Here’s a free clue: the exact phrase I used didn’t even register because it doesn’t make a goddamned bit of difference in context.
I want to know when the moderation staff around here is going to start being consistent and not just calling people on the bullshit THEY want to see.
It’s pretty clear to me that calling me crazyburrito was intended as a personal insult (though I don’t care) but I don’t see moderators handing out a warning for that.
And last I checked using the word “fucking” isn’t a prohibited word in ATMB. And if mods are going to start handing out warnings for using the word “fucking” in ATMB, I expect a lot of moderator action in short order. Oh wait. You only see what you want to see, never mind.
Is there a point you want to make, Colibri or are you just talking to hear yourself talk?
I’m sensing some trouble with the F word. He wouldn’t have gotten warned for calling her “Emperor Palpatine Old Lady” but he did get warned for calling her “Fucking Emperor Palpatine Old Lady.” Likewise, he didn’t get warned for saying “you still don’t know what you’re talking about,” but I did recently get warned for saying “You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about” in an ATMB thread.
Are we getting warmer?
ETA: I know how annoying it must be to have otherwise perfectly agreeable posters picking your rules to death to get some concrete answers about them. This probably wouldn’t be happening if your rules weren’t so friggin arbitrary, inconsistent, ever-changing, and just plain hard to figure out.
Are you kidding me? You’ve pretty much made my points for me. You have no idea what the rules are regarding insults in ATMB.
While the use of the word “fucking” by itself is not prohibited, when directed at another poster it’s obviously intended to be insulting. If someone called you “Fucking tacoloco” it’s clearly an insult; it has nothing to do with the alteration of your username. Your insult to Mean Old Lady was more severe than her insult to you.
Pin-pon! If you’re finding yourself getting frustrated by having to explain why someone was sanctioned, then maybe that should be a sign that the issue wasn’t as clear-cut as you thought it was.
Also, not that I’m protesting your warning or anything, but if it counts for anything at all, I’m not the one who reported your post, if it was reported at all.
I meant that it’s ludicrous that she could expect to say that and get away with it. Though now that you mention it, what she said was in and of itself ludicrous, yes.
This isn’t about MY warning. That’s done, apparently.
This is all about the mods not enforcing the rules consistently.
To whit:
Is there someone here named Emperor Palapatine. I mean they should be righteously indignant at the shocking offense I’ve committed.
I’ll ask again:
Where is the moderation consistency when it comes to personal insults? Even if I stipulate that my comments were “more severe” (whatever that means), a personal insult is a personal insult.
Why do moderators refuse to enforce the rules and enforce the rules consistently?
It’s patently obvious you won’t, despite the fact that a personal insult was leveled at me. Anything else is hand waving and moderator excuse making.
You’ve been much more passionately and aggressively antagonistic in this discussion than anyone else in the thread. Of course you were going to get in trouble eventually. As Cat Whisperer said:
They complain just as passionately. But they’ve kept things civil. I think you’re seeing unfair treatment where there isn’t any.
Is there a different way I can say that this isn’t about MY warning for my alleged infraction? That’s not going to change, is it?
The entire point, which you are either intentionally or simply just not getting is moderators not consistently enforcing the rules. A personal insult is a personal insult and yet, I get a warning for one and someone else doesn’t.
What you still don’t understand, btw, is that this is an age old problem here. Vague undefined rules that are inconsistently enforced.
Let’s recap, shall we?
This isn’t about fairness, it is about consistency. If it makes any difference, fine, I broke the rules. I got a sanction for it. But that doesn’t mean the moderators don’t have to enforce the rules for everyone.
If a cop sees you going two or three miles over the limit he’s likely to let you go. Once you’re going ten over, that’s when you’re going to get a ticket. We should be protesting in D.C. because the police aren’t consistently enforcing the speed limits.
Why in the world is it ludicrous to say what she said in a Private Message to a moderator and expect to 'get away with it?" What exactly is she getting away with? Are you buying Marley’s bullshit that what she said constituted a threat? Really? What definition of threat are you using? Most of the ones I know involve some sort of promise or prediction of harm What harm did she promise? Marley’s imaginary complaint? So complaining about moderators is bringing harm to them? Again, really? This must be a brand spanking new rule, because as long as I have been here complaining about moderation has been just fine with TPTB. There is even a forum for it, with this description, bolding mine.:
Even accepting Marley’s highly dubious interpretation of her PM, by what twisted logic do you consider a *complaint *to be a potential of harm to a moderator, when complaining is explicitly allowed by definition?
If there has been a more pussified, chickenshit piece of moderation around here I will have to see it to believe it.
This is how I interpreted it earlier. I would have said it was more… cheap intimidation than threat. But what are we going to do, get on the moderators because of semantics? :rolleyes:
Oh wait, we already have in this thread.
OK. I thought it was a good analogy, because it demonstrates that the technicality of the offense isn’t all that’s important- it’s the severity, too.
If I see that the moderating is unfairly inconsistent then I’ll change my tune. I’ll be there alongside you, arguing against unfair moderation. But I think I’ll be doing it a bit more politely, if you don’t mind.
Your own signature (thanks to the user who pointed it out to me!) sums it up best:
Did you even read my post? What power does her statement have to intimidate? Even accepting that it was a threat to complain, which takes quite a bit of swallowing, so fucking what? **Complaints are allowed. ** Did you miss that part? They happen all the time. There is even a forum for it. Did you miss that part? Any moderator who is intimidated by normal board activity really needs to man up and resign his position.
Every wrongly used word is not a matter of semantics, but feel free to introduce another meaning for “threat” that does not involve a potential for harm, or dangerous consequences, etc.
As I said, it was a cheap attempt to cow someone into shutting up. It makes no difference whether it’s reasonable that it would have worked- the mere attempt to do something like that should be rewarded with a suspension. A week suspension? I dunno, but certainly a suspension of some kind. I’m assuming you’re with the crowd who thinks that Sleeps is being punished for her involvement on the other board? As Cat Whisperer said earlier (not going to bother quoting it again), plenty of people who participate on the other boards manage to come here and complain without getting into trouble. This is not a conspiracy.
If we want to talk about how it’s a bad thing to be interpreting intent, I would look at all the people claiming in here that Sleeps with Butterflies was given a suspension because she posts at a splinter board, instead of the reasons she was suspended for.
You could say the same thing about the “no death threats” rule at the board. How ‘real’ are those death threats? Yet we have that rule here. And it’s a rule I have no problem with. I don’t think that we need to start investigating how “real” or “possible” threats are before you can say that they are obnoxious.
Discourage criticism of its staff? Perhaps you should read this thread again.
The rule that the moderators are trying to apply here is not a brand-new rule, it’s one that exists since as far as I can remember. One that sounds pretty simple. “No insulting posters outside the Pit”. Are you saying that we should drop that rule, because it’s too hard to figure out? I think that it’s a good rule. Is everyone going to agree on what an insult is? No. That doesn’t make it a bad rule. It has always been up to moderator interpretation.
Nobody is arguing the rule. What several of us are arguing is inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement of the rules.
A person insult is a personal insult and yet one person gets a warning and the other barely a notice. That’s not good moderation. That’s not even adequate moderation.
Jesus Fucking Christ. So if I threaten to blow kisses at the mods for locking my thread that warrants a suspension?
Listen. There was no threat. There was no intimidation, attempted or otherwise, because there was no power behind it. And, for the third time at least, it’s perfectly OK to complain. Threatening to engage in perfectly acceptable board behavior can in no way be grounds for a suspension. Do you really not get that?
Try telling a cop someone threatened to zap you with their laser beam eyes and see if an arrest results.
Hey, I’ll try it right now. If you don’t start making sense I’m going to blow up all the kittens in Nebraska and blame it on you. Feel threatened? Intimidated?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know her from Adam. Perhaps you should cut back on the assuming.
