting me on purpose? Probably not. So don’t pull that bullshit. It makes you look stupid.

@Marley23

It means exactly what I wrote: there will be no more discussion of polygamy in this thread. That goes for everyone. There are now two other threads about polygamy anyway, so I don’t think this will be a big inconvenience.

@tomndebb

You are not paying attention and you are not getting it.

He did not call you a homophobe.
He noted that your arguments appeared to fit into the pattern of a person who had an animus against homosexuals. *(Posters could argue to the end of days as to whether homosexuality or left-handedness exists in sufficient proportions of the population to be anomalous or “normal,” but specifying medical anomaly invokes the connotation of a defect (although your citation fails to note that point). So while your statement might have been intended innocently, it conveyed a sinister message.) *Then you complained about being identified as homophobic, at which point he had not actually said that.
Only then did he agree that your arguments lent a homophobic appearance to your posts.

It is not a violation of the rules to post something at which some other poster might take offense. (Otherwise, you would have been gone several weeks ago. )
It is a violation to call other posters names. You seem to have a serious problem recognizing the distinction–which is probably why you have already racked up four Warnings in your brief soujourn on the SDMB.

I was not particularly happy with YogSosoth echoing back your use of the word “homophobic,” but the important point was that he was simply replying to your statement in your own words–and he kept his comments focused on your actions, not your person.
If you do not begin to differentiate between personal insults/name-calling and challenges, (even harsh challenges), to the words posted, you are going to find your posting privileges removed.

[ /Moderating ]

But what I don’t understand is that I have been warned (at least twice) for saying that someone’s views were anti-Semitic! Tom has already said in PM that he agreed with someone else’s premise that I was a bigot (based on the jews/pass on racism thread), so of course I’ll see double standards.

Finally, it’s not my fault if someone gets offended at ‘medical anomaly’ or ‘biological anomaly’. I mean, such is life. Whop de do. ‘Homosexuality’ (feels weird to type it, cause it’s kind of become a bad word for conservatives) is something that is studied by scientists, both social and medical. It’s not bad.

[zoid]

TL DR
Sorry! Couldn’t resist

[Farmer_Jane]

Edjumicate the newb, plz?

[Miller]

YogSosoth was wrong re: class, but again, no Warning.

He was warned for that post.

[Farmer_Jane]

You linked me to Tom’s post. He was Warned for the homophobic thing, but not the polygamy hijack.

Nor was Dio.

I got two warnings, so that’s uber fucked up.

edit: It’s really only fair to give Dio and Yogosooth and Strassia warnings for the hijack, as they were trying to get in the last word…not sure if that means anything in the end, though. I mean, some people here just…yeah.

[PlainJain]

@CitizenPained

Edjumicate the newb, plz?

Too long; didn’t read.

Or as it’s sometimes called, tastes like duck rectum.

[Farmer_Jane]

@PlainJain

Too long; didn’t read.

Or as it’s sometimes called, tastes like duck rectum.

:eek:

Point taken!

[zoid]

@zoid

TL DR
Sorry! Couldn’t resist

@CitizenPained

Edjumicate the newb, plz?

TL DR = Too Long - Didn’t Read (kind of means “get over yourself”)
Sorry it’s kind of a joke - didn’t mean to piss you off.
But seriously, all kidding aside, isn’t about time you dropped this?
I understand your frustration. Most of us have been slapped on the wrist a few times. You have to understand that the members of this board strive for something a little higher. Sometimes we reach it, often we don’t, but we try.
This is a forum that will fit you well if you can support your positions with well thought out arguments. You’ll get ripped apart but it’s your job to sew yourself back together and defend your argument. It’s not for the weak.
I hope you’ll stay, but be expected to be held responsible for the things you post.