AKA Pete's Reprimand - Uncalled For

[valpocrewsader]

From the "Boston Globe" thread in the Major Leagues forum....

 

LOL - YO - helloooooo...

 

I hate to break it to you,

 

Strike-level condescension.

 

I came very close to posting this as a reply in that thread because I strongly believe the guy deserves to be defended in the very thread in which he was (unfairly) singled out and scolded.

 

I like you Casey, but man, in my opinion, this is another major hit against a chance for better conversation on this board. Sometimes it seems like posters here are simply either a member of the unspoken good ol' boys club or they're not. It's like a memo went out to all mods that AKA Pete was disagreeing with Ennder and talking about subjective observational analysis, and collective chops-licking ensued at the prospect of catching him use "LOL" so he could be disciplined in front of everyone.

 

Phrases like "I hate to break it to you" and "Hellloooo" have been used a bazillion times by established posters, often with a nastier tone. In this case, in my opinion, neither warranted a very rare public spanking -- not even close. I hope this was really just a warning and there was a corresponding PM to AKA Pete along the lines of, "Hey, really enjoy your contribution to the board, but no AOL speak, it's in our rules; and watch it with statements that could be seen as condescending, such as...."

 

We need more posters like him, not less. I've said my piece.

[And That]

Phrases like "I hate to break it to you" and "Hellloooo" have been used a bazillion times by established posters, often with a nastier tone.

I've never noticed that on any sort of a wide scale, but if you have proof I'll believe it.

 

However, "LOL - YO - helloooooo..." is different than that. It's not that AKA Pete disagreed with Ennder, it is the manner in which he did. Posting the aforementioned statement makes the poster come off as sophomoric. IIRC, that's not even the first time he used the term "LOL" in the thread in serious reaction.

[Brian the Automator]

I agree with Toby. It's clear condescension, and like 3 times in the same sentence. Clearly, people can get snippy from time to time (I mean, it's friggin' cold up here). There were other things such as "save the straw man argument" the other day as well, which sort of caught our attention.

 

Valpo, you know I really respect you, but I do know that it's been a pattern for you to quite often stand up for people who we tell to cool it. And by that, I certainly don't mean you do it ALL the time, just often enough that it makes me think that you might be sort of seeking that kind of thing out. Unfortunately, when a user like Pete catches our attention (not saying he's a bad guy, just comes off more blunt than the atmosphere we try to promote), we'll tend to take more notice posts by that particular person.

 

Personally, when I see flagrant things like "LOL - YO - hellooooo....", I'll call people out no matter if it's a newbie or an old-bie, someone's opinion I agree with, or someone's opinion I don't agree with. It doesn't mean that we're going to come down on every snarky comment on the site, but this was over the top. We really do our best here to treat people even-handedly, and yeah, we probably do give some more leeway to members who've been around longer, just because I think they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

[pete]

It's not that AKA Pete disagreed with Ennder, it is the manner in

which he did. Posting the aforementioned statement makes the poster come off as sophomoric. IIRC, that's not even the first time he used the term

"LOL" in the thread in serious reaction.

Really, you have to look at the context of the thread. I find it hard to believe that Ennder hasn't received multiple strikes just for that thread alone. You make no reference to his repeated statements that openly claimed something which the statistic openly stated that it didn't provide. Its hard to come up with a scenario that would apologize for that behavior. I guess I could have used some sort of robotic response. But I have to wonder if it is because I disagreed with Ennder or toolive brew.

 

To call it sophomoric is openly insulting and antagonistic. I'm lost as to why it would be pretentious or juvenile. Have you received a strike for being openly consescending and making a personal attack?

 

And if the use of "lol" is forbidden, it should be stated in the rules.

[PeaveyFury]

And if the use of "lol" is forbidden, it should be stated in the rules.

 

From the Rules of Conduct under "What kind of language is not allowed?

 

Try to refrain from using AOL-type speak. It smacks of pre-teen. Your posts are more likely to be taken seriously if you spell 'you' with more than a 'u.' Also, our membership includes a wide range of age groups, and frankly, not everyone will know what you're saying if your posts read like a text message.

 

You make no reference to his repeated statements that openly claimed something which the statistic openly stated that it didn't provide. Its hard to come up with a scenario that would apologize for that behavior.

 

Trying to prove/claim something that isn't specifically backed by a stat/stats is not against the rules. Condescension is clearly against the Rules of Conduct.

[pete]

Its hard to imagine anything that would be more valuable to a forum that is overwhelmingly dominated by stat-heads, than being able to point out logical fallacies. There is a reason that logic is taught in the same department as statistics. If you wanted to promote discussion and cordial, friendly behavior, you should be critical of people using straw men arguments. Instead you are critical of it. How do you explain that?

 

You criticize being straightforward and honest as being "blunt" and to be something that you don't want. What do you want?

 

You ought to look up the definition of "condescension" as well. If you follow the context of the thread, I don't think its condescending at all, yet you say that it is clearly so.

 

What is your relationship with ender and toolivebrew? I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. If they're your posse, it'll be a lot easier to understand and accept the clique.

[pete]

All right, i'll spell out an abbreviation. Are FWIW and IIRC okay?

 

And c'mon, now you're defending being plainly and openly argumentative as okay? Please, look up condescension in a dictionary.

[PeaveyFury]

Its hard to imagine anything that would be more valuable to a forum that is overwhelmingly dominated by stat-heads, than being able to point out logical fallacies.

 

This is very true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the problems with an argument or disagreeing with something one way or another, no matter what side you're taking. And that's clearly not the issue here- it's not what you were arguing or arguing against, it was that you did it while talking down to someone. THAT's the problem.

 

 

You ought to look up the definition of "condescension" as well.

 

From Webster's dictionary:

con·de·scen·sion: patronizing attitude or behavior

 

"LOL - YO - helloooooo... " is pretty darn patronizing.

 

What is your relationship with ender and toolivebrew? I don't think that's unreasonable to ask.

 

I don't think it is either. The board's relationship with ender and toolivebrew is that they are posters here. It's also the same relationship that the board has with you, or valpo, or rluzinski, or don1481, or whomever.

[pete]

But I was criticized for pointing out a logical fallacy. That is what a straw man argument is. The guy does it repeatedly as well which is argumentative and dishonest. Now pointing out the logical fallacy is a good thing?

 

And no, the comment isn't patronizing, "darn" or otherwise. And by the way, using "darn" is prohibited plainly by the rules.

 

So what's the story on FWIW and IIRC? Do you really stand by the comment that using "lol" is teen like and difficult for others to interpret? Seems like using abbreviations to a point that makes posts nearly incomprehensible is relatively common. How do you think a general baseball fan feels when a statement of opinion gets a response of a post that has ten or fifteen abbreviations (all or almost all of which are unknown to anyone but stat-heads)? The posts usually end with a clear conclusion though, they usually state that truth has been determined, the opinion is in error and no further question exists. Doing it is condescending and borderline insulting, yet it is quite popular.

 

Does the relationship of "the board" with ennder and toolivebrew go beyond us all just being "posters"? That seems unlikely. If "the board" doesn't want to answer say that rather than being evasive or non-responsive.

[1992casey]

Attempting to itemize the terms used in the message convolutes the fact that the issue is the post itself and the totality of the terms that were used. As a matter of fact, by themselves, LOL and Yo are very friendly more often than not.

 

However, LOL preceding a counter-argument is condescending. helloooooo (?) is condescending almost every time it's used. Neither of them alone would have warranted a strike, though.

 

The fact that LOL - YO - helloooooo... were placed together and that you opened your second point with I hate to break it to you was the reason for the strike. Heck, I didn't even point out the use of How hard is that to understand that it has to be repeated?.

 

Here's the part of the post in question:

LOL - YO - helloooooo... something that doesn't claim to provide data can't be more accurate at providing that data. How hard is that to understand that it has to be repeated?

 

I hate to break it to you, but observation is fundamental to science. Its illogical to conclude that a pitch by pitch analysis is more accurate than observation of even a subset of those pitches.

Here's how it could have been written:

Something that doesn't claim to provide data can't be more accurate at providing that data. Observation is fundamental to science. Its illogical to conclude that a pitch by pitch analysis is more accurate than observation of even a subset of those pitches.

More often that not, determining where a comment fits on the condescension spectrum is difficult. Mods have to choose between:

• not saying anything at all
• saying something but not issuing a warning
• saying something and issuing a non-strike warning
• issuing a strike

This case was about as clear as it gets. Had we been talking about another example, it might have been worthy of discussion.

[PeaveyFury]

But I was criticized for pointing out a logical fallacy.

 

No, you were reprimanded for the WAY you pointed it out, not for pointing it out. That seems to be what you're not acknowledging here.

 

And no, the comment isn't patronizing, "darn" or otherwise.

 

Yes, it was. The webster's definition of patronizing:

 

pa·tron·ize: to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly

 

And by the way, using "darn" is prohibited plainly by the rules.

 

Kindly point out where, please. As you'll find, it's actually expressly pointed out that even "damn, ass, hell, and piss are currently allowable".

 

Does the relationship of "the board" with ennder and toolivebrew go beyond us all just being "posters"? That seems unlikely. If "the board" doesn't want to answer say that rather than being evasive or non-responsive.

 

Ender and toolivebrew are simply posters here, just like anyone else, as mentioned previously. If they swear or violate any of the rules, they'll be reprimanded just like if you would.

[PeaveyFury]

I just want to address a couple of things here to lay things out a bit:

 

If someone is being reprimanded or given a 'strike' by a mod or staff member here, it has nothing to do with your point of view or the argument that you're making. It's because you broke the rules set forth by the site in the Rules of Conduct and under the 3 Strikes and You're Out policy posted in this issues forum. IE, if you post, "Sheets' injuries make him a liability to the team and he doesn't help us down the stretch you moron" and get warned by a mod, the warning has nothing to do with your views on Sheets, it's because you called the other poster a moron which is a violation of the Rules of Conduct. No one is getting strikes because of what point they're making, it's how they made it that is the issue.

 

Now, while this case wasn't as blatant as calling someone a derogatory name, that basic concept is what's happening here as well. If there is a disconnect here as there seems to be with what you consider condescending vs what the site sees as condescending, that's not unreasonable since in this case you're a new poster. What 1992Casey was conveying to you when he warned you, though, that what happened here was condescending based on the board's standard, and asking to tone it down going forward. That's pretty much it- it's not a big deal, and while I'm not an admin or someone with banning power at all, it's not like you're on the verge of being banned for life or anything like that as a result of this initial warning.

 

Hopefully that clarifies it a bit for everyone.

[pitchleague]

peavey, nicely explained. However, I had to re-read this sentence three times: "IE, if you post, "Sheets' injuries make him a liability to the team and he doesn't help us down the stretch you moron" and get warned by a mod, the warning has nothing to do with your views on Sheets, it's because you called the other poster a moron which is a violation of the Rules of Conduct," because I couldn't for the life of me understand what Internet Explorer had to do with anything.

 

I'm a little slow in the morning.

[Team Canada]

He means "i.e.", but probably more accurately, "e.g.", that is, for example.

[pitchleague]

oh, I know. That's why I said that I had to re-read it a few times. I thought of correcting him in my post, but I know that is frowned upon also (fixing others' grammar and spelling etc.) but I just found it funny that it took me a few minutes to realize he meant i.e. instead of Internet Explorer.

[Team Canada]

The irony, it took me several times to read your post to realize you weren't asking what it meant. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif I'm apparently slow ALL the time.

[pitchleague]

LOL! Oh, wait. . . . .http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif