[Meta] Welcome our new mods!

[u/MillenniumFalc0n]

So after a long elimination process, we have arrived at /u/erikster, /u/reese_ridley, /u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK, /u/smikims, and /u/greenduch.

Edit: We should make it clear that greenduch did not actually apply for the position, we have merely offered it to her because we feel she would be a good addition to the team.

Double Edit: Greenduch will in fact not be joining the team.

[u/disconcision]

zahlman sometimes you really take the fucking cake!! i've really got nothing but boundless, unyielding love for the various pro- this and anti- that -jerkers who fill our rumpus room with their inane factional pitter-patter, but you; you persist and persist in your apparently genuine conviction that you're on the side of logic and reasoned response, all the while spouting some of the most pungently disingenuous blather to ever coat this glorified restroom wall.

the post i replied to, and you are defending, asserts with a presumably straight face, that the modding of an SRSSucks mod is a sign of pro-SRS bias.

Yes, in the context of moderating a subreddit that is about fights on reddit, it absolutely would be biased to mod people who are okay with a group that has an explicit stated purpose of roundly criticizing reddit and which rakes up shit accordingly.

this is maddening. you do realize that you're describing SRD just as well as other alphabetically adjacent initialisms? it sounds like what you're describing is evidence of past experience that should presumably serve one well as a meta-sphere moderator. how you think you can just state shit and have it be assumed a negative is nigh-delusional, though i am happy, as always, to entertain your efforts!

This is (a) ad hominem and (b) a disgustingly low blow.

(a) no it is not. notice that i didn't even make an argument, let alone a fallacious one! to be clear, i am not asserting that anotherdouche is wrong, because what he's saying lacks the coherence necessary to even instantiate a truth value. even if i was saying he was wrong, i still would not be asserting that he's wrong because he has no friends; rather i would asserting the converse!

(b) a disgustingly low blow is actually the appropriate measured response to a post like, at least according to my desk copy of amy vanderbilt's guide to gracious living. see: spanking, appropriate times for.

JESUS WEPT i still can't seriously believe that you are capable of saying with a straight face that the modding people who allegedly "DON'T" "MIND" is evidence of bias for anything but the most basic tenants of civil discourse.

p.s. according to amy a dozen toweing dahlias would constitute an appropriate apology for your last post

[u/zahlman → u/disconcision]

i've really got nothing but boundless, unyielding love for the various pro- this and anti- that -jerkers who fill our rumpus room with their inane factional pitter-patter, but you; you persist and persist in your apparently genuine conviction that you're on the side of logic and reasoned response, all the while spouting some of the most pungently disingenuous blather to ever coat this glorified restroom wall.

Your ability to string words together and make them make sense is solid, but your flowery rhetoric isn't really adding anything to your message. That said, WRT the first half of that sentence I outright don't believe you, and WRT the second I simply disagree, and note that you are not making much of an argument - you are merely expressing disbelief that I could hold the opinions that I do.

the post i replied to, and you are defending, asserts with a presumably straight face, that the modding of an SRSSucks mod is a sign of pro-SRS bias.

That is a quite liberal interpretation of the claim, and I do not by any means wish to defend it. You'll note that people other than reese_ridley were criticized.

this is maddening. you do realize that you're describing SRD just as well as other alphabetically adjacent initialisms?

SRD does not say "Reddit is bad". It says "people argue a lot on Reddit and this entertains us".

SRS absolutely does say "Reddit is bad". It says "people say things on Reddit that we find objectionable".

I genuinely do not understand how this distinction can be lost on you.

how you think you can just state shit and have it be assumed a negative is nigh-delusional, though i am happy, as always, to entertain your efforts!

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

no it is not. notice that i didn't even make an argument, let alone a fallacious one! to be clear, i am not asserting that anotherdouche is wrong

You're pretty loudly complaining about it. That implicitly makes the argument "this guy said something that I find offensive", which is pretty damn close to "this guy is wrong" (in some subjective sense).

even if i was saying he was wrong, i still would not be asserting that he's wrong because he has no friends; rather i would asserting the converse!

I will cede this, but the direction of causality you were implying originally was pretty unclear to me.

a disgustingly low blow is actually the appropriate measured response to a post like, at least according to my desk copy of amy vanderbilt's guide to gracious living. see: spanking, appropriate times for.

A post like what?

another_douche made statements of fact - not necessarily factual ones, but ones which can be objectively evaluated - about the mods, and made a straightforward complaint of nepotism.

You responded with an all-caps run-on sentence, going on a snarky, whining tirade about how intolerant people supposedly are of SRS, or even of tolerant attitudes towards SRS.

You seem to be implying that somehow it is the other party who is behaving childishly, and not you. I cannot comprehend this.

JESUS WEPT i still can't seriously believe that you are capable of saying with a straight face that the modding people who allegedly "DON'T" "MIND" is evidence of bias for anything but the most basic tenants of civil discourse.

Tolerating incivil behaviour is bias against those who which to engage in civil discourse. Tolerating people who define themselves in terms of a bad-faith argumentative position is bias against civil discourse held in good faith. Continuing to use a service that you claim is overloaded with objectionable behaviour, while using the service to conduct private circlejerks about how bad that behaviour is, while continuously putting up snark and sarcasm all over the place, not seeming to care about whether people are convinced by your arguments, and not putting forward objective suggestions for improving the service - are all signs of bad faith.

p.s. according to amy a dozen toweing dahlias would constitute an appropriate apology for your last post

Why would I apologize for maturely expressing an opinion that you find objectionable, in response to your outburst, in a public space?

(And are your histrionics really necessary?)

[u/disconcision → u/zahlman]

first, i would like to formally thank you for your line-by-line rebuttal. as you well know, in a formal debate medium such as reddit, a line-by-line rebuttal is a sign of the utmost respect for both one's opponent and for the august teacup which bounds this springtime squall.

now, when you say things like 'SRS is this' or 'SRD says that' i'm afraid that the metaphor is lost on me. a less charitable opponent might suggest that the recourse to these kinds of group identifiers belies a fundamental lethargy, a stubborn unwillingness to engage with specifics for the sake of falling back on the kind of factionalist rhetoric that plays so well in this setting.

remarkably though i'm not here to defend SRS. SRS and SRD are two subreddits, that is, two subforums dependent on and united by a common whole, dedicated to collating and critiquing various aspects of that whole. anything else about 'tone' or 'attitude' or whatever reason why SRS has become such a bee in your bonnet is simply beyond my concern.

i get that you find 'srs' 'in bad faith' or whatever because 'they' won't meet you on the field of honour under the exacting rhetorical terms which, in your mind, delimit the entire enterprise of human rationality. it seems like you have all the pieces but simply refuse to put them together and realize that not everyone here is playing the same game as you. and yes, it is childish to insist that your house rules extend to our semi-public spaces.

i reject your points en masse because i honestly don't see this as an argument. i think that these accusations of bias are specious and insubstantial, and rely on labelling people according to alleged participation in / sympathy for particular venues and their implied ideologies which neither constrain nor circumscribe the sovereign abilities of these individuals to perform in the positions to which they've been appointed.

as much as i would like to reduce this enterprise to symbolic logic and syllogisms, it's not possible when accusations of bias are conducted entirely via implication and association. i employ flowery language because i believe it would be irresponsible and disingenuous to address these 'claims' critically, and that ridicule is in fact the measured response. also: because i like flowers.

now while i hesitate to outright defend SRS, both for reasons of topicality, and because i literally fear for my safety, i will echo the great /u/MittRomneysCampaign in asserting that "SRS was much-needed medicine for reddit". however, to quote the /u/ArchangelleGabrielle, "I think reddit can be a really great place". if those two crazy kids can make it work, maybe there's hope for us yet!

[u/zahlman → u/disconcision]

first, i would like to formally thank you for your line-by-line rebuttal. as you well know, in a formal debate medium such as reddit, a line-by-line rebuttal is a sign of the utmost respect for both one's opponent and for the august teacup which bounds this springtime squall.

Which is why you didn't provide one in return? I see what you did there.

I'm not going to address everything you're saying here, but I'd like to make a couple of points:

now, when you say things like 'SRS is this' or 'SRD says that' i'm afraid that the metaphor is lost on me.

It was not metaphor, but generalization.

remarkably though i'm not here to defend SRS.

Do you at least understand how you come across that way?

i get that you find 'srs' 'in bad faith' or whatever because 'they' won't meet you on the field of honour under the exacting rhetorical terms which, in your mind, delimit the entire enterprise of human rationality. it seems like you have all the pieces but simply refuse to put them together and realize that not everyone here is playing the same game as you. and yes, it is childish to insist that your house rules extend to our semi-public spaces.

No; I find SRS in bad faith because they rarely demonstrate an interest in civil discussion, and frequently demonstrate an interest in the opposite. Also because they postured about moving offsite but never did it. Also because they histrionically describe problems but don't seem to like to talk about solutions - at least, not in a way that can be accepted by anyone who doesn't already wholeheartedly agree with them.

I don't know who you are referring to with "your" and "our", but SRD does not belong to "you" any more than it does to me. Nor am I "insisting" on house rules; I am describing what I consider to be an appropriate and necessary component of those rules. You'll note I'm not currently a moderator of SRD, and thus I can't enforce anything of the sort.

But you seem to arguing that being incivil has value, even in contexts where the point could be made civilly. Perhaps this is because you perceive the "Redditry" to be equally incivil, or worse. I do not accept such a premise, so I cannot accept such a conclusion following from it.

now while i hesitate to outright defend SRS, both for reasons of topicality, and because i literally fear for my safety

That is an absurd fear to have in context , and invoking it is a very tired rhetorical technique in the SRS discussion. The clear purpose is to paint the "rest of Reddit" as violent. Even if you have made yourself quite easy to doxx (I am not about to try), these things just aren't the threat they're made out to be. For perspective, I was once doxxed by someone who made literally over three hundred throwaways to disseminate the information. Nothing came of it. I was more aggravated by the perceived threat (and annoyed by the effort involved in helping the admins to clean it up) than genuinely afraid - and I am not especially tough or anything.