I will be disappointed and deeply concerned if the agitators stop calling for Wookie’s head and he is still mod in 6 months.
We’re talking about the fifth poll in Wookie’s thread:
I take it that ‘official and binding’ hear means ‘in accordance with the community’s wishes as expressed by the preceding polls/whatever policy eventually emerges’. Like, a proposed rule vote either will or will not have complied with the procedure we eventually decide. Either there’ll have been a prior RFC with a straw poll or there won’t, either there’ll have been a poll on wording or there won’t etc. I don’t see what there is to actually sign off on.
It looks like most people agree with you
Seems reasonable. Are long as people aren’t just making polls willy nilly for the lolz.
1 Like
Really? My estimation of the parliamentarian position, were we to create one, is that their only official role would be occasionally signing off on what should almost always be non-controversial things, that a process was followed. They would be out of the fray of moderator disputes and such. You think this would be contentious?
I mean everything seems contentious. Something as simple as creating a custom group for someone can cause drama around here.
I had a similar “parliament” idea about a year ago that got no traction whatsoever:
Not the same thing, but it’s not the first time we’ve gone down this road. I’m honestly for it if someone will do it. If people want me to weigh in on this kind of stuff, I’d do it I guess. Beetlejuice is good but I’m not sure how seriously he’ll take it, lol.
ETA: I think actually the best person for that job would be @NotBruceZ.
I think it could be contentious if the anti-authoritarians want it to be contentious.
Who are you to say a process was followed or not followed, King George? Perhaps a vote for cloture would be the best way to handle it.
I just went to go and do this and saw it had already been done.
If Marty was banned for saying fuck you to me I should be banned as I did the exact same thing in the poll thread yesterday although I later apologized and deleted it.
4 Likes
Looks like those posters who did that caught temp bans. That is bad behavior.
Of course you did call them “anti-vaxxers” and said that they were part of an “anti-reality crowd”, and then blamed them for causing chaos for participating in the forum discussion. We all know that calling someone an anti-vaxxer is not an insult and never gets any kind of reaction. I mean I have an old friend and he’s a fundamental christian and I’m atheist, so we’ve never seen quite eye to eye on things, but just this morning I rang him early and told him he was part of an anti-reality crowd and compared him to antivaxxer a couple of times. He called me a liar and told me to fuck off. Jokes on him, he’s going to hell now. He probably just took my well-intentioned comments the wrong way. I’ll try this approach with another friend tomorrow. It’s bound to work, as it is not inflammatory at all, and in no way an insult.
Question for you and the mods: Are these posts that led up to marty and victor’s personal attacks allowable?
Like, can I call fellow posters anti-vaxxers and part of an anti-reality crowd simply because they disagree with my opinion?
5 Likes
Funny timing. See my post immediately above yours.
2 Likes
Wookie may have passed me up with those two bans so…
But you did apologize and delete…
Tough one. I better get some breakfast and ruminate.
Apologizing and deleting the post is, uh, a very important distinction.
1 Like
I agree but in the interest of dispelling the bias claim I am happy to take the same punishment.
1 Like
I want to be clear. I do not see calling them anti-vaxxers the same as outright insults. It’s analogy for rhetorical purpose.
I believe that at this point, arguing there is a bias is no different then being an anti-Vaxxer. Neither has any evidence. I used anti-vaxxer BECAUSE of its rhetorical impact.
There is no world in which this is a bannable offence.
I call you a disgusting piece of shit not as an outright insult: I am simply using an analogy for rhetorical effect. Obviously I don’t think you are literally excrement. No hard feelings!
7 Likes
If I was doing things directly analogous to being a piece of shit then no problem.
Claiming there is a bias, against all evidence, is the same epistemological world as anti-Vaxers.
It’s an interesting use of the present tense here. If asked what evidence supporting antivaxx stances might look like, immunologists do not typically pivot to re-iterating that they and their colleagues have not been persuaded by the anti-vaxxers. I agree that your use of the term is rhetorical, but it’s empty rhetoric; in the circumstances I don’t believe there is anything that could rise very far above the purely anecdotal level. If you’re comparing them to antivaxxers on the basis that they don’t have evidence no-one could be expected to have, that seems a little like, dare I say it, less-than-perfectly-good faith?
3 Likes
I agree. The use of that term was probably bad faith. I stand by my use in the context but concede it probably hurt my cause more than it helped.
That being said lumping it with calling people stupid, liars, and telling them to fuck off is nuts.
Well, I am not surprised to hear you don’t see your insults as insults.
Because I disagree with your opinion and interpretation of events of the kerfuffle saga, I am part of what you have labeled the anti-vaxxer and anti-reality crowd. Therefore, I took it as an insult when you assigned those labels to other posters, including me, who disagree with your opinion. The only reason I didn’t respond with insults in kind is because I choose not to insult others. It allows me to never have to justify why calling someone else an anti-vaxxer or part of an anti-reality crowd, is actually not insulting.
Let’s recap this morning’s posting, and look for bias.
Clovis: You guys are posting in bad faith. Full stop. You guys are part of an anti-reality crowd. There is no bias. You guys are basically anti-vaxxers.
Marty/Victor: Fuck you.
[marty & victor temp banned]
Clovis: [not temp banned] See! There’s no bias.
8 Likes