Also, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the moderators to be swearing and posting in large fonts and all caps. I thought this was a forum for civil discussion. If you want to do that, you should move the thread to the pit.
The problem with that rationale is that “henpecking” is not normally, nor indeed in the usage in question, an adjective. It is a verb, one that has solely to do with what one says and how one says it. It’s an analysis of a person’s WORDS, not her personality. Reading it as an insult is reaaaaaaalllllllly stretching.
And I’d still like to know, if “henpecking” or “annoying” is a personal attack and deserves a warning, why the post I quoted wasn’t also considered a personal attack deserving of a warning. What about it makes it, which on the surface seems infinitely ruder, snider, and more personally insulting, okay while these other posts aren’t? I know you saw it–when you warned me for my response to it, it was quoted within your quoting of my post, and likewise when you sent me a pm about it. Clearly, you saw something in it that made it okay, and I want to know what that is so I can figure where the line is drawn and stay within the rules.
After all, if you guys won’t clarify what seems to be utterly random, nonsensical interpretations of the rules, how are we supposed to follow the damn things?
So you’re fine with “you’re not funny” being classified as an insult? That pretty much ignores common usage of the word when anything directed at the poster is an insult, regardless of tone or severity. In fact, take a look at this:
That would be directed toward twickster and Dex, and according to Dex and you would be regarded as an insult.
Sorry, I missed your post. Yes, it is indeed true. I was surprised to see there was no notice of the warning given in this thread to let other posters know where the line is, so I posted the warning myself.
I didn’t have time to publicize the warnings, but I’ll do so now: (Also, since I can see the warnings as a yellow tag on the posts, I sort of assumed others could. My misunderstanding of the new system.)
Warnings were issued to Cat Whisperer for post #67 and to SmartAleq for post #68
We’ll try not to let this descend to a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but you make some good points that merit attention. And maybe we should take the conversation elsewhere. If so, a mod will tell us.
But I haven’t said that every personal criticism in every case is against the rules. I noted specifically the Pit, for example. But here too, in this forum (dealing with the example you cited) we are allowed to criticize the mods, so long as we do so with civility and respect. I didn’t call them stupid. Or make snide remarks about their political philosophies. What I did was tell them what I thought they were doing — namely, practically striving to avoid a standardized procedure. When several different mods say that they do their mod thing each a different way, and one or two of them actually say that you should be able to tell from context, it seems clear that they are avoiding standardizing their procedures.
This forum is for criticizing or questioning mod actions, as I understand it. The Pit is for criticizing other posters. Everywhere else, the criticism must be directed at the written words, and those only. That’s how it has always been for ten years. The only new twist is that you cannot respond directly to a mod with criticism in the thread where the mod/admin has warned or cautioned you. You must open a new thread. And, of course, you can no longer pit a mod (except for Dex, who exempted himself) for their rulings. But you still can pit them for what they posted as members. That’s just one reason standards need to be set.
That’s my understanding, anyway. If I’m wrong, a mod can correct me.
Yes, but since they’re not moderators, such comments on their part are not made as moderators.
Comment on the tone or nature of a discussion by a moderator: moderator comment. You can always assume that such a post is intended to be a moderator comment.
Comment on the tone or nature of a discussion by a non-moderator: non-moderator comment
Comment about the content or subject matter of a discussion by a moderator: non-moderator comment
It seems as though a lot of people are having problems with these distinctions, so perhaps if you post a link to a specific post where it’s not clear to you whether a mod is speaking as a mod or a “regular” poster, we can clarify which it is.
Yeah, I’d love to be able to accomodate you, but if you please, rather than relegate me to the fate of Search Hell, allow me to construct a hypothetical — one that I believe is faithfully representative. Two people: Member and Mod. Thread Title: How do you lean politicaly?
Member: Libertarianism is based upon the ethic of noncoercion.
Mod: But there can never be any noncoercion. Someone is always going to coerce someone else.
Member: Yes, but I’m not saying anything about what people will or won’t do. I’m just informing you of the philosophy’s base premise.
Mod: Well, libertarianism might work fine in a tiny society of a few dozen people. But it could never work in the real world.
Member: Sure, it could. I mean, why should you be allowed to formulate all the hypotheticals? If you get to pretend, we all get to pretend.
Mod: I think you’re getting a little bit too personal there. If you can’t argue honestly, then don’t argue at all.
Member: Are you saying I’m arguing dishonorably? What dishonorable words have I typed? Is the notion of peaceful honest people pursuing their own happiness in their own way that repugnant to you?
Mod: That’s a strawman, and you know it. Don’t play those games with me. This isn’t about you.
Member: The hell? I’m not even talking about me. YOU are. And it feels like the heat of your tone is rising.
Mod: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with MY tone. But I think YOU should tone it down a bit.
Member: Tone what down? I’m just attempting to describe my inoffensive philosophy in a thread asking us about our political leanings.
Mod: You know very well that the OP is asking whether we lean left or right. Not whether we lean backwards. Maybe it’s time we mods reviewed your status and your contributions of late. You seem to be able to talk about nothing other than your so-called “inoffensive philosophy”, which frankly I find to be offensive to the extreme. This thread is hereby closed due to veering too far off-topic.
CLOSED
I’m not going to get into hypotheticals with you. If you have an actual post you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to do so.
I believe I read somewhere that Mods and Administrators are instructed to treat posters with civility and respect also. Don’t know that I can provide a link. Any truth to this?
There’s something to be said for refusing to discuss a hypothetical–politicians refuse to be drawn into such discussions all the time, mainly for fear of being pinned down. It’s always easier to deal with actual exchanges because you can always lamp on some particular thing someone said (that dilutes the point that the hypothetical-maker is trying to isolate) but in this isntance, I think Lib is asking whether his hypothetical Mod would be out of line, and is giving you a blame-free venue to make that judgment. He’s phrasing it in the hypothetical, I believe, precisely so as to free you from judging **Dex **or Tuba or any other Mod personally, and your refusal in this case seems somewhat evasive of his point: Is that mod out of line?
To answer the specific example: I think the Mod was somewhat out of line in interpreting “you” to mean him personally, when it probably meant “you plural” or “one.” That can be a difficulty with such discussions, since American English tends to use “you” to mean “you the individual” and we also use it to mean “one” or “y’all.” If the poster did mean “you” as a person, then the mod was not out of line.
However, please note, that even if the Mod issued a warning, that could be re-examined and clarified and corrected. No mod actions are irreversible.
In terms of the general discussion of what constitutes an insult, I think that probably could go in another thread. However, I don’t think we’ll get much more than what we have. It’s often contextual. The “henpecking” for instance: “Your comment sounds like henpecking” would technically be acceptable. “You are henpecking” is not different (in my mind) from “You are being a moron” or “You are ignorant.” Whether a verb or adjective, it’s still a personal comment. I also point out that when a thread (outside the Pit) has devolved into a “let’s all jump on So-and-So” and the mod says “Cut it out,” then the question of what’s a personal insult becomes more rigid.
And, for the record, I have rescinded the permission to pit me as a moderator.
I don’t even understand this. I’ve googled ‘the Fremont’, and found nothing that, as far as I can see, could be construed as insulting. There are references to Nevada, Nebraska. Massachusetts and Seattle. I guess it must the latter, but what’s so bad about Seattle? It’s obviously something USA-centric that I, anyway, here in the UK don’t get.
Could someone explain what brought down the wrath of the gods?
It’s a very subtle and veiled insult, constructed purposefully to be obfuscatory. The key is in the term “salubrious”, and its association with Freemont (Seattle). A salubrious clime (poetic archaic for “region or climate, as in environs”) means a place where she can be healed, or made better — as though something were wrong with her as she is now. Freemont, often referred to as “The People’s Republic of Freemont”, is an artsy-fartsy throwback to Haight-Ashbury in 1960s San Francisco (but more eclectic). It’s extremely left-wing. It’s motto is De Libertas Quirkas" (“Freedom to be Weird”).
In other words, the implication is that Carol could be straightened out if only she were immersed into a counter-culture that clashes almost violently with her political views.
You’re absolutely right. In fact, if we want to get all Grammar Nazi, we can say that “henpecking” is a noun — a gerund in this case, which is a noun form.
Here is the original assertion:
“That post was a joke, playing off of Carol’s incredibly loaded OP and constant henpecking of the mods.”
In that construction, “henpecking” is the genitive case, i.e., “Carol’s…henpecking”, and moreover is modified by the adjective, “constant”. That, all together, makes it a noun form. It is a quality assigned as belonging to her.
Probably a wise move. 
That, plus the most recent example I would have cited has been edited, and the thread re-opened. I have no access to the previous versions of posts (though I think maybe mods do).
My recollection is hazy in that regard. Dex, to his credit, did indeed promise to be more mindful of a mod’s power to both have the last word and close a thread. Tuba has been almost perfectly civil of late. Twickster has been civil as well (if a bit evasive). All in all, most of the mods treat us with civility and respect, but they do lose their tempers from time to time.
I has often been said (wisely) that a member should not post when he is angry. The same advice would be good for mods — i.e., they should not make moderatorial / administrative decisions when they’re angry.
So, then, you’re not asking a hypothetical question; you’re couching a question about a specific thread as a hypothetical. See twickster’s latest post here.
We do.
What, hypothetical questions must be grounded on planet Mars to qualify as true hypotheticals? I love Twix but her latest post is an example of what “evasive” means, so why not just say “Lib, I’m gonna evade your point here, and make it seem that you’re being slightly obtuse while doing so”? See my previous post for an explanation.*
*NB: I’m not actually referring you to my previous post for clarity: I’m showing how that’s one of your nastier little rhetorical devices, Marley, to make it seem as if you’re couching an actual argument whenever you got nuttin’. IOW, please stay out of discussions when all you have to say is “We’ve already covered that,” implying stupidity on the poster’s part and great forbearance on yours, neither of which typically applies.
I’m sorry if y’all are finding me evasive, but I’m not going to get drawn into some long thing of “if this person said this, would that be a problem? Okay, how about if the third word in the sixth sentence were X instead of Y, would that be a problem?”
We’d be here forever, and nothing useful would happen.
I repeat, if you have a specific post or posts that you’re finding confusing, pls. link to them or quote them, and we can discuss them.
I personally am not going to talk hypotheticals here.