I see what you did there. :dubious:
Just for clarification…
If we users see what appears to be a pattern of behavior over a number of threads, and we point this out (preferrably with examples), but do so in reasonable terms without insults or mocking, this would be acceptable?
What about the fact that the basic rule is “don’t be a jerk”, and the string of incidents themselves don’t lend themselves neatly to “he’s hurling insults in GD” or “she’s taunting another member”, but rather fall into some unspecific pattern of behavior that still feels, overall, very jerkish in tone? How does one bring that up for discussion?
Please bring it up in a reported post. That’s always the best way to get the attention of the moderators of any particular forum. That can often lead to a discussion on the mod loop about a particular poster. Someone who consistently acts out in IMHO - as an example - may not do so in GD and therefore be off my radar completely. I wouldn’t know to keep an eye out without some sort of notice.
And when reported posts repeatedly go without intervention, how does one bring it up in ATMB for open discussion?
Also for clarification. Will it be acceptable to describe others in global hyperbolic terms like having a ‘magic rule exemption’ or having a ‘Golden Ticket’ in discussing their current rule infractions in ATMB? This just seems like a way to insult the poster (and the past modding or lack thereof) in a tangential way to discussing the rule infraction. It’s also not something that anyone can prove or disprove since it’s about something that didn’t happen.
If this is allowed, I’ll be eagerly awaiting some people’s next rule infractions. 
I cited several of many mod-rulings which explictly said that Der Trihs did get a pass for things that would get other posters warned. I’m being sarcastic when I use “global hyperbolic terms”(?) like “Golden Ticket” but still 100% factual.
Thing is, per the current rules here, it’s perfectly valid to do so in ATMB.
So, using sarcasm to describe a specific, multiply cited rule that a mod made and enforced is expressly permitted in ATMB at the moment. I would hope that this current state wouldn’t change, but if it does, I’ll abide by those rules.
“Global” hyperbolic terms?
“Global”? As opposed to…continental? Galactic? I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Your cited rule says that the sarcasm is allowed as long as the sarcasm doesn’t cross the line into personal insult. That’s the reason for my post asking for clarification.
Is it seen as personally insulting to say that X poster got away with breaking the rules for some reason that’s not specified?
Could I say that you got away with breaking rules for reasons I don’t know or can’t say and have it not seen as a personal insult if the discussion is about a current rule infraction?
I’ve seen your cites where you claim that Der Trihs was not modded as other posters would be. I read those notes differently. I read them to say that he did not create a disturbance in the thread, so he was not modded. It goes on to explain why he was not a disturbance in the thread. That’s not the focus of this question of clarification.
What I meant by global in that term was that your commentary seemed to be focusing on a more general view of the poster and on a global view of his posts as versus the specific infractions that were named in the suspension.
Is strawberrant on-line behavior bannable now then?
One posts a thread and describes the situation as one sees it, sticking to the facts and avoiding pronouncements of the form, “Poster X is a maggoty sack of shit and deserves to be banned,” which will get one’s thread closed. If on the other hand you remain calm and reasonable and cite evidence you’ll likely get a more attentive hearing, even if in the end we don’t agree. That being said, we prefer that posts be reported privately in the first instance. We may simply not be aware of the loathesome individual in question.
No, but it is definitely bananable