Thread removed

[Craig234]

Craig started this thread about Republican opposition to the UN Arms treaty with the title "Republicans and their allies: North Korea, Iran, Syria". Claiming that the GOP are "allies" with those countries because they oppose a treaty is complete BS, and an example of the sort of flame-baiting we don't need in the DC.

I changed the title to "Republican opposition to UN Global Arms Trade treaty". This is what the thread is about. I put that in as an edit note.

Craig responded to this by changing the title to "Thread removed", deleting his entire original post, and removing my edit reason.

I restored the thread title and the original post and editing in a bold comment to the OP, the first time I have felt that necessary. As part of that, I told Craig not to do that again.

He then again edited the post *again*, removed all the text, changed the title, and removed my moderator comments. As a result, Craig has been vacationed for violating general ATF rules. His status in the DC will be discussed.

CK
Moderator, Discussion Club

 

[ivwshane]

In another thread I said rights put party first then country but what I should have said was, party before country because its apparent many things come before the country than just their party, money would be another thing.

So many innocent lives are lost to this trade - of which the US is the #1 arms dealer -

 

[Craig234]

Censored thread removed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I have changed the title to better reflect that actual topic, and remove a claim that has no factual basis and was needlessly inflammatory.

This article does a better job of discussing the issue in terms of US politics.

 

[dphantom]

Thank you Charles for changing the tile from an obvious troll to something more accurate.

As to the Un Arms treaty, Article 2 1h, Article 5 3 is what I object to primarily and so for me would be enough to reject the treaty.

 

[ivwshane]

Thank you Charles for changing the tile from an obvious troll to something more accurate.

As to the Un Arms treaty, Article 2 1h, Article 5 3 is what I object to primarily and so for me would be enough to reject the treaty.

Ok, and what does that state exactly?

 

[dphantom]

sorry, it is online but here are the 2 sections I mentioned:

(h) Small arms and light weapons

3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms. National definitions of any of the categories covered under Article 2 (1) (a)-(g) shall not cover less than the descriptions used in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms at the time of entry into force of this Treaty. For the category covered under Article 2 (1) (h), national definitions shall not cover less than the descriptions used in relevant United Nations instruments at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.

 

[dphantom]

Specifically, I object to "small arms" and "broadest range" terms. I think it opens a door to intrusion into our Constitutional rights even though other areas of the treaty implies that intra-State sales of weapons would not be regulated.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

For the record...

Craig started this thread about Republican opposition to the UN Arms treaty with the title "Republicans and their allies: North Korea, Iran, Syria". Claiming that the GOP are "allies" with those countries because they oppose a treaty is complete BS, and an example of the sort of flame-baiting we don't need in the DC.

I changed the title to "Republican opposition to UN Global Arms Trade treaty". This is what the thread is about. I put that in as an edit note.

Craig responded to this by changing the title to "Thread removed", deleting his entire original post, and removing my edit reason.

I restored the thread title and the original post and editing in a bold comment to the OP, the first time I have felt that necessary. As part of that, I told Craig not to do that again.

He then again edited the post *again*, removed all the text, changed the title, and removed my moderator comments. As a result, I will be recommending to the administrators that his posting privileges in the Discussion Club be revoked.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So you're saying Republicans, North Korea, Iran, and Syria are opponents on this issue?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So you're saying Republicans, North Korea, Iran, and Syria are opponents on this issue?

Do I really have to explain this? REALLY?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Do I really have to explain this? REALLY?

The title was inflammatory and probably inappropriate for this forum, but I'm not sure it was factually incorrect. It would have been more appropriate IMO to give Craig the opportunity to reword his title himself if you felt there was an issue with it.

Craig knew the title was inflammatory and violated the DC guidelines. His later actions have confirmed Moderator hunches and further actions.

This is not P&N.

EK
Admin

 

[Charles Kozierok]

When I see a thread title that is obvious flamebait, I am going to take action on it before the whole thread gets derailed into arguments. If he didn't like the title I chose -- and really, what was wrong with it? -- he could have suggested another.

And if he really has that little respect for the moderators here, he doesn't belong here, IMO. The admins will decide, though.

 

[dphantom]

The title was inflammatory and probably inappropriate for this forum, but I'm not sure it was factually incorrect. It would have been more appropriate IMO to give Craig the opportunity to reword his title himself if you felt there was an issue with it.

It absolutely was factually incorrect. To state that Republicans are allied with NK, Iran and Syria is simply flame bait. And that is all I will say. If you want to discuss the gist of the UN arms treaty, I would be happy to pursue that.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The title was inflammatory and probably inappropriate for this forum, but I'm not sure it was factually incorrect. It would have been more appropriate IMO to give Craig the opportunity to reword his title himself if you felt there was an issue with it.

From the post above, he gave Craig 2 chances to fix the thread title, but Craig passed.

Claiming that the GOP is an ally with NK seems like trolling to me. We can discuss problems with the GOP position without that kind of flamebait.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The title was inflammatory and probably inappropriate for this forum, but I'm not sure it was factually incorrect. It would have been more appropriate IMO to give Craig the opportunity to reword his title himself if you felt there was an issue with it.

No, calling the Republicans allies with North Korea, Iran and Syria is not factually correct. I'm not allied with the Nazis because I like Fanta. It's a pointless rhetorical device to try and paint Republicans as being in league with countries who are demonstrably anti-American, and it serves no other purpose than to be intentionally inflammatory. If Craig had a problem with the edits of a moderator, he should have taken it to Moderator Discussions, as all of us who have been around a while know to do.

 

[cwjerome]

Allies implies joining, we happen to have a similar stance on a position as another country, that doesn't make us allies. Yes it's flame baiting, too bad he kept removing Mod comments.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

When I see a thread title that is obvious flamebait, I am going to take action on it before the whole thread gets derailed into arguments. If he didn't like the title I chose -- and really, what was wrong with it? -- he could have suggested another.

And if he really has that little respect for the moderators here, he doesn't belong here, IMO. The admins will decide, though.

Nothing was wrong with your title. But it was your title with his name underneath. Deeming whatever statement Craig wanted to make appropriate for this forum or not is your prerogative, but changing that statement and trying to force him to stick by it really isn't.

But editing mod notes is a no-no regardless that I won't defend.

 

[ivwshane]

The title was inflammatory and probably inappropriate for this forum, but I'm not sure it was factually incorrect. It would have been more appropriate IMO to give Craig the opportunity to reword his title himself if you felt there was an issue with it.

Now that this thread has gone OT (I see your point dp), it does bring up a good point.

I have seen in P&N where titles have been changed by the moderator and considering the quality of posters I don't see a problem with it but in this forum I think the opportunity for the OP to change the title themselves. It gives them a chance to show their intentions. If they can't change it to something more factual then they probably need a cooling off period. But respect should be given until it is misused.

 

[DaveSimmons]

^ I can agree with this. It's wandering into discussions of moderation but perhaps the rule should be to change the title to something like:

"Factually incorrect title removed"

-or-

"Flamebait title removed"

Then the OP can either change the title to something accurate and non-trolling, or have the thread locked. With that kind of title change, words aren't put into the OP's mouth.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It absolutely was factually incorrect. To state that Republicans are allied with NK, Iran and Syria is simply flame bait. And that is all I will say. If you want to discuss the gist of the UN arms treaty, I would be happy to pursue that.

I bet you would.

Specifically, I object to "small arms" and "broadest range" terms. I think it opens a door to intrusion into our Constitutional rights even though other areas of the treaty implies that intra-State sales of weapons would not be regulated.

So there is a mere encouragement that this be applied domestically, further language in the treaty that specifically prevents this from being mandated domestically, and there's the fact that treaties don't trump the constitution, yet you're still opposed because... reasons.

Sorry, but I think I'll decline.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Nothing was wrong with your title. But it was your title with his name underneath. Deeming whatever statement Craig wanted to make appropriate for this forum or not is your prerogative, but changing that statement and trying to force him to stick by it really isn't.

But editing mod notes is a no-no regardless that I won't defend.

Hogwash. Discussion Club is about having a mature conversation as an adult. The first time the thread title was changed, Craig could have changed it to something else himself and posted about his dislike of the administration in the Moderator Discussions section. The second time the thread title was changed, Craig could have changed it to something else himself and posted about his dislike of the administration in the Moderator Discussions section. He chose to act in an extremely immature manner on multiple occasions. This section of the forums is supposed to be for rational discussion of issues, not a place where moderators have to babysit people who should know better. I can understand the frustration with having a topic title changed, but acting out about it publicly is immature and has no place in this area.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Okay, suppose someone posted a thread title saying "Democrats and their allies: North Korea, Iran, Syria". And suppose I sent a note to them "asking" that they change it -- and it just so happens that they had logged off a minute earlier to go out for the evening.

What then? Should I just leave it up there and watch a giant flame war ensue?

If there's a minor problem with a title, I have no problem just asking someone to change it. But blatant trolling? Forget it.

 

[ivwshane]

I bet you would.



So there is a mere encouragement that this be applied domestically, further language in the treaty that specifically prevents this from being mandated domestically, and there's the fact that treaties don't trump the constitution, yet you're still opposed because... reasons.

Sorry, but I think I'll decline.

This is DC, the intentions of others should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I asked him a question regarding his point and he provided the information, I don't think his intentions were dishonest.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Acting out? By taking his own post down? Oh the outrage...