You don't know what you're talking about = direct insult?

[Measure_for_Measure]

Let’s discuss best practices.

As jsgoddess noted, framing advances communication. In cases of ATMB and Pit drama, I ask myself, “How could the poster have expressed his views better?” If it’s not obvious (and frankly, it usually it is) I have more sympathy.
So let me try.

[INDENT]“Ralph was under the impression the Erdogan was a dictator. He appears to be tragically misinformed, so I wouldn’t waste too much time on his argument, as it is grounded on falsehoods.”
[/INDENT]
Weirdly that seems more polite and more insulting at the same time. It also would be more likely to attract additional attacks. It also misses something: if Ralph is ignorant about whether Turkey is a democracy, he is probably ignorant about a log of other aspects of Turkey. There are cases of non-fallacious ad hominem reasoning: they occur when it is necessary to assess the reliability of the source material, in this case Ralph’s contentions.

Let me try again, adding softeners:

[INDENT]“Ralph was under the impression the Erdogan was a dictator. He appears to be [del]tragically[/del] misinformed[del], so[/del]: I wouldn’t [del]waste[/del] spend too much time on his argument, as it is grounded on falsehoods and some confusion. Hey that’s ok: I suck at physics and I’ve certainly posted my share of howlers. But we should probably move on.” [/INDENT]

I don’t have a problem posting like that, but I’ve noticed that self-effacement doesn’t come naturally to most people. (It turns out I’m the odd one.) So that might be asking for too much: I’m not sure. I’ll try again:

[INDENT]“Ralph was under the impression the Erdogan was a dictator. He appears to be [del]tragically[/del] misinformed[del], so[/del]: I wouldn’t [del]waste[/del] spend too much time on his argument, as it is grounded on falsehoods and some confusion. None of us are perfect, but we should probably move on.” [/INDENT]

That last construction evades questions of patterns in posting styles, which presumably are pit material.
JC makes a valid point I think when he notes the ratio of substance to insult in the post. It wasn’t zero. But it wasn’t a 5 or a 10 either. Adding more solid content would have diluted the offending remark. Admittedly, that’s asking for a lot as well: sometimes you are pressed for time or even insight.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@DrDeth

But let’s look at this. We have two similar comments, neither are in any way civil or respectful. One Mod considers a Note, the other slams a Warning.

There’s just no rime nor reason, no sense of being able to guess what is OK vs what isnt. No consistency.

1. The mods are human, not clones. Or so they want us to believe.

2. There are different risks of thread derailment in GD and in GQ. So they should be modded differently.

3. I personally am not upset.

4. The salience of warnings when considering a ban declines over time. Alas, the exact mathematical function is fnord.

5. There was a general call to increase civility in GD some years back. If posters want to lower the GD civility bar, they should argue that directly. Personally, I think I can adapt, though it wouldn’t surprise me if I err at some point. (Amazingly, LHoD picked up a warning this year.) As a matter of policy though, I push the wolfpup criteria, which admittedly is more of a goal than a guideline.

[DrDeth]

@Measure_for_Measure

2. There are different risks of thread derailment in GD and in GQ. So they should be modded differently.

3. The salience of warnings when considering a ban declines over time. Alas, the exact mathematical function is fnord.

2.I disagree. GD & GQ should both be respectful places, with no personal insults, etc.

4. Or so they say. But if this was really true, they could just set the warnings to expire after two years or any reasonable period. Instead, they *need *to be able to call up a old warning for some unexplained reason.

In any case, I am not debating civility level in either GD or GQ. The issue is mod consistency when a warning is forever. Either they need to be consistent or warnings need to go away after a reasonable period. Instead they cherish them forever.

[Morgenstern]

@Measure_for_Measure

…
JC makes a valid point I think when he notes the ratio of substance to insult in the post. It wasn’t zero. But it wasn’t a 5 or a 10 either. Adding more solid content would have diluted the offending remark. Admittedly, that’s asking for a lot as well: sometimes you are pressed for time or even insight.

Will a regular calculator work for this or will I need a scientific one?

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

Instead they cherish them forever.

As I’ve pointed out to you before, the only person obsessed with your warning is you. If you want people to forget about it, don’t bring it up at every opportunity.

[elbows]

Yeah, I wasn’t really addressing any policy so much as giving an opinion on the question in the OP.
Oopsy.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

As I’ve pointed out to you before, the only person obsessed with your warning is you. If you want people to forget about it, don’t bring it up at every opportunity.

So, if I never bring it up again, it will disappear after year or so, or it will stay forever anyway?

Anyway, it’s not just MY warning. It’s everyones warnings. You hug them and squeeze them and call them George.

Tell ya what, just to prove I am not obsessed with MY warning- change the system so that everyones warning but mine disappear after two years and I’ll shut up about it.

You can leave mine there forever. Deal?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@DrDeth

4. Or so they say. But if this was really true, they could just set the warnings to expire after two years or any reasonable period. Instead, they *need *to be able to call up a old warning for some unexplained reason.

In any case, I am not debating civility level in either GD or GQ. The issue is mod consistency when a warning is forever. Either they need to be consistent or warnings need to go away after a reasonable period. Instead they cherish them forever.

Actually we all cherish them forever.

Their hidden formula involves an exponentially weighted double moving average Poisson process reversion to the mean. Very complicated. Or so I impute. You can’t just snip things off after 2 years. More seriously, 3 warnings within the past 18 months and 3 warnings that are over 3 years old will receive review, or so I perceive.

@DrDeth

2.I disagree. GD & GQ should both be respectful places, with no personal insults, etc.

I agree that they are close and typically GQ even has higher standards, mostly involving topicality.

@Morgenstern

Will a regular calculator work for this or will I need a scientific one?

Only quantum computers will do.

[Trinopus]

@wolfpup

By that logic, “you’re wrong” should also be deemed a personal insult, for exactly the same reason. . . .

You’re wrong; the two are quite different.

We’re all wrong once in a while. But we, here, are an educated band of intelligent people, and we do know what we’re talking about.

It’s the difference between “You made an error once” and “You can’t help but make errors, can you?”

[CarnalK]

@camille

CarnalK never directly responded to ralph124c to tell him anything. He told another poster ralph 124c was clueless, and therefore he should not waste his time on him.

How is that part of a civil debate, and how does it enlighten anyone…

Sweet lord. Yes I did respond to him and I’ve mentioned that twice in this thread. Ffs.

[camille]

@CarnalK

Sweet lord. Yes I did respond to him and I’ve mentioned that twice in this thread. Ffs.

I know you* said* you did in this thread, but it’s not in that thread.

You replied to Steken’s post, after he had (politely) refuted ralph124c’s post. That’s not a direct response to ralph.

Anyway, my point was that you did not say “You don’t know what you’re talking about”, to ralph124c; you said it about him, to another poster. I don’t know that you would have received a warning if you had prefaced a direct reply to ralph with that phrase. And then telling the other poster to not waste time with him just added insult to injury.

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

So, if I never bring it up again, it will disappear after year or so, or it will stay forever anyway?

If you didn’t keep bringing it up, no one but you and the mods would really be aware of it. And since it’s one warning more than a year ago, the mods don’t care a great deal about it.

[John_Mace]

I have to say that, although I think the post in question was over the line, a mod note would have been more appropriate. Especially since this got a mod note and seems much more personal and directly insulting.

The Moderator Speaks

@Habeed

Are you above the 99th percentile or close to it? None of us care if you make $136,495 or $142,312, we care if you actually have anywhere near the income where you will actually reap the benefits of being in the rich overclass.

If you’re a mere peasant scraping by on under 6 figures like most of us, you’re a traitor to your people.

Right there, that’s enough. No more of such from anyone.

Emphasis added. Perhaps the warning can be revoked and downgrade to a mod note?

[CarnalK]

@camille

I know you* said* you did in this thread, but it’s not in that thread.

You replied to Steken’s post, after he had (politely) refuted ralph124c’s post. That’s not a direct response to ralph.
.

That’s incredible nitpickery. I agreed with Steken and added a comment.

[DrDeth]

@Colibri

If you didn’t keep bringing it up, no one but you and the mods would really be aware of it. And since it’s one warning more than a year ago, the mods don’t care a great deal about it.

Yes, I have been told that. What has not been explained is why the SDMB has to keep the Warning there forever. Not just for me- for everyone. What is the purpose if you guys don’t care about it? Just to annoy the customers?

[Colibri]

@DrDeth

Just to annoy the customers?

Yes. As I’ve said before, it’s one of the few perks of being a mod.

[Emiliana]

@Colibri

If you didn’t keep bringing it up, no one but you and the mods would really be aware of it. And since it’s one warning more than a year ago, the mods don’t care a great deal about it.

So you say, now that you’ve all had sexy time with it.

[Morgenstern]

@DrDeth

Yes, I have been told that. What has not been explained is why the SDMB has to keep the Warning there forever. Not just for me- for everyone. What is the purpose if you guys don’t care about it? Just to annoy the customers?

Honestly, you’re beating yourself up over nothing DrDeth.

[Measure_for_Measure]

DrDeth: Ban-notes often include warnings that are more than 2 years old. The mods don’t set hard limits on the number of warnings however as some warnings are worse than others and some warnings are older than others. Given current civility standards, prolific posters can reasonably expect to get dinged now and then: like I said Left Hand of Dorkness is a polite guy but even he picked up a warning recently in GD. TLDR: What Morgenstern said.

@John_Mace

I have to say that, although I think the post in question was over the line, a mod note would have been more appropriate. Especially since this got a mod note and seems much more personal and directly insulting.

Emphasis added. Perhaps the warning can be revoked and downgrade to a mod note?

I personally don’t care about this particular warning. I did wonder what John Mace thinks of the wolfpup criteria and how it might apply here. There’s a tradeoff involved and I’m wondering what civility advocates have to say about it.

(I’m not demanding a reply, btw; I guess I am trying to emphasize salient issues.)

[John_Mace]

@Measure_for_Measure

I did wonder what John Mace thinks of the wolfpup criteria and how it might apply here. There’s a tradeoff involved and I’m wondering what civility advocates have to say about it.

I don’t know what that is. What post are you talking about?