In the original “Complaint about a warning” thread, in response to this post and this post, I received the following instruction from Colibri:
Fine. I’m not to bring the Paterno thread argument to ATMB and I’m not to declare I won it.
So I didn’t.
Later in the thread Guinastasia said to me the following:
My response to her was simply this:
And for that I drew a warning for ignoring moderator instructions from Colibri which read as follows:
My response is “No, sir! You did not order me to drop this! You ordered me not to bring my arguments from the Paterno thread into ATMB, and not to make claims here that I “won” the argument in the Paterno thread.”
Further, the remarks I made to Guinastasia about not wanting other posters to get away with “lies and vile insinuations” were totally of a generic nature and not aimed at any specific poster, therefore I fail to see how anyone could be inflamed by them. And my intent was clearly meant merely to inform Guinastasia of my concerns vis-a-vis the seeming contradiction between by saying I wasn’t worried about my reputation as a result of the Paterno thread vs. my reputation regarding statements made outside the Paterno thread.
Colibri further admonishes me that Marley has advised me to “let this drop” in an apparent effort to bolster his own shaky reasoning for warning me, but in fact what Marley advised was that I would be wise to drop my attempts at rebutting asides made outside the Paterno thread as he felt I was doing myself no good by doing so. In other words, he appeared to be trying to counsel me rather than giving me an order. The post where he said this can be found here.
Therefore, I feel I clearly was not in violation of Colibri’s instructions not to bring the Paterno thread arguments to this forum and not to declare I’d won the argument in this forum, and that the warning I received should be rescinded.
I regret having to create another thread about this but the PM I sent to Colibri yesterday in which I stated much the same as in this thread has gone unacknowledged.
I thought paper towel tube references were forbidden outside the Pit. Did you report Guinastasia’s jab at you?
That having been said, I don’t think you have any recourse except report the sniping, and then don’t respond. Don’t post back, don’t start threads in ATMB, don’t respond at all. Or else they will tag team you until you get banned.
There’s a lot of them and only one of you. They will take turns getting mod notes while you rack up Warnings.
Well, if the goal was to satisfy all this to everyone’s maximum dissatisfaction, good job, mods! (If there’s something that SA is not allowed to talk about at all, it’s not really fair to let others discuss it. Either he should be able to respond to charges against his position or no one can impugn his stance.)
I think Colibri is rapidly losing it addressing this issue. I have been up front that I accept the warning for not following his instruction. It was not intention but it was still my fault. My issue has always been that “paper towel tube” is considered a jab or snipe at SA. Apparently the mods believe by induction that since everyone has done it before that now everyone that who uses the “paper towel tube” must be saying to themselves “Remember Starving Artist and his paper towel tube theory? I’m going to use his own theory to insult him.”
Or the mods think that since it became a meme because of everyone making fun of SA that using “paper towel tube” is the same effect of making fun of him because THAT is really the meme at work. I vehemently disagree with this interpretation. IMO, jabbing or swiping is an intentional act and it was not my intention to insult SA although the mods disagree claiming the insult is an unintended consequence.
So remember how I accepted full responsibility for getting the warning specifically because it was for not following a mod’s instruction independent of whether or not it was a jab?
In the second thread on this topic we see
If Colibri wan’t to call me out because I still contend it was not a snipe then fine, but can’t a mod be a little more mature about it and at least call me out on the right issue?
Good job on missing the point. The issue, as I stated in my warning, was Starving Artist’s characterizing his opponents’ arguments as being “lies and vile insinuations,” which was inflammatory. This was essentially bringing issues from the Pit thread into ATMB again.
My instructions to Starving Artist in that thread were for this remark:
He was deliberately taunting his opponents in this forum, which I view as trolling. He was fortunate not to have received a warning for that one.
Ok. I’ve explained why it’s my interpretation, and why you received the warning. I don’t think discussing it with you further is going to change either of our opinions.
The second comment is rude, no doubt, but whatever demarcation you have in your head is not coming through and it looks like you’re letting a lot of people talk about the meme and and the original thread and the context and how it’s affecting the rest of the board and not letting SA talk about it. at. all.
He was allowed to talk about it plenty before he received the warning. Starving Artist made 14 posts to that thread, more than any other poster, a number of which were after he said he was going to let the matter drop.
Perhaps this is where the problem lies. I was talking about asides made in other forums outside the Pit. These are the types of posts which in the past have triggered responses from me in the past and often come on the heels of someone posting a link back to the original paper towel tube post.
Well, you quoted that remark to lead off your warning but your instructions were to not bring my Paterno thread arguments into ATMB and not to declare I’d won the argument here. To me the “Losing” post was included with the instruction not to delare I’d won the argument. After that instruction I’ve neither made Paterno thread arguments here nor made any declarations of victory.
I’m also curious about the phenomenon that led to the comment you view as trolling, where in response to one of my posts Vinyl Turnip was able to say:
followed by Autolycus, who said:
These are the comments that drew the “Losing” remark yet these comments apparently are not viewed as trolling. I simply do not understand this reasoning. Why are people allowed to come in out of the blue and insult me, but then when I respond it’s trolling?
What I said was to Marley and it was in regard to my attempts to rebut comments made in forums outside the Pit. And at any rate, people can change their minds. Sometimes I say I’m leaving a thread for a while and then I come right back to it. No harm, no foul. Whether I followed through on my comment to Marley or not should play no role in any of your actions as moderator.
Vinyl Turnip’s remark was in response to one of your posts in the ATMB thread (which he quoted), and Autolycus’s response was to his post. They did not reference the Pit thread.
They didn’t “come in out of the blue,” they responded to a post you had made in ATMB. Since you’ve made a habit of taunting your opponents by posting “Losing!” and “Winning!” in the Pit thread, this was an attempt by you to goad them here.
Yeah, we know. Habitually, in fact. You would be better off doing what you say you’re going to do.
And this is where I am completely lost. Guinastasia directly addresses SA and the paper towel tube and nothing because this thread is talking about the phrase “paper towel tube” but that is not a jab or a snipe but merely using that phrase outside of the pit is a jab because it brings up all the horrible memories of THE THREAD.
Or did Guinastasia get a note and I missed it. If not, why can SA not respond to a direct attack that the attacker gets free and clear. Or was it not that but rather the “lies and vile accusations” that got him in trouble. If he has said:
Guin’s post did not directly address Starving Artist, but was in response to one by Lute Skywatcher. Yeah, references to the phrase were on topic in that thread. As has repeatedly been said, merely using the phrase outside the Pit is not prohibited if it is on topic.
You really do have trouble reading threads through, don’t you? I specifically addressed that in post #9 of this thread.
All you are doing is rehashing issues that have already been addressed.
Look, this is getting silly. No, it’s not a reference to the Pit thread. It’s a reference to posts made in forums other than the Pit which have been made by other posters about me after they’ve viewed the original paper towel tube post or made in regard to something I said in the Pit thread.
What we’ve got here now is a situation where people are making hijacking Paterno-related comments about me in forums other than the Pit, and then when I complain about those hijacking comments here, according to you this is a forbidden reference to the Paterno Pit thread. Surely you can see that this does not compute. How is a person supposed to address complaints in other forums growing out of the Paterno Pit thread without referring in some manner to the Paterno Pit thread?
Yes, they were in response to a post I’d made in this forum. But they were insulting and trollish nonetheless.
And just because I said they were “Losing” as a result, it doesn’t automatically follow that I was referring to the Pit thread. What I was implying by saying that was that because they had no substantive rebuttal and could only mock me instead, they were “losing” the point they were trying to make. I said as much in that very post.
Could it be I’m just operating on too sophisticated a level here? Or are people simply jumping to conclusions based on what they think I’m saying because of what I’ve said someplace else?
Even that though would be alright, if once a credible explanation was made the erroneous decision or accusation were to be reversed.
I’ve given my rationale for the warning. Since you haven’t actually raised any new points, but just disagree with my interpretation, I don’t think we have anything further to discuss.
