Are the powers that be really going to remain silent?

I’d like to know if there are any check and balances WRT Mods? Because Chronos is trip’n and you all KNOW he is trip’n, yet you remain silent.

If this board doesn’t have the posters’ best interest at heart. Well, that’s just beyond disappointing.

Do better. This thin blue line among moderators is BS.

reference here

Post 48.

It’s been 24 hours since @Chronos dropped that steaming pile. Literally the worst moderation I’ve seen on any board anywhere.

And not a peep.

I’m out. Somebody drop me an email when Chronos is no longer a mod here and those he supposedly “conferred” with have been disciplined. Is this the board you imagined, @andysuntimes?

This is what pisses me off so much about this shit.

ALL of us have worked so hard to make this board a better place.

We worked hard to fix the misogyny.
We were so patient during the time outs period.
Jenny fought hard to find us a new home.
EVERYBODY worked hard at getting the community settled in our new digs…

And now, we have a new home only to discover
the Mods look out for each other first, and treating us second.


Y’all don’t leave… please.
I want so much for this move to be successful.
It hurts my heart.
We are all stressed and making mistakes and learning our way around. Moderators are humans too.
There may be things and discussions going on in the back room.
Nobody leave, please.

This is not an accurate description of the post in question.

UltraVires did not get a warning just because he said he thought betting was against the rules but he was going to make a bet anyway.

Betting actually is against the rules and Ultravires got a warning because he said he was aware of that rule but was going to make a bet anyway.

So you wouldn’t get a warning for using the word stupid “even if there is no rule about the word stupid”. You would only get a warning if there actually was a rule against using the word stupid.

Here’s what happened:

  1. There is a rule against doing something on this board.
  2. A poster said he was aware of this rule.
  3. The poster said he was doing it anyway.
  4. The poster got warned for breaking the rule.

I don’t see how this is a controversial decision. To me, this might be the most deserved warning ever issued on this board.

It’s one thing to make a mistake. It’s another to double and triple down on it once your mistake is pointed out. And then to say that other mods agreed with you takes this to another level.

Is this a woosh? Because that’s not at all what happened.

There is no rule against betting in the forum he posted in.

Interesting take considering Chronos himself said

The relevant facts are that, first, the rule against betting does not, in fact, apply to the Game Room, but that second, in the post in question, UltraVires clearly stated that it was his belief that it did apply. By engaging in behavior that he stated to be against board rules, he undermined the rules of the board and was unnecessarily provocative. Therefore, the warning stands.

So according to Chronos if I say “I think it is against the rules to say “stupid” in a post but your post is stupid.” I would get a warning because I violated a rule that I made up and isn’t really a rule because I thought I was violating a rule. And that doesn’t even address the point that UV (if I’m reading the post correctly) said “I think A is violating the rules so I won’t do that. Instead I think the SD allows B so I’m going to do that instead.”

If you think you are breaking a rule, and proceed do so deliberately, would you call that jerkish behavior?

That’s not what happened. Go back and read the post UV wrote.

That’s the point. He never said that. What he said was

That very clearly is saying that he is not sure if what he posted is against the rules or not. @UltraVires clearly does not see the charity thing as a bet, but as something different.

I’m personally against both, and wish they were against the rules, for the reasons I said in the other thread. I also think UV sometimes posts disingenuously and should be moderated for such.

Yet even I think this is a ridiculous ruling.

Well, because Little Nemo and Czarcasm do not appear to have read the actual post in question, here it is in its entirety:

You think these changes will be temporary? I know we are not allowed to bet, but I’m not sure if we are allowed to donate to a charity. If we are, how about $20 to a charity of your choice if the DH in the National League and a runner on 2nd in extra innings disappear after this year. If they remain next year, then $20 to the charity of my choice. If this is against the rules, then I retract and just pretend it I didn’t say it.

UltraVires does NOT – in any way – say “It’s illegal but I’m doing it anyway.” He carefully and pointedly and repeated says he does not want to violate the rules.
“…if we are allowed to donate to a charity”
“…If we are”
“…If this is against the rules then I retract…”

Chronos ignored all of those words. Why? I believe he is just under lot of deadlines right now, but some mod needs to step up and do the right thing.

According to Chronos they did step up and said he was correct. That no other mod has confirmed or denied this but according to precedent if a mod messes up it is dealt with in the Star Chamber where us peasants are kept uninformed.

Actually, I was responding to this statement that immediately preceded my own:

Okay, I went back and read the posts in question.

I thought the rule was that betting was not allowed in any forum. Other people also seemed to think this was the rule. And judging by what they wrote, UltraVires and Chronos seemed to think it was the rule.

So when UltraVires made a bet (and that was what he did) it was a reasonable conclusion that he was breaking a rule and doing so knowingly. Chronos’ warning was justified.

When this decision was later reviewed, the people involved discovered that the rule did not prohibit betting in the Game Room forum. I feel therefore that while UltraVires’ post may have been a bad idea it wasn’t a violation of the rules. So I now agree the warning should have been withdrawn.

You are incorrect. This has already been explained.

UltraVires wrote:

That seems like a pretty clear statement that he thought betting was against the rules.

Selective quoting changes meaning. News at 10.

While we’re not writing in German and stashing the verb at the end of the sentence, it’s generally advisable, even if it’s just English, to read and understand the entire sentence before jumping over here to write about what you think it means.

Again, other posters in this thread have already explained why you’re wrong.

The part I quoted answered the question.

It’s true that immediately after stating he knew he wasn’t allowed to make a bet, UltraVires went on to try to place a bet. Because what he proposed was still a bet even if he was trying to use different words to describe it.