Your last post in this thread was a taunt to CarnalK:
You have not posted to address the other ongoing topics of the thread, just this issue.
elbows said:
What’s so unclear about this? Nobody has stated you used the words “dumb” or “banning”.
You did, however, use the words “drop the hammer” and the only hammer in question would be the “ban hammer”. And your attitude conveyed that you think the moderators are not doing a good job of learning from prior mistakes, because they keep repeating those mistakes. It is totally fair to characterize that attitude as thinking the mods are dumb.
CarnalK’s statement that you called for a banning wasn’t stated as a paraphrase because it wasn’t even in quote marks, let alone in a quote box. It was clearly a restatement of his impression of what you said.
Your repeated accusation of lying and a call for an apology are unjustified, as “everyone with two braincells can see”. (That is a direct quote, not a paraphrase.)
I completely agree, but I don’t see where anyone is putting words in your mouth, only summarizing what they think you said.
And yet when someone misunderstood your meaning in this case, you accuse them of lying and putting words in your mouth, and demand an apology.
I would be totally fine with your saying “That’s not what I meant, you misunderstood” or “I wasn’t clear” or whatever. But the repeated call for an apology was unjustified.
This is what happens whenever I’m away from the board for a while. I miss all the shit storms. I opened this thread to find out about the new mod, Cesario.
Demanding an apology is usually a losing battle. I don’t think you or anyone else was intentionally misstating the truth (lying). But you were putting words in elbow’s mouth when you inferred that 'banning" was implied when it was not.
When it became clear that elbows was not talking about “banning,” an apology from the person who misunderstood would have been the civil and simple thing to do. Another possibility would have been to seek clarification on the original post by elbows before posting that “the hammer” meant banning.
Secondly, for someone so enraptured with her understanding of the English language I’m surprised you are falling on elbows side here. It was not a misunderstanding on my part, it was a flat out mis-communication by him - that I understood the exact same way any native English speaker would. And elbows agrees that the hammer means banning, he was supposedly just talking about past and future Cesarios while every other frigging poster in the thread was talking about Argent Towers.
You really do seem to have a disconnect when it comes to relating your thoughts. Judging how you characterized my PM, the same disconnect seems to work in the other direction. I can only imagine how frustrating that is for you seeing as how obvious you seem to think it all is. For not figuring that out sooner, I am truly sorry. There were no winners here.
What did your version of “hammer” mean then out of curiosity?
I’ve only heard it as “Ban hammers” and “dropping the Hammer/The Hammer Vote”- ie: the final vote that removes a player instantly in Mafia Games. Both definitions tend to imply a removal of a person from the area/game via some elimination mechanism.
I’m curious as to what other interpretations of “Dropping the Hammer” there are?
Did you mean “Drop the Hammer” as in a “warning Hammer” or something?
I was commenting on how impotent modding leads to stuff like the AT fiasco. If they’d used their powers a little more judiciously, swiftly, strongly on C, I truly believed that AT would never have done what he did. It was a comment on how they needed to show strength. I was unaware, that ‘hammer’ meant banning to everyone. I was using it to call for more forceful modding.
I chose the wrong thread to try and make my point in, and was apparently dreadfully unclear.
Don’t know what else I can say? I did not call for a banning, was not railing at AT but at yet more impotent modding. I still believe it’s what’s at the bottom of a few of the meltdowns we’ve seen lately.
Regardless of your inclarity (for the record, I thought you were demanding **AT **be banned as well), where do you get the argument that if unapologetic-pedophile-**Cesario **would have been banned earlier, mind-numbingly-misguided-**Arget Towers **wouldn’t have still been mind-numbingly misguided in his actions?
It’s not an argument, it’s an opinion. I believe if they had acted swiftly and forcefully, when the community was begging them to act, AT would have thought better of the action that produced the later meltdown. At the very least, he would have had the discretion to not make it public knowledge. Which would also have avoided the meltdown.
I saw yet another poster, dancing up to that line, a community yet again calling for modding, met with modding that began, “not this again”. I was calling for them to be more forceful.
I also think it’s a mistake to assume everyone knows that the word ‘hammer’ = banning, it’s a large community, not everyone will be ‘in the know’ on the subtext.
Clearly, that thread, was the wrong time and place to express that opinion, but I was seeing cause and effect. I’m sorry I did not make myself clearer. I don’t know how else I can say it, or how many more times I need to.
I just do not see any connection between the two – **Cesario’s **trolling, and **Argent’s **brain fart. If **Cesario **would have been hung by his thumbs from the public square, **Argent **probably still would have pulled of his particularly stupid move. Unless you’re intimating that **Argent **and **Cesario **are birds of a feather … which I don’t think is true.
elbows, thank you for clarifying your intent. In retrospect, I can see how what you said applies to what you meant. I suppose “the hammer” could mean the hammer of moderation, i.e. taking action, using the “Don’t be a jerk” rule more liberally, etc.
I don’t think that the Argent Towers issue was in any way related to the Cesario issue. Argent Towers was completely clueless about how his actions could be interpreted, so even if he thought the mods would drop people at the first infraction, he probably still would have done what he did because he didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. He certainly didn’t think himself as having any motivations like Cesario, so there was no reason in his mind to link his suggesting reading to Cesario’s issues. He wasn’t suggesting the reading as porn, but as extreme topics to broaden perspective and provoke thought. He doesn’t think of the work as porn, but as a violent and disgusting story to examine the power (or lack thereof) of words.*
Zoe said:
You are correct that that idiom isn’t quite as strict as I was taking it. Mistakenly paraphrasing someone is “putting words in their mouth”. I was going by elbows’s contextual use that implied something more along the lines of a misquote.
Those words were not attributed to elbows, only the sentiments.
Zoe said:
Certainly miscommunication requires two people. Flipside to your comment, how does a person know they need to seek clarification when they think they understand what the other person meant?
Irishman, his explanantion still doesn’t cut it if you go past the initial hammer post and read further.
Yes, it started with “not this again”* but read the entire warning:
You respond with:
So the only reasonable assumption is that what seems IMHO be a swift and strong warning was not enough for you in the specific case of Argent Towers. Tell me what would have been a more hammer-like response that doesn’t include a banning? Were you calling for a suspension?
*I’ll note that by your definition you are “lying” about what Ed said, as his actual words were “I swear, it’s one fricking thing after another.”
You know the more I think about it, the more it seems clear that this was not really a misunderstanding, at least not the straightforward one. elbows was calling for more forceful moderation as he saw another poster dance up to the same line, but now he is saying “but I didn’t mean I wanted more forceful moderation on this particular poster who was dancing up to the line, umm he’s just what reminded me of the general idea” (that’s a paraphrase, dude) So what I misunderstood was elbows’ level of conviction to his stated opinion. I seriously overestimated it.
Seriously, dudes, I’m out.
I’m just repeating myself now.
Believe whatever you like.
I can live with being the only one who understood what I was trying to say, truly.
