Mod Passive Aggressive Posting? - Page 2

On November 15 2012 01:00 iamperfection wrote:

Well clearly its time to start taking active records of mod postings.

Come with a proper case i say.

On November 14 2012 18:48 Funnytoss wrote:
No, the reason why I like to read Kwark threads and bring out the popcorn isn't because it's another growing list of instances in which Kwark was unreasonable.

It's because 9 times out of 10, he was entirely justified in doing what he did, and is reasonable enough to explain the obvious in amusing ways to us. The popcorn is laughing at clueless users who have no idea what posting on TL should look like. The only issue I have with Kwark is with how he treats any and all religion-related argument, but that's the 1 out of 10.

On November 14 2012 10:42 semantics wrote:
What gets your banned or warned is often direct confederation, just being moody, sassy, sarcastic usually is fine depending on the topic is, but what gets your warned or banned is direct insults. It's a pretty easy line to follow.

On November 15 2012 05:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The REAL problem is not passive aggressive posting, that is fine so long as they are consistent and don't ban people for the same types of posts (which they do by the way)... The real problem is using moderation status to stifle debate.

"Usual abortion topic rule"? What a joke. If people want to use the word baby to evoke a certain response, and someone wants to use fetus to prevent that response, no one has any right to dictate with force which side gets to frame the debate. This is just the most recent example. If mods want to engage in debate, they can say whatever they like. But using their position to force the framing of a debate is an abuse of power, and it occurs ALL the time on this site. I could name a dozen opinions which are not allowed to be expressed on this site, and I really think that detracts from the quality of the discussion. Having opposing ideas and opinions is a GOOD thing, even if you think they are wrong or ignorant or whatever. Banning or threatening to ban people for expressing an idea you don't agree with is purely abuse of position.

ba•by (b b )
n. pl. ba•bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

ba•by
   [bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural ba•bies,adjective, verb, ba•bied, ba•by•ing.
noun
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.

A very young child, esp. one not yet able to walk and dependent on the care of others; an infant. Also applied to an unborn child.

Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.

If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.

PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.

User was temp banned for this post.

Wegandi was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.

That account was created on 2011-03-12 14:09:12 and had 877 posts.

Reason: My language is called English too and tl is not an exclusively American forum. Next time you feel like being a dick over correct spelling of words you should remember this moment.

On November 15 2012 05:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The REAL problem is not passive aggressive posting, that is fine so long as they are consistent and don't ban people for the same types of posts (which they do by the way)... The real problem is using moderation status to stifle debate.

"Usual abortion topic rule"? What a joke. If people want to use the word baby to evoke a certain response, and someone wants to use fetus to prevent that response, no one has any right to dictate with force which side gets to frame the debate. This is just the most recent example. If mods want to engage in debate, they can say whatever they like. But using their position to force the framing of a debate is an abuse of power, and it occurs ALL the time on this site. I could name a dozen opinions which are not allowed to be expressed on this site, and I really think that detracts from the quality of the discussion. Having opposing ideas and opinions is a GOOD thing, even if you think they are wrong or ignorant or whatever. Banning or threatening to ban people for expressing an idea you don't agree with is purely abuse of position.


Also, this is completely wrong. I've been banned several times for making sarcastic posts.

On November 15 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:
wegandi was banned for questioning kwark's use of "foetus" instead of "fetus." kwark is from the UK.

interesting that he got a 1 week ban for being a dick and saying "Can we spell fetus correctly?"


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=382015&currentpage=5#93


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696&currentpage=1442#28829

On November 15 2012 07:22 KwarK wrote:

Complaining about spelling in lieu of actually making a point is pretty fucking retarded. Complaining about it and being wrong is even more retarded. But the biggest prize goes to the guy who does both of the above to moderator. It would have been banworthy shitposting either way, whoever he did it to could have reported it and he'd have been moderated but skipping the middle steps and just going right up to the guy empowered to act is pretty fucking dumb.

On November 15 2012 07:18 KwarK wrote:

Using baby with you mean foetus and using murder when you mean abortion etc is nothing more than using intentionally vague or simply incorrect words in order to obfuscate the topic and avoid making an actual point. Furthermore when one of the core issues in any abortion debate is the value of the foetus' life then calling it a baby and refusing to acknowledge that it is not medically defined as a baby is a big issue. I don't think it's too much to ask that people actually argue the point they want to make and part of that is using the same set of words with strictly defined meanings. If you can't agree on a common language then no debate can take place.

However another mod didn't even take the time to attempt to regulate that topic and instead just closed it, presumably because unlike me he felt you guys were incapable of even forming a semblance of a debate. Would you be happier if I did that in future?

On November 15 2012 07:45 Gene wrote:
In order to have an intelligent debate on the issue(hardly a possibility to begin with) you NEED a unilateral definition of the words. Otherwise you will find yourself arguing over semantics.

The merits of a persons argument on the topic is not judged by the connotation of the words he or she uses. That should make the definitions irrelevant. The idea is to make it simpler for the audience to understand EXACTLY the argument rather than have to infer the meaning of a potentially foggy word. This is why usually it is accompanied by an exact number of weeks into pregnancy.

On November 15 2012 07:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:

Of course. Especially if the alternative is making unilateral decisions about what are and are not legitimate uses of common words.

On November 15 2012 08:05 HULKAMANIA wrote:

I would agree with you about the importance of shared definitions, but that's just it: they have to be mutual. Something both sides can agree with. Something that was arrived at through discussion, not a one-sided declaration.

And it's naive to think that, in the context of an abortion debate, "fetus" is not an ideologically charged word, which is why you don't get to suddenly declare it the only appropriate word to use.