A bit heavy handed Asmovian?

[Crazyhorse]

@Asimovian

And Crazyhorse, I see that you’ve now raised an issue with the lack of moderation on a single post three different times in this thread (though you’ve never reported the post in question). I disagree with you on all four counts. With regard to the accusation of junior moderating, I don’t consider an observation of prior moderating to be junior moderating. The other three comments, in my view, did not reach a level of personal insult that required moderation. If you want to raise that any further, please start another ATMB thread. The issues you raise in that post don’t really have anything to do with the discussion here.

I only count two. The first was in a direct reply to you which I consider the same as reporting it, and the second was only used as an example of how moderators may interpret a post differently - whether it broke a rule and if so which rule was broken.

There’s not much point in reporting a post that you have already reviewed and decided doesn’t contain any rules violations. There are countless examples of ATMB threads about moderation of one post in a thread leading to a discussion of why another post in the same thread wasn’t moderated so this seemed like as good a place as any, but it isn’t important enough to try to get back dated mod action on a week-old post. And the post didn’t offend me, very few do. It was just an example of something I see as a very clear rules violation being interpreted differently by a moderator which I thought was a germane topic to this thread.

[DummyGladHands]

Mod note was entirely appropriate.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Asimovian

I think Doctor Jackson is correct in that I could have been more explanatory and less grumpy in the note that I posted. I was frustrated because I felt like the first two posts I noted opened the door for the third, and there was no need for the thread to go down that road.

Thanks, Asmovian, I really do appreciate that. You are now back on my Christmas card list - which doesn’t mean much since I never get around to sending actual cards. But you’re on the list.

[Saint_Cad]

@Asimovian

A post does not need to be “offensive” in order to be inappropriate for the topic with the potential to derail it. So in answer to your hypothetical, yes, I probably would have modded you for that.

So a woman could post that she thinks it looks better to wear a bra than not BUT my (hypothetical) post saying I disagree because modern day bras are so unattractive would be derailing a thread?

[Asimovian]

@Saint_Cad

So a woman could post that she thinks it looks better to wear a bra than not BUT my (hypothetical) post saying I disagree because modern day bras are so unattractive would be derailing a thread?

The actual hypothetical post you offered did not contain that nuance, and I think it’s a bit silly that you want to nitpick it to this extent.

In a thread where the topic asked women to discuss women’s bra-wearing habits, a poster said “If my nipples weren’t deemed Public Enemy Number 1 socially… I would never wear a bra.” If the extent of your response to that was, “Women look better without bras on” without any further context, in a thread where I’d already issued a note about staying on topic, yes, I would have assumed you were making the same type of “I’m a guy and I like boobs” commentary that has been largely the subject of this thread.

[samclem]

@Doctor_Jackson

Thanks, Asmovian, I really do appreciate that. You are now back on my Christmas card list - which doesn’t mean much since I never get around to sending actual cards. But you’re on the list.

His card will probably get to him quicker if you address it to Asimovian rather than Asmovian.

[Asimovian]

@samclem

His card will probably get to him quicker if you address it to Asimovian rather than Asmovian.

I’ve been telling myself that I never get Christmas cards because no one can spell my name correctly. If you remove that obstacle, what delusion will I have left?

[Doctor_Jackson]

@samclem

His card will probably get to him quicker if you address it to Asimovian rather than Asmovian.

Sigh. Apparently both my spell checker and stupid checker are on the fritz…