doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[canpakes]

Actually, Marcus, I can edit out the callout. It’ll just take a chunk of time to do so, owing to the number of posts. I was looking to start that this AM, but I’m hip-deep in some work-related tasks, so I might not finish this up today.

And, remember - you’d better watch your back; I’m gunning for your #1 spot . . . : )

ETA: got the lead post. I’ll take care of the rest later.

[Marcus]

Actually, Marcus, I can edit out the callout. It’ll just take a chunk of time to do so, owing to the number of posts. I was looking to start that this AM, but I’m hip-deep in some work-related tasks, so I might not finish this up today.

And, remember - you’d better watch your back; I’m gunning for your #1 spot . . . : )

ETA: got the lead post. I’ll take care of the rest later.

Thank you. And you're welcome to the spot. Personally, I think Binger, Cultellus, AtlanticMike, Smokey, Bach, ldsfaq, Tobin and even that crazy guy who threatened the board should be further up the list, but far be it from me to argue with the Fan Club.

[Marcus]

I understood your reasoning the first time, and I already addressed my issue with that

The technical function aspect is only part of what I discussed. I could have administered exactly the same warning through the PM function. Under your application of the rule, I could censor all criticism of warnings and banning simply by choosing which method I use.

To elaborate: an important part of applying the spirit of the rule is considering context. What is the context? UR 3 is completely silent about moderator communications or actions. The rule set is minimal in terms of content based restrictions. Criticism of moderator actions has been specifically ruled "on topic" in threads where moderation action has been taken or someone thinks moderation has not been taken. The moderation philosophy of the board is intended to be less heavy handed than that in MDDB and other forums. Part of the job description of the moderator position is to be subject to criticism by the user base.

Applying UR 3 to moderator actions would be antithetical to almost every significant facet of the board's general philosophy and practice. If I did that, I would not be complying with the spirit of the law.

And yet, applying UR 3 to "moderator communications or actions" used to be done, to the best of my memory, when apparently PMs were used to communicate moderator actions*, so you can understand my confusion. I appreciate the clarification that things have changed and the explanation that PMs are no longer used for moderator communications/actions.


*i ran across an example that explains why my memory was arguing with me, regarding UR 3 being applied to moderator actions:

I’ve had this Ipsa pm me that my posts are being denied. Funny thing is he can’t ever provide me the specifics as to why? I’ve specifically asked, even in a pm, to show specifically what was said that caused denial of the post - silence and no integrity. Not surprising here.

As I’ve stated before: This board is really afraid of a conservative entrepreneurial.

Now, I am more than prepared to show the double standard by your mods. Just thought I’d share the facts with you first. It’s your board and I respect that.

Bach, please do not post the contents of any PM without the author's express permission. See Universal Rule 3.

According to my in box, you sent me a PM about an hour before posting this thread. I don't believe anyone has promised that mods will answer PMs within the hour they are sent. I just returned from being away from my computer for the day, and am sitting down at my computer to read the board, respond to PMs, etc.

If you disagree with my call on the post you submitted today, please feel free to send it to Shades and ask him to reverse my call. I believe the information I provided you about the reason for disapproving the post were sufficient to communicate why I determined that the post was not in compliance with the rules.

[Res Ipsa]

As the officially mod-designated World's Most Accomplished Troll Ever, I would like to commend DT for inserting Jersey's name into this thread title. It is obviously intended as a slight and also, the entire thread belongs elsewhere as mods have repeatedly told DT to not start new threads about the same topic. DT manages to just skirt the rules about both starting similar threads and starting threads that are no more than personal attacks, and therefore avoids moderation, under the technical letter of the law. The spirit of the law is mangled all to hell, but technically, he can troll this way and escape the application of common sense.

Seriously, though, mods, is Jersey's name really appropriate in this thread title? No, it's not.

In the previous rendition of this board, DT's threads on similar topics were eventually all combined in The DoubtingThomas dating / relationships MEGATHREAD.

Maybe it's time for something like that again.

Slight correction, Marcus: the designation was made personally by me in the black, was for this board and not the world, and was for exceptional technique that stays within the rules, not for quantity.

Your point is well taken about the multiple threads on the same topic. We combined a couple, but not all. I think you're right on the mega thread idea. I'll take it up on the mod board.

We don't have a rule against starting similar threads. If we did, we'd spend a significant amount of time consolidating Daniel Peterson and John Dehlin threads. Also, although I think Jersey Girl has correctly described the thread title as "baiting" her, I don't think it attacks her a a person at all. He's unfairly implying that she agrees with DT, but that's not a personal attack.

I'm not sure what you mean by "starting threads that are no more than personal attacks." Can you point me to some examples of such threads?

[Marcus]

...I'm not sure what you mean by "starting threads that are no more than personal attacks." Can you point me to some examples of such threads?

here's a start: 3rd thread, page 1, in S prison, originally posted in S paradise and reported, then moved.

EAllusion said that ______ lacks reading and comprehension skills. The person EAllusion was talking about happens to be one of the loudest and most aggressive voices on this board.

I don't know why I keep wasting my time here. Many of the great posters are gone.

DT, this ends up being a sort of personal attack against an unidentified board member, using someone else’s words, without a link. Please do not make claims about what other folks have said without providing a link back to the quote. Thanks.

-cp-

this is one, but i'm sure your data base of mod actions is more searchable than mine, and easier to check for these actions, so i'll assume you can find any others.

[Marcus]

...Your point is well taken about the multiple threads on the same topic. We combined a couple, but not all. I think you're right on the mega thread idea. I'll take it up on the mod board.

We don't have a rule against starting similar threads....

Here's the most recent moderator comment in red on which i was basing that comment:

I follow skeptic mag. Skeptic mag blames the HR’s Sex Police for the decline of sexual activity.
https://pocketmags.com/us/skeptic-magaz ... -right-yet

Why men are struggling by Skeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcp30RboG8A

This one says that women on dating apps are too picky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfZEoy0Q3zE

According to business insider, "it's harder for women to find a mate as they get older."
https://www.businessinsider.com/datacly ... 0s-2014-10

Multiple threads combined. DT please refrain from opening multiple threads on the same topic when you already have an active thread for that topic. - Xen

again, your mod action data base is more searchable than mine, and i am assuming easier to search for these types of actions, if you need more examples.

[Res Ipsa]

...I'm not sure what you mean by "starting threads that are no more than personal attacks." Can you point me to some examples of such threads?

here's a start: 3rd thread, page 1, in S prison, originally posted in S paradise and reported, then moved.

EAllusion said that ______ lacks reading and comprehension skills. The person EAllusion was talking about happens to be one of the loudest and most aggressive voices on this board.

I don't know why I keep wasting my time here. Many of the great posters are gone.

DT, this ends up being a sort of personal attack against an unidentified board member, using someone else’s words, without a link. Please do not make claims about what other folks have said without providing a link back to the quote. Thanks.

-cp-

this is one, but i'm sure your data base of mod actions is more searchable than mine, and easier to check for these actions, so i'll assume you can find any others.

Thanks. It looks like cp moved the thread to prison, which I think was the correct action. I found a couple of other examples, so I'm good. If you notice any threads of the same type that are not in Prison/Telestial, please send in a report and we'll take care of them. I think there were a couple about me within the last couple of months, which I should have asked cp and Zeno for review.

I'm looking to see if I can find a Shades ruling on UR 3 and moderator actions. I'll return and report.

[Marcus]

As the officially mod-designated World's Most Accomplished Troll Ever, I would like to commend DT for inserting Jersey's name into this thread title. It is obviously intended as a slight and also, the entire thread belongs elsewhere as mods have repeatedly told DT to not start new threads about the same topic. DT manages to just skirt the rules about both starting similar threads and starting threads that are no more than personal attacks, and therefore avoids moderation, under the technical letter of the law. The spirit of the law is mangled all to hell, but technically, he can troll this way and escape the application of common sense.

Seriously, though, mods, is Jersey's name really appropriate in this thread title? No, it's not.

In the previous rendition of this board, DT's threads on similar topics were eventually all combined in The DoubtingThomas dating / relationships MEGATHREAD.

Maybe it's time for something like that again.

Slight correction, Marcus: the designation was made personally by me in the black, was for this board and not the world, and was for exceptional technique that stays within the rules, not for quantity.

Not sure what you are correcting, but re the designation, the comments are in a thread, permanently pinned to the top of the S Paradise board, titled "Rules and Moderator information" with this OP, in red, made by you:

I’ve created this thread for general discussions about rules and how they are applied and enforced. Please feel free to make requests or suggestions. Please continue to use the report function to call our attention to posts that violate the rules. You can always contact us by Private Message.

The context matters. Given the special conditions of the thread, your argument that it should be viewed as simply a 'personal designation' is not credible.

[Res Ipsa]

...Your point is well taken about the multiple threads on the same topic. We combined a couple, but not all. I think you're right on the mega thread idea. I'll take it up on the mod board.

We don't have a rule against starting similar threads....

Here's the most recent moderator comment in red on which i was basing that comment:

I follow skeptic mag. Skeptic mag blames the HR’s Sex Police for the decline of sexual activity.
https://pocketmags.com/us/skeptic-magaz ... -right-yet

Why men are struggling by Skeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcp30RboG8A

This one says that women on dating apps are too picky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfZEoy0Q3zE

According to business insider, "it's harder for women to find a mate as they get older."
https://www.businessinsider.com/datacly ... 0s-2014-10

Multiple threads combined. DT please refrain from opening multiple threads on the same topic when you already have an active thread for that topic. - Xen

again, your mod action data base is more searchable than mine, and i am assuming easier to search for these types of actions, if you need more examples.

Thanks. That entry by Xeno was the one I was thinking of when I said we "combined a couple." Shades and mods have generally made requests from time to time. Sometimes its for readability of the board (mostly Shades). Sometimes to head off things that could easily escalate into rules violations. When we are pointing out a rule violation, we try to include a reference to the rule. I use "rules" to refer to the actual list of site rules. Me making a request in red is not, itself, a rule.

I don't need any more examples, thanks.

[Marcus]

...When we are pointing out a rule violation, we try to include a reference to the rule. I use "rules" to refer to the actual list of site rules. Me making a request in red is not, itself, a rule...

Now this is confusing. On what basis are you making a request if not on the basis of the rules, in your "official capacity as moderator"?

...And I know how to use red font to let y'all know when I'm speaking in my official capacity as a moderator and when I am not..