Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   About This Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Explain please. (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=826471)

DrDeth 05-17-2017 06:22 PM

Explain please.
 
Post # 21: Jonathan Chance
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator


The Moderator Clears His Throat
DrDeth, two things.

1. Bringing Bricker into this is not best practices. This is a mod note to not do anything similar in the future.

2. We are NOT going to see you go around and around again about the definition of impeachment. Doing so in the future - in any thread not specifically about the definition of the word - may earn you warnings. Stop it.
"


What does " not do anything similar in the future" mean? Can I say, "this is the sort of legal question Bricker excels at"? Can I mention other poster's names? What exactly is the issue here? Does this mean other posters cant mention Brickers name? is it just Bricker or is it all posters? If they mention my name in a thread, do I report it? Whose name can be mentioned? Whose name can not? Bricker has indeed weighed in on this issue with a fairly well known public opinion. In fact he publicly made a bet about it. Did he complain about this? I count a good number of threads where Brickers name was brought up on this topic, and not a hint of Mod action.


Ok, this is thread #2, and in both cases, the threads were about impeachment. Why am I now told I cant ask about this? Two whole threads? It is a issue which comes up. It will keep coming up. Do we now have a new rule? bring up a issue twice and that's it?

This note makes no sense at all.

Chronos 05-17-2017 07:03 PM

Thank you for so helpfully telling us that this was Post #21. Without that piece of information, we'd have no hope of knowing what thread you're talking about. Now, though, we can simply check every thread on the Board with 21 or more replies.

running coach 05-17-2017 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 20214798)
Thank you for so helpfully telling us that this was Post #21. Without that piece of information, we'd have no hope of knowing what thread you're talking about. Now, though, we can simply check every thread on the Board with 21 or more replies.

It's the one about Trump.

:D

burpo the wonder mutt 05-17-2017 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20214819)
It's the one about Trump.

:D

You're fired!

Peter Morris 05-17-2017 07:25 PM

A little search found it.

engineer_comp_geek 05-17-2017 07:25 PM

This thread, apparently:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=826400

ETA: Damn ninjas.

DrDeth 05-17-2017 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 20214798)
Thank you for so helpfully telling us that this was Post #21. Without that piece of information, we'd have no hope of knowing what thread you're talking about. Now, though, we can simply check every thread on the Board with 21 or more replies.


Me culpa, you are absolutely right, I thought I had included a link. :smack:


my apologies.

erysichthon 05-17-2017 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20214702)
Ok, this is thread #2, and in both cases, the threads were about impeachment. Why am I now told I cant ask about this? Two whole threads? It is a issue which comes up. It will keep coming up. Do we now have a new rule? bring up a issue twice and that's it?

You've brought this up in at least four separate threads that I'm aware of.

cochrane 05-17-2017 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20214702)
Ok, this is thread #2, and in both cases, the threads were about impeachment. Why am I now told I cant ask about this? Two whole threads? It is a issue which comes up. It will keep coming up. Do we now have a new rule? bring up a issue twice and that's it?

This note makes no sense at all.

It only comes up because you bring it up. And it will only keep coming up if you keep bringing it up. Everybody else understands what is meant by impeachment.

Bone 05-17-2017 08:13 PM

As to the first point - If someone hasn't participated in the thread to that point, mentioning another poster is by itself okay - it's only the act of taking a shot at that non-participant that would be not okay. Granted, the restriction against personal insults is always in play outside of the Pit, however I would judge more critically if the shot was at a non-participant. So what may be borderline in a back and forth exchange, bringing up another poster sans their prior participation will be examined more critically. I saw your comment about Bricker to be neutral at best.

As to the second point - It's strange you continue to bring up your non-standard definition of the word impeachment. I see this as a reminder to not bring up unrelated tangents in threads not about the actual definition. That thread did involve discussion of impeachment, though not at the level of minutiae you introduced, thus the reminder.

Jonathan Chance 05-17-2017 08:19 PM

Indeed. And you have a habit of getting too involved in minutiae and I thought it best to not see this pop up again and again and again.

Also, why bother to PM me if less than 10 minutes later you open an ATMB thread? Did you want a private answer or a public disagreement? I'm OK either way, the duplication seems odd, though.

DSYoungEsq 05-17-2017 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 20214962)
Indeed. And you have a habit of getting too involved in minutiae and I thought it best to not see this pop up again and again and again.

Also, why bother to PM me if less than 10 minutes later you open an ATMB thread? Did you want a private answer or a public disagreement? I'm OK either way, the duplication seems odd, though.

He was looking for an argument, but figured the PM was sent to Room 12, not Room 12A. :p

BigT 05-17-2017 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance (Post 20214962)
Indeed. And you have a habit of getting too involved in minutiae and I thought it best to not see this pop up again and again and again.

Also, why bother to PM me if less than 10 minutes later you open an ATMB thread? Did you want a private answer or a public disagreement? I'm OK either way, the duplication seems odd, though.

What the fuck? Since when do mods have the authority to tell a Doper they can't get "too involved in minutiae"? If he wants to continue pointing out the definition of impeachment that everyone actually uses as a defense against those who want to be pedantic about it, why can't he?

Literally everyone on this board does it. Stop playing favorites. I already caught you Warning me for something you only gave a Note to someone else over, after you twisted a rule so you could punish me.

If you hate this board and its rules so much, resign.

splatterpunk 05-17-2017 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 20215203)
If you hate this board and its rules so much, resign.

Physician, heal thyself.

Fenris 05-17-2017 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 20215203)
I already caught you Warning me for something you only gave a Note to someone else over, after you twisted a rule so you could punish me.

????

Link? Cite?

Bone 05-17-2017 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 20215203)
What the fuck? Since when do mods have the authority to tell a Doper they can't get "too involved in minutiae"? If he wants to continue pointing out the definition of impeachment that everyone actually uses as a defense against those who want to be pedantic about it, why can't he?

As a general matter, mods have the authority and often exercise it to direct traffic keeping threads on topic. There is no directive to avoid getting too involved in minutiae, the comment was much more specific in the Note.

Quote:

Literally everyone on this board does it. Stop playing favorites. I already caught you Warning me for something you only gave a Note to someone else over, after you twisted a rule so you could punish me.
This thread isn't about any particular issue you have with the moderation. If you'd like to discuss that topic feel free to open a separate thread.

Bone 05-17-2017 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splatterpunk (Post 20215286)
Physician, heal thyself.

Knock it off, this is not appropriate for this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenris (Post 20215334)
????

Link? Cite?

Let's not hijack this thread.

Colibri 05-18-2017 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 20215203)
What the fuck? Since when do mods have the authority to tell a Doper they can't get "too involved in minutiae"? If he wants to continue pointing out the definition of impeachment that everyone actually uses as a defense against those who want to be pedantic about it, why can't he?

From the Registration Agreement:

Quote:

Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever. ...By registering and using the board you acknowledge this right and agree to abide by our rules and to submit to their interpretation and enforcement by our moderators and editors.
Basically, we have the authority to do anything we feel is beneficial to the functioning of the board. When you agreed to the Registration Agreement, you agreed to that.

It seems to me that in the case in hand, the instruction was intended to prevent the thread from being hijacked into ground that had been very well trodden already.

Quote:

Literally everyone on this board does it.
No they don't. ;)

Quote:

Stop playing favorites. I already caught you Warning me for something you only gave a Note to someone else over, after you twisted a rule so you could punish me.

If you hate this board and its rules so much, resign.
As Bone said, dragging in some unrelated beef you have is not really relevant to this thread. Stick to the specific issue at hand.

John Mace 05-18-2017 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20214702)
Ok, this is thread #2, and in both cases, the threads were about impeachment. Why am I now told I cant ask about this? Two whole threads? It is a issue which comes up. It will keep coming up. Do we now have a new rule? bring up a issue twice and that's it?

This note makes no sense at all.

If you're talking about the definition of impeachment, this was the 3rd thread, not the 2nd one.

DSYoungEsq 05-18-2017 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20215389)
From the Registration Agreement:



Basically, we have the authority to do anything we feel is beneficial to the functioning of the board. When you agreed to the Registration Agreement, you agreed to that.

I do not think it does the Board or its moderators much good to assert the idea that moderators can do whatever they want in moderating the Board. That way lies an unhappy chaos. One of the most basic feelings people have is a desire for fairness in the application of rules, etc. As a teacher in high school, I daily had to "moderate" my classroom with an eye towards this tendency in people.

The assertion by Jonathan Chance here that "you have a habit of getting too involved in minutiae" was probably not a well-thought-out statement. I presume that what the moderator is trying to communicate is that people are getting annoyed with the fact that he's making this same argument that some view as specious in multiple threads where the argument is not germane to the thread. But responding to BigT's objection to the statement by asserting, in essence, "We can do whatever we damn please, as you should know" is not particularly helpful, in my opinion. I certainly don't recommend you try to run a classroom with that sort of comment. ;)

Miller 05-18-2017 03:04 AM

He specifically asked where we get our authority. Colibri pointed out that we get our authority from the registration agreement we all accepted when we became members of the board.

kayaker 05-18-2017 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 20215203)
Literally everyone on this board does it.

Well, I certainly do not, making your assertion incorrect.


ETA: unless, of course, you're using literally the "other" way, meaning "virtually". We could argue all day about that, however. :(

IvoryTowerDenizen 05-18-2017 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq (Post 20215527)
I do not think it does the Board or its moderators much good to assert the idea that moderators can do whatever they want in moderating the Board. That way lies an unhappy chaos.

That's not what he said. He said mods have the authority to do what we need to to benefit the board.

If multiple threads are being hijacked to continue to debate definitions of a term, and the hijacks are getting in the way of good discussion and debate, then the mods have the authority to rein it in.

Jonathan Chance 05-18-2017 08:13 AM

Indeed.

We have received multiple reports about the whole 'definition of impeachment' thing appearing in multiple threads. I acted to prevent another thread disruption and to prevent future such disruptions.

John Mace 05-18-2017 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller (Post 20215544)
He specifically asked where we get our authority. Colibri pointed out that we get our authority from the registration agreement we all accepted when we became members of the board.

You mean it doesn't come from God?

Left Hand of Dorkness 05-18-2017 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20215389)
No they don't. ;)

C'mon. "Literally" has two meanings, the one that means "not metaphorically," and the one that works as an intensifier. He was clearly using the--

--okay, I'll stop.

running coach 05-18-2017 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 20215788)
You mean it doesn't come from God?

Who's this God person, anyways?

;)

Shodan 05-18-2017 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 20215788)
You mean it doesn't come from God?

Emoluments clause! Lack of joinder! Impeach Miller!

Regards,
Shodan

John Mace 05-18-2017 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness (Post 20215845)
C'mon. "Literally" has two meanings, the one that means "not metaphorically," and the one that works as an intensifier. He was clearly using the--

--okay, I'll stop.

I literally never use it as an intensifier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach
Who's this God person, anyways?

He's the guy who literally wrote the US constitution.

cochrane 05-18-2017 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 20215851)
Emoluments clause! Lack of joinder! Impeach Miller!

Regards,
Shodan

Just to be clear, you're not advocating for Miller's removal, right? :D

Shodan 05-18-2017 09:08 AM

I am interfering with the investigation by hoping that Miller can let this go.

Regards,
Shodan

John Mace 05-18-2017 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cochrane (Post 20215895)
Just to be clear, you're not advocating for Miller's removal, right? :D

Please don't tempt us to amend this thread! :D

aldiboronti 05-18-2017 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq (Post 20215527)
But responding to BigT's objection to the statement by asserting, in essence, "We can do whatever we damn please, as you should know" is not particularly helpful, in my opinion. I certainly don't recommend you try to run a classroom with that sort of comment. ;)

Wow, that's an outrageous statement for a mod to make, even 'in essence'. Could you link me to the thread in which the assertion occurs? (It's certainly not in this one.)

doorhinge 05-18-2017 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20215389)
Basically, we have the authority to do anything we feel is beneficial to the functioning of the board. When you agreed to the Registration Agreement, you agreed to that.

(post shortened)

Basically, it's your circus and your monkeys. 'nuff said.

http://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.kT...QEsCy&pid=15.1

:D

Colibri 05-18-2017 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq (Post 20215527)
I do not think it does the Board or its moderators much good to assert the idea that moderators can do whatever they want in moderating the Board.

As has been pointed out, that's not what I said. The question was where we derived our authority from.

You are free to disagree with our actions, or assert that they are wrong or ill considered. But the Registration Agreement does give us wide latitude in making moderation decisions. That's the point I was making.

DrDeth 05-18-2017 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 20214947)
As to the first point - If someone hasn't participated in the thread to that point, mentioning another poster is by itself okay - it's only the act of taking a shot at that non-participant that would be not okay. Granted, the restriction against personal insults is always in play outside of the Pit, however I would judge more critically if the shot was at a non-participant. So what may be borderline in a back and forth exchange, bringing up another poster sans their prior participation will be examined more critically. I saw your comment about Bricker to be neutral at best..

So, then you seem to agree with me. "1. Bringing Bricker into this is not best practices. This is a mod note to not do anything similar in the future." There was nothing wrong with mentioning Bricker in this context. In no way was this a shot at Bricker.

Jonathan has not made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread. Correct? This mod note then is rescinded, I will assume.


On that second part: 2. We are NOT going to see you go around and around again about the definition of impeachment. Doing so in the future - in any thread not specifically about the definition of the word - may earn you warnings. Stop it."

Bricker and i and others were having some fun in a zombie thread with this that Jonathon closed down. We had, indeed, hijacked that zombie completely with a pedantic and silly fun "debate". I will not do so again. I still dont see what harm we were doing. Obviously this sort of silly fun annoyed JC.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...=822051&page=2

Bone 05-18-2017 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216472)
So, then you seem to agree with me. "1. Bringing Bricker into this is not best practices. This is a mod note to not do anything similar in the future." There was nothing wrong with mentioning Bricker in this context. In no way was this a shot at Bricker.

Jonathan has not made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread. Correct? This mod note then is rescinded, I will assume.

My personal rule is that when a poster starts a response with "so" and then follows with some conclusion or interpretation it's almost always not an accurate summation. I don't know what I would name this rule, but there's got to be something clever sounding. "Bone's 'so I'm wrong' rule"?

Suffice to say I do not agree with you. As I stated, bring up Bricker in that thread where he had not previously been a participant was at best neutral and I am in agreement with the sentiment as I stated in my first post to this thread. It could easily be interpreted as taking a shot at Bricker, or perhaps some kind of stalking. There just isn't much reason to bring him up specifically that doesn't conjure up some petty snipe. It may not have been your intention, but then it makes me question what was the intention? Rather than try to suss out motivations, a direction to avoid bringing up non-participants in a way that can be interpreted as a shot at them seems appropriate, hence the note.

As I stated upthread, and will reiterate, if someone hasn't participated in the thread to that point, mentioning another poster is by itself okay - it's only the act of taking a shot at that non-participant that would be not okay. Granted, the restriction against personal insults is always in play outside of the Pit, however I would judge more critically if the shot was at a non-participant. So what may be borderline in a back and forth exchange, bringing up another poster sans their prior participation will be examined more critically. Let me know if that's unclear.

DrDeth 05-18-2017 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 20216584)
My personal rule is that when a poster starts a response with "so" and then follows with some conclusion or interpretation it's almost always not an accurate summation. I don't know what I would name this rule, but there's got to be something clever sounding. "Bone's 'so I'm wrong' rule"?

Suffice to say I do not agree with you. As I stated, bring up Bricker in that thread where he had not previously been a participant was at best neutral and I am in agreement with the sentiment as I stated in my first post to this thread. It could easily be interpreted as taking a shot at Bricker, or perhaps some kind of stalking. There just isn't much reason to bring him up specifically that doesn't conjure up some petty snipe. It may not have been your intention, but then it makes me question what was the intention? Rather than try to suss out motivations, a direction to avoid bringing up non-participants in a way that can be interpreted as a shot at them seems appropriate, hence the note.

As I stated upthread, and will reiterate, if someone hasn't participated in the thread to that point, mentioning another poster is by itself okay - it's only the act of taking a shot at that non-participant that would be not okay. Granted, the restriction against personal insults is always in play outside of the Pit, however I would judge more critically if the shot was at a non-participant. So what may be borderline in a back and forth exchange, bringing up another poster sans their prior participation will be examined more critically. Let me know if that's unclear.

So then
Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread.


This is a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB.

This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult.

Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule.

IvoryTowerDenizen 05-18-2017 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216605)
So then
Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread.


This is a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB.

This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult.

Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule.

Nope- there have been other times that posts dragging other posters into unrelated threads has been moderated. When it appears it's being used to stalk, or to jab at someone not participating, or to bait someone, people have been modded and warned for doing that.

You may argue that your usage doesn't fall into those circumstances, and that's fine, but it is hardly a new "rule".

DrDeth 05-18-2017 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen (Post 20216612)
Nope- there have been other times that posts dragging other posters into unrelated threads has been moderated. When it appears it's being used to stalk, or to jab at someone not participating, or to bait someone, people have been modded and warned for doing that.

You may argue that your usage doesn't fall into those circumstances, and that's fine, but it is hardly a new "rule".

then this needs to be put somewhere.

Was then, my usage: "When it appears it's being used to stalk, or to jab at someone not participating, or to bait someone..."??:confused:

I mean Bricker has gone so far as to offer a bet on this and he has been mentioned i count half a dozen times in recent threads about Impeachment.

I dont see the point of the mod note on this issue.

Colibri 05-18-2017 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216605)
So then
Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread.


This is a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB.

This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult.

Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule.

Like "Bone's Rule" above, I will propose another rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, they often try to generalize it and claim that every instance of doing anything remotely similar must now be against the rules, and that hence the mods are "making up new rules.":)

DrDeth 05-18-2017 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colibri (Post 20216647)
Like "Bone's Rule" above, I will propose another rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, they often try to generalize it and claim that every instance of doing anything remotely similar must now be against the rules, and that hence the mods are "making up new rules.":)

Because that is generally how it's been.

Bone 05-18-2017 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216605)
So then
Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread.


This is a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB.

This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult.

Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule.

Ahh, "Bone's 'so I'm wrong' rule" strikes again. Is there something about this statement that is not clear?
If someone hasn't participated in the thread to that point, mentioning another poster is by itself okay - it's only the act of taking a shot at that non-participant that would be not okay.
This is not a new rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216632)
then this needs to be put somewhere.

Like, here?:
Quote:

Harassing other posters - Bringing up a posterís history in unrelated threads for the purpose of harassing them is not allowed. Following a poster from thread to thread to mock them about older, off-topic posts could be considered harassment and is potentially sanctionable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216632)
Was then, my usage: "When it appears it's being used to stalk, or to jab at someone not participating, or to bait someone..."??:confused:

I try to interpret generously when moderating. I'm not really interested in what the actual purpose was of bringing up Bricker in a thread that he hadn't participated in, but if I had to draw a conclusion it may be that the purpose was to bait or take a shot at someone. It may not have been your intention, but then it makes me question what was the intention? Rather than try to suss out motivations, a direction to avoid bringing up non-participants in a way that can be interpreted as a shot at them seems appropriate, hence the note.

John Mace 05-18-2017 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216632)
then this needs to be put somewhere.

It was put in the thread where you got a mod note. It was clear as day to me what was meant by that note. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about it.

voltaire 05-18-2017 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216605)
So then
Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread.


This is a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB.

This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult.

Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule.

Regardless of whether or not it's true, have you ever considered why it might be that the mods have to make up new rules for you?

DSYoungEsq 05-18-2017 02:08 PM

Ah, again, as usual, the moderators circle the wagons at the least indication of criticism. I've been dealing with this place since the AOL days, and that trend has only gotten worse and worse.

First, the portion of the Registration Agreement that Colibri quoted: "Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever."

Admittedly, written with somewhat of the tongue-in-cheek sassiness for which Uncle Cece was known, it nevertheless asserts that moderators can exclude a poster (or presumably do anything else to moderate the boards) without even having to have a good reason. Think on that.

Then from Colibri: "Basically, we have the authority to do anything we feel is beneficial to the functioning of the board." Now, the Reg Agrmt says you can do anything with or without valid reason. Here, the only added qualifier is that you will be doing anything you want as long as you think it's "beneficial" to how the board operates. "Beneficial" of course, in the minds of the moderator(s) in question.

So let's take a hypothetical, and I'll raise one from this thread itself which is apposite: Suppose someone complains about kayaker having for the umpteenth time raised objection to the use of "literally" to as an intensifier, ignoring the true meaning of the word. The usual fight breaks out (as indeed happened here in slapstick fashion). The moderator who gets the complaint looks around, finds five posts where kayaker has raised this issue and proceeds to warn kayaker that "the next time you use the word 'literally' in a post we will ban you."

Now mind you, according to the registration agreement, this would be a perfectly valid action. The moderator doesn't even have to explain why (see the Reg Agreement excerpt posted by Colibri). But I would hope that you can see that this action, absent some explanation is not likely to appease the hoi polloi. So which do you think is a better explanation: a) "We can do what we want; see: Reg Agreement", or b) "we've seen too many threads derailed with these complaints, and after considerable discussion among us, we've decided to put an end to these spurious attempts to "correct" the usage of words among posters. We're sorry if that's a bit heavy-handed seeming, but, really, it's gotten out of control."

Which, as it turns out, is what eventually happened in response to my comment. Thus, from IvoryTowerDenizen: "If multiple threads are being hijacked to continue to debate definitions of a term, and the hijacks are getting in the way of good discussion and debate, then the mods have the authority to rein it in." And immediately thereafter from Jonathan Chance: "Indeed.

We have received multiple reports about the whole 'definition of impeachment' thing appearing in multiple threads. I acted to prevent another thread disruption and to prevent future such disruptions."

Might I simply opine that saying that in the first place, rather than just shutting BigT down with a We can do what we want, as you agreed when you signed up here is a better way of handling things. As I said in my post. Which was, contrary to assertions thereafter, quite accurate as to what Colibri said, certainly in essence.

DrDeth 05-18-2017 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltaire (Post 20216693)
Regardless of whether or not it's true, have you ever considered why it might be that the mods have to make up new rules for you?

I annoy the hell out of Jonathan, no doubt. Oh well.

However, my issue with him making up new rules is not by any means limited to just me. This has been a constant complaint here in ATMB.

Colibri 05-18-2017 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 20216675)
Because that is generally how it's been.

Of course this is not at all true.

The last significant rule change I can find was made in December 2014.

Colibri 05-18-2017 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq (Post 20216704)
Ah, again, as usual, the moderators circle the wagons at the least indication of criticism.

Colibri's second rule: In any ATMB thread in which more than two mods post, we will be accused of "circling the wagons.":)

Bone 05-18-2017 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq (Post 20216704)
Might I simply opine that saying that in the first place, rather than just shutting BigT down with a We can do what we want, as you agreed when you signed up here is a better way of handling things. As I said in my post. Which was, contrary to assertions thereafter, quite accurate as to what Colibri said, certainly in essence.

I think you need to delineate the answers to two separate questions. The first question, paraphrased, is why was a moderation action taken. The second question is, what gives moderators the authority to take such action.

Reference to the registration agreement is an answer to the second question, not the first. Your post seems to blur that distinction.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.