I agree with this in principle but I find it difficult to refute your statements without quoting instances contained in the thread and its posts.
Then you should probably make another thread to talk specifically about that action instead of dragging it out in a thread meant for general discussions on moderation styles.
I'll go ahead and respond to the pertinent points here, but if you wish to continue trying to elucidate us on specifics, your next reply should merely be a link to the new thread in which you would like to do so.
If you had bothered to read the thread
I did. I wouldn't waste either of our times responding if I had not.
I do appreciate the poorly veiled insult though.
And you see, that's the difference between a direct insult to me and a direct insult to my position.
Josh, though he is harsh, is simply insulting the stance you are taking and your failure to understand it's failings.
You, however, have just said that I am the kind of tool to respond as if I knew what I was talking about without taking the time to make sure that I do (or at least think I do).
You cannot dispute the comments he made are personal attacks/
I can and do.
"You are delusional" carries the implication of meaning "You are delusional (if you X)." This is the same as "You are an idiot (if you X)." Now, had he, for example said something like "If you had bothered to take your medication this morning you delusional imbecile" or calling you a "raging asscuntfartsmoosher" (or something equally inflammatory with no connection to a stance you are taking) then he would be personally insulting you.
In fact, I think the old boards will still be up long enough for me to find the thread discussing this distinction. I will edit in the link if I am able to find it.
Prime understood quite clearly as did the majority of posters in the first few pages of said thread.
If that is true, and I am at this point refusing to look back because you (seemingly intentionally) do me the disservice of quoting without leaving intact the link to the post the quote came from
and of simply referring to post numbers in a
different thread instead of linking and/or quoting them (you may as well be citing page numbers without a book title; very poor form), then you had no reason to be squabbling with Josh.
But, as you continued your squabbling, I must continue to assume that you either could not see his fault with your position or simply were so poor at getting your point across to him (the person you were discussing with) that he could not see it.
Either way, beating it over and over in the main thread (as opposed to in PMs or in another thread focused on that distinct point) is exactly the type of derailment Josh was discussing in this thread and why he removed the post in question.
SneeR the OP of said thread seemed to think that the objectivity I added to the discussion was quite engaging and a good contribution.
Here I will, for the sake of completeness (and hopefully to make you understand enough that you drop this or make your own thread), try to explain why Josh is correct and you are not.
The objectivity you were quibbling with Josh over was meaningless. It was the equivalent of saying "on all days that end with Y, the day ends in Y." "if you play games, you are a gamer" is meaningless, because that is, in actuality, the definition of that type of noun construction. And it is irrelevant to discussing the meaning of ascribing the word to a particular social group when 99.5+% of the population has, at one time or another, played tag or hide and seek.
Now, some of the other things that came from that thread that attempted to establish objective ideals (I can't remember if they were yours or not), such as one who currently games versus one who has previously gamed and how to draw said line, were interesting. But after having read it, such things were obviously not the main goal of the post that was removed.
Deleting my argument because he did not agree with its content whether im incorrect or not is not an appropriate response.
He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.
This is what you quite obviously do not understand.
So I will use repetition as an emphasis device.
He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.
He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.
He did not delete your post because he disagreed with your argument. He deleted your post because of the bulk content of that post.
Judging from the post here he made my being "wrong" seemed to be his majority concern. Calling it harping would appear to be at best a red herring and at worse deliberately misleading.
You misunderstand him entirely. The reason was that you harped on something he had shown you to be wrong about (from my understanding, the idea that a generic objectivity was irrelevant to the discussion as it had to already be assumed for the discussion to even take place). And you harped on it more. And you harped on it more.
It doesn't matter that you had other things in the post as well.
Perhaps this is something you have not realized, so I will end with pointing it out:
BG policy is to remove whole posts when they contain offending material, so as to be free of any legal ramifications of editing another's words.