Business as usual in Politics & News, or are we going to see these proposed changes last for at least a month?

[yllus]

House Majority Whip: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

Originally posted by: Harvey

Damn, PJ! You strut the most trivial crap like some street walker waving a sparkling new piece of bling, trying desperately to overcome her gutter level self image. Get a grip, child.

No ban, no warning, no moderator comment.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Stay tuned... Next, ProfJohn will give us a full report on his experiments recording the sounds of his gluteal cheeks flapping against his ears (with links to the mp3 file) and a full hour of meaningless gibberish happy talk.

No ban, no warning, no moderator comment.

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Harvey

Damn, PJ! You strut the most trivial crap like some street walker waving a sparkling new piece of bling, trying desperately to overcome her gutter level self image. Get a grip, child.

I thought personal attacks were not allowed? Someone better get a mod...

oh wait...

He's just pissed off because there's no room for a failed-songwriter turned hyper-partisan douchebag these days.

What are you gonna do Harvey, ban me? Try, you fuckin' douchebag.

I beat him to it.

Ulfwald, Senior AnandTech Moderator

Ban and moderator comment for forum member jrenz. The thread is also locked.

How does the logic here work? Harvey attacks a fellow poster twice with absolutely no actions taken against him, but a poster who replies to his attacks is immediately banned and the thread locked? How in the world did this not end with Harvey getting a vacation, moderator comments under his replies warning him and others not to continue down that path, and the thread staying unlocked to continue the actual discussion at hand?

Frankly, I think jrenz deserves to both be unbanned and to receive an apology.

P.S. While you're at it, ProfJohn is attacked personally in literally every thread he posts, and has never to my recollection responded in kind. It'd be nice to see a clamp down on this behaviour.

 

[amish]

i don't see how you can stand to read any of the threads to begin with. P&N is so full of hate, buzzwords and disinformation that it is impossible to see debate without personal attacks and gems such as "shill" or "strawman" or "moonbat" etc.

 

[Fern]

I agree with yllus.

I think there are far too many personal insults directed at Prof John. I've been warned for posting far less than what's been going on by others.

I've been thinking about it for some time, and this is a good opportunity to make my suggestion: P&N has long been thought (and I think rightly so) to have a "liberal" bias in the moderating. Why not have a P&N mod who is a conservative leaning poster? This would would do much to enhance the appearance of fairness.

Lastly, I think P&N has been getting a bit lax lately about our requirement to add personal content to our our OPs.

TIA,

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with yllus.




I've been thinking about it for some time, and this is a good opportunity to make my suggestion: P&N has long been thought (and I think rightly so) to have a "liberal" bias in the moderating. Why not have a P&N mod who is a conservative leaning poster? This would would do much to enhance the appearance of fairness.


TIA,

Fern

Who do you suggest, ProJo? Bwuahahahaha.

No seriously there is a conservative Mod who patrols that forum, Common Courtesy. In fact he's probably the most active Moderator there. I also question your allegation that the forum has a Liberal Mod Bias, if that were true Heartsugeon and a few others would be getting vacations for doing the same thing to Dave McGowens that you say Harvey does to ProJo.

 

[Harvey]

yllus -- Thanks for selectively quoting from my posts. I'm not going to debate any topics appropriate to P&N in this thread, but if you take my posts in context, including the ones you quote, you'll find I always try to include hard facts, quotes, etc. in the same thread when trying to disprove someone's posts I find less than credible.

I'm not going to stop busting ProfJohn or anyone else when the facts are contrary to their statements or their conclusions, and I won't stop using sarcasm and humor to call them on it when I think it's the best way to make the point.

In the first quote, I said PJ's post was "trivial stuff." Nothing else in the sentence was anything more than metaphoric reference to the quality of his post and his motivation for posting it.

All the second quote said was a colorful way of saying I think he has his head up his ass. That's a common expression of disdain for the content of his post, but it's not particularly far from what goes on in P&N. The second part of that quote only says he posts a lot of meaningless interpretations of irrelevant happy talk trying to support whatever his alleged point was.

No matter who posts them, lies are still lies, and I'm not inclined to politely paint them red, white and blue or camoflage green and salute them in silence.

Note that I did not ban jrenz. He posted his message after I logged off, yesterday and before I logged on, today. I never had a chance to reply to him, let alone ban him, even though, all he had to contribute was to challenge me to do so and call me a "douchebag."

I don't give a damn that he called me a failed songwriter. I know plenty of truly astounding musicians and writers who haven't had the fortune to cut hits so I stand in pretty good company. AFIC, until he can show me he can write or play one good line of music or lyric, he's just a jealous, petulant little boy with anger management problems who's unqualified to say anything on the subject and uses far too many words to say it.

I don't even care if you like my song or the way I sang and played it, but if you're going to comment about that, have the courtesy to click the link in my sig and listen to it before you do.

BTW, the lyrics contain no personal attacks against anyone, here, so trying to insult me, personally, about them wouldn't be particularly relevant to a thread in P&N.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree with yllus.




I've been thinking about it for some time, and this is a good opportunity to make my suggestion: P&N has long been thought (and I think rightly so) to have a "liberal" bias in the moderating. Why not have a P&N mod who is a conservative leaning poster? This would would do much to enhance the appearance of fairness.


TIA,

Fern

Who do you suggest, ProJo? Bwuahahahaha.

No seriously there is a conservative Mod who patrols that forum, Common Courtesy. In fact he's probably the most active Moderator there. I also question your allegation that the forum has a Liberal Mod Bias, if that were true Heartsugeon and a few others would be getting vacations for doing the same thing to Dave McGowens that you say Harvey does to ProJo.

I am going to agree with Red on this. Common does lean middle to right and has gone after a few of the people who have attacked me or change my quote without notifying people of that etc etc.

It seems as if the liberal mod days are gone, for now at least.

But I also think things are far to personal and people should be told to stick to the topic at hand and avoid the petty insults.

As for Harvey... based on some of his replies he should join Jrenz in that anger management class.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As for Harvey... based on some of his replies he should join Jrenz in that anger management class.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: <== Anger management icons at you, PJ.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Harvey
yllus -- Thanks for selectively quoting from my posts. I'm not going to debate any topics appropriate to P&N in this thread, but if you take my posts in context, including the ones you quote, you'll find I always try to include hard facts, quotes, etc. in the same thread when trying to disprove someone's posts I find less than credible.

What "selective quoting"? The first quote was the first paragraph of your first reply in that thread. You then went on to add, "Your Traitor In Chief is still the idiot who started this shit pile, and history will still hang it on him as his legacy like a scarlet letter." If anything my "selectiveness" made you look better.

The second quote of yours was in reply to:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The retreat and defeat crowd is losing ground on all fronts.
I expect the September report will be at least good enough to keep the troops at their current level into next year. And then we will see what happens.

In what world was your personal attack in reply to that justified? You didn't go on to refute what he wrote, it was purely a hit and run, which seems to be disallowed under AnandTech Forum Guideline #1. Or should I take this to mean that if I start to reply to threads with colourful takes on "you have your head up your ass" that I can expect no moderator intervention?

I realize that you did not yourself ban jrenz, as that is evident from someone else's name being appended to the moderator comment. Your use of moderator tools is not in question.

I also realize that the application of the rules was very evidently unbalanced as they were applied to yourself versus another member, jrenz. If he deserved a ban for his posts, then so did you.

If we're not going to see even application of the rules, we might as well just go back to the anonymous moderator system, because it seems obvious that we're just seeing platitudes mouthed here. Harvey is a moderator and and long time member, so he gets a free pass - not even a warning. jrenz, on the other hand, a regular member of not too much vintage, is history. If that's not the unspoken basis for the uneven punishments meted out, please, clarify things for us.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: yllus
What "selective quoting"? The first quote was the first paragraph of your first reply in that thread. You then went on to add, "Your Traitor In Chief is still the idiot who started this shit pile, and history will still hang it on him as his legacy like a scarlet letter." If anything my "selectiveness" made you look better.

Well, aren't you something special? Did you notice a second sentence, let alone a second paragraph, a link, a quote and four more paragraphs in the same post?

Here's what you need ==>

 

[DerekWilson]

What are you gonna do Harvey, ban me? Try, you fuckin' douchebag.

this and nothing else is the problem.

we have an absolute zero tolerance policy on calling out mods (as mods) in threads.

jrenz could have said harvey had his head up his ass or (possibly, depending on the mod that stopped by next) could even have gotten away with "fuckn' duchebag" -- though to me this crosses a line harvey did not cross.

it's got zero to do with jrenz pushing on Harvey the member -- it's got to do with the fact that his role as a moderator was brought into the argument.

all of you need to understand this. we will not tolerate abuse of mods for being mods or for their moderation in threads. the only place questions about mod actions are allowed is in this forum (personal forum issues).

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson

What are you gonna do Harvey, ban me? Try, you fuckin' douchebag.

this and nothing else is the problem.

we have an absolute zero tolerance policy on calling out mods (as mods) in threads.

jrenz could have said harvey had his head up his ass or (possibly, depending on the mod that stopped by next) could even have gotten away with "fuckn' duchebag" -- though to me this crosses a line harvey did not cross.

it's got zero to do with jrenz pushing on Harvey the member -- it's got to do with the fact that his role as a moderator was brought into the argument.

all of you need to understand this. we will not tolerate abuse of mods for being mods or for their moderation in threads. the only place questions about mod actions are allowed is in this forum (personal forum issues).

The application of that rule in this context is utterly ridiculous.

You have a member who flaunts the rules and gets away with that because he is also a moderator. Another member mirrors his tone and says as much - he knows said member is getting the kid gloves because he's a moderator - and gets banned for calling a spade a spade. How about turning that around and getting at a root cause: If guideline #1 hadn't been broken to start with in that thread, would guideline #13 have been broken next?

That's the end of my contributions to this thread, as I'm no doubt appearing extremely irritating to everyone at this point by harping on the topic. I think you folks to a fine job almost to a fault, including Harvey. It's just really disappointing when a person gets his membership revoked here for reasons as specious (in my individual opinion) as what we've seen here.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

a wise man once said what's good for the goose is good for the gander. seems to me that this Harvey gets away with a lot because of his Mod status.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Calling out a mod is stupid, yes, but how come a mod can do the same thing to a regular user without punishment?

 

[Number1]

Harvey, you should cool down your rhetoric. We expect better from Mods.

 

[alchemize]

yllus, I have to disagree on this one. What jrenz did was basically attack the mod for being the mod. Now that mods are public they really shouldn't be subject to "what are ya gonna do about it" taunts...I agree with Derek.

I used to dislike Harvey's <personal attacks :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: and spittle-laced :evil: red-faced :| :| :| whiny-partisan tantrums :frown: :frown: more than anyone :roll: :roll: :roll: (how'd you like my impression?)

But now I think it's kinda funny, because here he is being the partisan hack he always has been, but without the cloak of being a "private" mod. Everybody knows that P&N conservatives were shown the door for political reasons, but they've all been let back in, and we're going to have fair moderation it seems. That's all we asked for.

Now the question is - has jrenz been perm-banned, or given a vacation? I believe the former is excessive and the latter is appropriate, and should be stated in the thread. I think P&N requires a higher standard of moderation than other forums, because obviously we're in each others faces, and clearly we have some folks that would like to give Chavez a rub-down, and others that have a I :heart: GW tattoo on their ankle, and they aren't gonna get along

IMO, I think the personal attack rule is unenforcable in a neutral manner, and should be abolished. If threads get personal, lock it.

PS: When are Steeplerot and B0BDN coming back?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
a wise man once said what's good for the goose is good for the gander. seems to me that this Harvey gets away with a lot because of his Mod status.

Thats what many of us asked in the great change of colture thread and the last thread about mods changing.

why are the rules not fairly enforced? shrug i have learned that is the way of this place.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: alchemize
yllus, I have to disagree on this one. What jrenz did was basically attack the mod for being the mod. Now that mods are public they really shouldn't be subject to "what are ya gonna do about it" taunts...I agree with Derek.

I used to dislike Harvey's <<personal attacks :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: and spittle-laced :evil: red-faced :| :| :| whiny-partisan tantrums :frown: :frown: more than anyone :roll: :roll: :roll: (how'd you like my impression?)

But now I think it's kinda funny, because here he is being the partisan hack he always has been, but without the cloak of being a "private" mod. Everybody knows that P&N conservatives were shown the door for political reasons, but they've all been let back in, and we're going to have fair moderation it seems. That's all we asked for.

Now the question is - has jrenz been perm-banned, or given a vacation? I believe the former is excessive and the latter is appropriate, and should be stated in the thread. I think P&N requires a higher standard of moderation than other forums, because obviously we're in each others faces, and clearly we have some folks that would like to give Chavez a rub-down, and others that have a I :heart: GW tattoo on their ankle, and they aren't gonna get along

IMO, I think the personal attack rule is unenforcable in a neutral manner, and should be abolished. If threads get personal, lock it.

PS: When are Steeplerot and B0BDN coming back?

:thumbsup:

 

[2Xtreme21]

In P&N things are very heated, as it is full of people who are very opinionated and care a lot about certain issues. In politics there's two or more sides to each issue it seems, and they are often times very far apart from one another. When someone has opinion A about issue A and another have opinion Z about issue A, arguing is often done at a personal level, but only related to the issue. Someone saying the other person has his head up his ass because he said such and such is way different than calling someone a douche bag for having a certain opinion. It's almost entirely irrelevant to what is being discussed-- similar to someone bringing up an argument and you retorting with "well, you're gay!"

It shows great immaturity when someone makes a non-relevant personal attack, and I think the P&N mods get this. I really don't want to see any change to the moderation there.

 

[ProfJohn]

Personally I don?t think Jrenz should be banned or given a vacation.

As long as Harvey continues to engage in personal attacks like the ones above then he should be willing to suffer when people attack him back.

Why should he be protected from criticism or attacks because of his status as a MOD?

Derek, I would agree with you if Jrenz had made his comment towards Red Dawn or Common Courtesy or other MODs, but let?s face the fact that Harvey invites this type of response based on HIS behavior. Harvey is not some sweet innocent little MOD going about his business and then out of the blue being savagely attacked. Harvey himself is creating the atmosphere that makes people like Jrenz reply in the way they do.

As for your last line Derek, Harvey was NOT acting as a MOD in the thread. He was posting as Harvey the member, not Harvey the MOD. Jrenz was not attacking Harvey for his decisions as a MOD, but for the type of crap that Harvey spews out on a daily basis.

 

[JEDIYoda]

personally I can tell you from my own dealing with the mods and some issues in the past that over all I would give all the Mods an "A" for attempting to deal with situations in an unbiasd manner......while at the same time being contributing members of these forums!!

P&N is not the place for little children to run to a mod every time somebody calls them an idiot or a uninformed moron..etc..etc....
But there is that line that seperates heated discussion from personnal attacks.

IMO the mods have done a real fine job in keeping the peace as well as moderating themselves.


Keep up the good work MOD`s!!

 

[FoBoT]

this thread/issue proves why creating P&N was an awesome and inspired move by the mods/admins, most of this "stuff" is segregated to P&N, and OT reaps the benefits

thanks!! :thumbsup:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
this thread/issue proves why creating P&N was an awesome and inspired move by the mods/admins, most of this "stuff" is segregated to P&N, and OT reaps the benefits

thanks!! :thumbsup:

i suggested it because OT was filling up with hot political debates
- it wasn't brilliant but 'necessary' and it was actually "inspired" by what Harvey did - years ago - splitting OT away from GH

and i believe the mods there do a very good job - it is a very difficult forum to moderate, i don't envy their job at all ... as to their getting "worked up" in threads they participate in - we are all human; the good thing is that they don't moderate the threads they are participating in - except in extreme emergency where no other mod is available.

 

[jjones]

I don't see much difference between Harvey's comments and just outright calling someone an ignorant dipshit. They're both personal attacks, although one may be wearing sunday clothes while the other is in grimy overalls. I thought the point was to dispute the message, not deride the messenger.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Am I missing something here, the OP is comparing two obviously humorous posts against a clearly rude post without a smidgen of humor. I am not with you on this.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Baloo
Am I missing something here, the OP is comparing two obviously humorous posts against a clearly rude post without a smidgen of humor. I am not with you on this.

If you've spent any time in P&N you would know exactly what the OP is talking about....