NationStates Jolt Archive

O, Mystic Skeptic, Where Art Thou?

Have you abandoned your lies, distortions, and non sequiturs about Obama's alleged racism?

Cut it out, TCT.

Surely it's OK to call another poster's words "lies, distortions and non sequiturs" ??

I presume your objection is to "calling out" another poster who isn't actually in the thread?

But TCT's challenge would serve to merge the Is Obama Racist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552284) thread to the mega thread.

The "Is Obama Racist?" thread YOU CLOSED, with no reason other than that the posts should go in the mega-thread! I can't quote a closed thread, but here is you final post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13543885) to that thread.

If TCT doesn't object, I probably shouldn't. It seems rather unjust though.

Surely it's OK to call another poster's words "lies, distortions and non sequiturs" ??

I presume your objection is to "calling out" another poster who isn't actually in the thread?

But TCT's challenge would serve to merge the Is Obama Racist? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552284) thread to the mega thread.

The "Is Obama Racist?" thread YOU CLOSED, with no reason other than that the posts should go in the mega-thread! I can't quote a closed thread, but here is you final post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13543885) to that thread.

If TCT doesn't object, I probably shouldn't. It seems rather unjust though.
I think it's the point that TCT's post can be called baiting. now had TCT reposted Mystic Skeptic's post from that closed thread and torn it apart with evidence showing the contrary, that would've been acceptable.

but to call out someone out by calling them liars, distortors and... er... non sequitur... ers is attacking the poster and thus, flaming, flamebaiting and not good form.

on the plus side, it was not an Offical Warning.

For pity's sake, do we now have to tell people to "grow a skin" on someone else's behalf?

It was a wrist-slap for a regular poster who knows better than to pop into a thread for the sole purpose of flamebaiting another poster.

I recognised it as an attempt to bring Mystic Skeptic into the mega-thread with the points he made earlier, but that definitely wasn't the way to do it.

If your indignation is not because I gently chided TCT, but because I closed a US election thread after saying that I would close or merge US election threads, well, tough cheddar.

I think it's the point that TCT's post can be called baiting. now had TCT reposted Mystic Skeptic's post from that closed thread and torn it apart with evidence showing the contrary, that would've been acceptable.

Oh, thankyou mr. mod.

but to call out someone out by calling them liars, distortors and... er... non sequitur... ers is attacking the poster and thus, flaming, flamebaiting and not good form.

You just made that up.

"Have you abandoned your lies, distortions, and non sequiturs about Obama's alleged racism?" does not call MS a liar, etc. "You" refers to the poster, the rest to the posts.

===============

For pity's sake, do we now have to tell people to "grow a skin" on someone else's behalf?

It was a wrist-slap for a regular poster who knows better than to pop into a thread for the sole purpose of flamebaiting another poster.

I recognised it as an attempt to bring Mystic Skeptic into the mega-thread with the points he made earlier, but that definitely wasn't the way to do it.

OK I hear you.

What would be a proper way to do it?
Would JuNiI's suggestion be acceptable, to quote a post from a closed thread and make reply to it? (I know that is possible, even though there are no quote buttons)

If your indignation is not because I gently chided TCT, but because I closed a US election thread after saying that I would close or merge US election threads, well, tough cheddar.

I have no problem with you closing that thread.

But I'm completely in support of TCT's intention to goad Mystic Skeptic into repeating the insinuations he made in his own thread, in the mega thread among the many posters who know what they're talking about. TCT didn't post to the thread which was closed (I'm guessing wasn't online while it was open) and I fully understand them wanting a right of reply to MS.

It really wasn't clear to me whether the chiding was for

the language used to describe Mystic Skeptic's posts to the closed thread,
calling on a poster who wasn't in the thread
referring to posts from a closed thread, or
some combination of the above.


So I'm asking that here, instead of questioning your chiding in the thread.

If all I'm going to get is "oh, TCT knows, it was directed at him anyway" then I really wonder what the point of posting the chiding in the open forum was.

Okay. But first, lay off JuNii. He's spot-on with his reasoning on this one, and there's no problem with posters giving their opinion about moderation threads, provided they do it within the rules.

To a small extent it was the language in the post. To label opinions "lies and distortions" implies that one knows their intent of the poster and that the intent is to deceive deliberately. TCT couldn't know the intent of Mystic Skeptic from his posts alone. So it was confrontational; flamebait.

However, that sort of thing does get said in arguments, and often ignored. But TCT wasn't in an argument, and that was the main thing that bothered me. It was addressed to another poster who wasn't in the thread, and it was the sole comment TCT made at that stage -- he didn't address any of the points that were actually being discussed. He didn't interact with any of the posters in the thread.

That's a drive-by, and it's discouraged. The discouragement is made public to, well, discourage. Not just the poster, but others who might feel similarly inclined.

Had he said, "Mystic Skeptic said in another thread that (quote). I disagree with him on these points (cited) because (reasons)," I doubt I'd have raised an eyebrow, because it would have been relevant to the overall topic and possibly opened a new line of discussion.

EDIT: ... But I'm completely in support of TCT's intention to goad Mystic Skeptic into repeating ...

Goad is bad. Do not goad.

Okay. But first, lay off JuNii. He's spot-on with his reasoning on this one, and there's no problem with posters giving their opinion about moderation threads, provided they do it within the rules.

To a small extent it was the language in the post. To label opinions "lies and distortions" implies that one knows the intent of the poster and that the intent is to deceive deliberately. TCT couldn't know the intent of Mystic Skeptic from his posts alone. So it was confrontational; flamebait.

However, that sort of thing does get said in arguments, and often ignored. But TCT wasn't in an argument, and that was the main thing that bothered me. It was addressed to another poster who wasn't in the thread, and it was the sole comment TCT made at that stage -- he didn't address any of the points that were actually being discussed. He didn't interact with any of the posters in the thread.

That's a drive-by, and it's discouraged.

All clear to me now. Thanks for taking the time to explain in such detail. :)

The discouragement is made public to, well, discourage. Not just the poster, but others who might feel similarly inclined.

Which is why I asked.

I wasn't sure quite what TCT did wrong ... my first impression was that TCT was calling on someone not in the thread ... and it turns out that wasn't an important factor.

I have satisfaction. Thanks, Ardchoille!