I have been mod noted for this post. The post in question reads as follows -
The objection is that this could be read as an accusation of lying.
It is not. The first sentence points out, quite accurately, that the earlier claim is false. This is entirely in line with the sticky in GD which says explicitly that “that statement is untrue” is what Great Debates is all about. I decline to accept that there is any relevant difference between “that statement is untrue” and “your earlier claim… was false”.
The second statement abides by the other general rule, which is to attack the posts and not the poster. Hence my explicit reference to the fact that his posts are untrue.
How am I supposed to point out that a claim is false if I am not allowed to point out that a claim is false? How am I supposed to attack posts if my attack on posts are interpreted as an attack on posters?
I made no reference whatsoever to anyone’s intent. I made no attack whatever on any poster - both references were clearly and explicitly aimed at statements and posts.
Can we make up our minds here? Either it is allowed to point out the falsity of another’s claims (without any reference to intent or motivation) or it is not. If it is, fine, and the sticky is accurate and your mod note is not. If it is not, then we won’t be seeing much by way of debate, great or otherwise.
I took a look at that, following reports, and decided that it didn’t rise to the level of an accusation of lying. If it did it would generate a warning pretty much automatically.
Instead, I looked at your phrasing. It was a bit snarky, and you came close to crossing the poster/post like when you personalized it with ‘It’s nice of you to cite that your posts are untrue’ bit. That comes close to obnoxious sarcasm/intimidation/degradation that I hope not to see in Great Debates.
As I said, it wasn’t over the line, but it was close. Hence the note. Not a punishment but just some guidance.
FWIW, that sort of phrasing, in which poster B thanks (or compliments or whatever) poster A for inadvertently supporting poster B’s point, has never moved a debate forward, improved understanding of the issues, or otherwise made the world a better place. IMO. I’m happy to see it discouraged; it’s perfectly possible to point out that a cite doesn’t support a claim without resorting to such a lousy rhetorical flourish.
Regarding best practices on this message board, I have to part company with LHoD a little.
As I see it, the problem with Shodan’s critique of Pjen’s post is that he didn’t explicitly reference “Pjen’s earlier claim about legality”, nor did he explicitly reference the part of the Wikipedia link that allegedly contradicted it. So the snark to substance ratio was disappointing.
That said, accountability is a good thing. Speaking personally, I’ve linked to citations that I’ve only skimmed. In fact I do that often. Usually that’s ok. But sometimes I miss something important. Getting dinged a little doesn’t hurt: in the past it has taken the form of, “Did you read your cite?” (A: Not entirely, but part of the reason I provide those links is to keep the bugs in my argument shallow.)
Here’s another example. Sometimes posters substantiate their points with links to .pdfs that may be 16 or 160 pages long. Without indicating a section or page number. And sometimes their characterization is miles off: they may have misrepresented that which they apparently did read. At times this sort of behavior can be problematic, enabling ignorance rather than fighting it.
I thought that the function of mod notes was to tell the poster that he was getting close to the warn-line, at least most of the time. I don’t know about you, but my computer is not equipped with a modometer.
Interesting. I would say that making vague allegations of dishonesty or inaccuracy are very bad form. Empty charges can stick, and the vagueness of the accusation makes them difficult (though not impossible) to refute. This sounds like something that could needlessly go on for pages. It seems to me that if you making a claim of inaccuracy or dishonesty that you should lay the case out, not wave your hands in a general direction. We’re here to fight ignorance, not enable it. Shodan’s post for which he was mod noted for could have been expressed better by a diligent poster.
The post that received the mod note had two lines. Was it the first or second that was close to crossing the line? The first was a question that asserted a factually true statement. Nothing even close to a violation IMO. The second was snarky sure - but when a poster presents cites that contradict their own assertions it’s well deserved.
I would find it inconsistent to be against this one type of snark and not the rest. Pretty much all snark doesn’t move a debate forward or improve understanding of the issues.
I don’t think anyone here wants to see the snark removed from GD.
I understand, but you said you could easily interpret it as an accusation of lying. It might have been clearer to say something like ‘this isn’t exactly an accusation of lying, but be careful’.
Plus, as mentioned, the sticky says that it is the implication of intent that makes an accusation of lying. It is a an accusation of a lie if I say “that claim is untrue and you know it”. No such implication of intent occured in my post.
All I will say about this is[ul][li]If you want to eliminate snark and sarcasm from GD, you face one hell of an uphill battle, and [/li][li]I hope you don’t succeed. GD without snark and sarcasm is not a forum that will attract much attention or have much success, IMO. Nor should it, again IMO.[/ul][/li]If you eliminate the snark, you will wind up with a messageboard consisting of twenty liberals agreeing with each other, and spambots.
My $.02 worth. Thanks for your response, and don’t let this individual issue give you the impression that I think that your moderation isn’t good in general,
I’m in 100% agreement with Shodan, here. Nothing he wrote that triggered the mod note was “out of line” in any significant way, over even close to a reasonable line, based on historical norms on the board.
And, really, the idea of moderating “snark” in GD is utterly laughable.
I know: here’s how to reduce snark on the SDMB. Eliminate the GD forum. From orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Seriously, I can’t imagine how a thread would ever continue if a mod added a comment every time someone was in the vicinity of a violation. In fact I’ll bet half the mod warnings say something along the lines of “you’ve been here long enough to know the rules” etc.
So, we’ll ask them to mod for violations, almost violations and getting close to a violation. Then we can ask the mods to intervene when we’re getting close to almost a violation and if follows, getting close to being close to getting close. That’s all they need, more work.
I thought that the function of mod notes was to tell the poster that he was getting close to the warn-line, at least most of the time. I don’t know about you, but my computer is not equipped with a modometer.