Over moderation

[Tensor]

I think the tense was lost.

Oh, I don't know. From some of the recent posts, it seems to be getting rather tense in here.

[NEOWatcher]

Note that I have only William's word for the fact that the infraction was for politics not abuse.

Just my 2 cent opinion on that post.
The general idea of surviving a doomsday event can be something to discuss, but to discuss how a country would cause it is not.
So this particular statement:

if the USA gets pushed too far the federal government could threaten the world with doomsday

Is definitely political to me.
If William had just said "if a doomsday scenerio happened on the planet".
Even if he said "if some government went overboard and created a doomsday scenerio" would be better, but would be moving into the political arena.

And; a very common one that I see that many people don't think is political is when they compare any NASA or other science budget against another budget. What those statements imply is a political opinion of one political program to another. If it's the NASA (or scientific) budget to the whole, then that's a little different because you are not implying an opinion solely on that one budget.

[Jason Thompson]

And; a very common one that I see that many people don't think is political is when they compare any NASA or other science budget against another budget. What those statements imply is a political opinion of one political program to another.

That's the one that caught me. When I wrote it I was just pulling out numbers to compare because I knew them, but more than one person read it as 'calling for' a shift in budget from one to the other.

[Nicolas]

Totally off topic here, but I'd like to applaud the moderation in the "classic cars" thread. A subtle corrective nudge, a good interpretation/relaxation of the rules for that thread, followed by co-operation by the board members, et voila: one happy thread.

[pzkpfw]

Just my 2 cent opinion ...

Very much spot on with what I explained to him.

[whimsyfree]

You are only very partially correct. Suppressing "hot button issues" is part of the intent, since political discussions often get hot and nasty. But it isn't confined to just US politics, as I can recall actions also taken regarding UK, Canadian, and Australian politics, to name a few off the top of my head.

And no we are not going to define "politics". I think the commonly understood definition is quite fine.

You mean the dictionary definition that William's post doesn't appear to meet?

As far as the particular post in question, not a single moderator who looked at it disagreed that it was not completely inappropriate (and multiple ones commented about it).

Straw man. I never said it was appropriate.

[whimsyfree]

Is definitely political to me.

Why do you think that it is political? Is it attempting to influence a collective decision?

[whimsyfree]

None of our rules do or should provide an allegedly complete list of specific linguistic constructions which are prohibited, or even give a smattering of examples of specifics that are allowed and prohibited... for two reasons: first, such rules would be impossibly long and unreadable (see "Goedel, Escher, Bach"); second, there is a subset of our past, current, and future membership that are amused and/or empowered by exploiting gray areas in the rules to violate the sense of the rule.

It is the politics rule which is being questioned as particularly poorly defined. Your resorting to "Goedel, Escher, Bach" is rhetorically weak.

On a related topic, you giving a one sentence excerpt for the definition of politics, and saying that is the exhaustive definition of political is obviously weak rhetorically.

Where did I say that the sentence I quoted as an exhaustive definition? In fact I had two quotes, so even your "one sentence excerpt" is wrong. I make all reasonable efforts to tell the truth in our discussions and I think you should do likewise.

[slang]

defineolitics "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area."
Wikipedia: "a process by which groups of people make collective decisions".

Where did I say that the sentence I quoted as an exhaustive definition? In fact I had two quotes, so even your "one sentence excerpt" is wrong. I make all reasonable efforts to tell the truth in our discussions and I think you should do likewise.

What do definitions of "olitics" have to do with this discussion, be it one or two of them?

[R.A.F.]

I make all reasonable efforts to tell the truth in our discussions and I think you should do likewise.

So it's your intention not to win this argument??

How very Bizarro of you.

[Tensor]

It is the politics rule which is being questioned as particularly poorly defined.

And antoniseb mentioned that the rule isn't intended to be specific. Not being specific is not the same as poorly defined.

Your resorting to "Goedel, Escher, Bach" is rhetorically weak.

If every possible explanation and example of political (among other rules) had to be written down, the rules would become "impossibly long and unreadable". Why would giving example of this be rhetorically weak?

Where did I say that the sentence I quoted as an exhaustive definition? In fact I had two quotes, so even your "one sentence excerpt" is wrong.

Well, by not mentioning that there were other possibilities and dismissing djellison's post based on those two sentences, there is a strong implication that those two are exhaustive, even if you don't state it.

I make all reasonable efforts to tell the truth in our discussions and I think you should do likewise.

It doesn't appear that way to me. Shall we look at a string of posts specifically?

In post #431, you give this post from William Thompson as a post you believe to be non-political. Your actual quote is:

It doesn't seem political to me, just anti-American abuse.

Which is actually pretty silly as it is more of a pro-American post, since it talks of America repopulating the Earth after a nuclear war, and thus "winning".

djellison states in post #439 that it:

Well - it clearly IS political, and it's abusive.

Now I don't agree with the abuse part, but....

define politics "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area."
Wikipedia: "a process by which groups of people make collective decisions".

First off, you don't specify where you got the first quote, so we don't know if it's from a valid source, or you just made it up. However....

It doesn't seem to meet those definitions, unless you interpret the first definition so broadly as to include anything a government might do.

Well, if you are making all reasonable efforts to tell the truth, then why would you only use those two definitions to dismiss djellison's claim of William's post being political? After all, it definitely would fall under political using the World Politics section in Wikipedia. You quoted Wikipedia in your post. It doesn't seem as if you are making all reasonable efforts to tell the truth if you use one part of a Wikipedia page to support your claim, when another part of that same page, which you ignore, contradicts your claim.

If you do that then there should be enormously more political infractions given than there are.

Since you now state that those two are not an exhaustive list of definitions, and this comment is based on using only the first extremely broadly, do you still think there should be enormously more political infractions given, using all those other definitions you decided not to include?

[Shaula]

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of POLITICAL
1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms <political units>
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system <political prisoners>

Definition of POLITICS
1a : the art or science of government
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)
b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession
c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society
b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>

That post:
Talked about models of US national security
Implied that the US would countenance global eradication of the human race so long as they survived

These are both topics about the policies and conduct of a government and so political under definitions 1a, 1b and politics under 2, 3c.

As the mod said - it was also because a previous, similar discussion had gone off the rails. Threads like this are generally ones in which more than just the OP get themselves into trouble. If people reply or debate then too often it crosses a line. In this case, because one of these threads had just happened thanks to the poster's input I can see why it infracted.

Looking at that one post does it seem harsh? Yes - but taking the post in context it is not.

[antoniseb]

... Where did I say that the sentence I quoted as an exhaustive definition?...

You quote the partial definition of a related term, and draw a conclusion based on the related term's quoted definition not specifically covering what you think you read in William's post. It is implied by your statement that only this definition can be used as part of our rule, when common usage of the actual term does cover the intent of our rule.

...It is the politics rule which is being questioned as particularly poorly defined...

If you agree with our intent, suggest a significantly better rewording.

[Moose]

You mean the dictionary definition that William's post doesn't appear to meet?

I don't think I've ever seen an instance of hair-splitting (and I'm not just talking about this post) that was worth the time to express. This hair-splitting isn't constructive. This is anything but. It is a total waste of everybody's time. I would echo Antoniseb's suggestion. When you have an alternative wording to propose that better covers the intent of the rule, I have no doubt the mod team will be willing to consider it. Until then, "you got nothin'", as they say, and my time is more valuable than that.

[HenrikOlsen]

You mean the dictionary definition that William's post doesn't appear to meet?

Close dictionary, read rule 0, apply intelligence, then stop.

[pzkpfw]

Here's some moderation that may be over, under, or just right. Clearly we'll all have a different opinion on that.

This thread has drifted off and on topic, and into and out of various states of tenseness. Time to end it, I think.

(As usual, report this post if you wish to make a request to re-open. (Make the explanation a good one (i.e. not just "I want this re-opened".)))