In this thread another poster made the claim that American slavery was on par with the Holocaust (12 million dead). I asked for a cite. Then I provided one for him in post 253. I then restated the number of slaves transported to America in post 267. I even referenced the original source.
Now along comes tomndebb in post 283 to display his erudition by repeating to me exactly the numbers that I twice quoted from the cited source, in the correct context, and saying I will be dismissed should I not get my numbers straight.
I have been nothing but respectful in that thread to those who were respectful to me. To those who weren’t I dissed them within the confines of the rules.
Why did I have a mod - who has a history of messing with people’s posts in order to improve his appearance - threaten me with dismissal for giving factual numbers, in context, with a reputable source, that tomndebb spat right back at me pretty much verbatim, threaten me with sanction.
At the very least this is worth a warning for junior modding since he isn’t the mod in the Pit.
But more importantly, he has already crossed a line once and now, out of the blue, he is threatening me with sanction for saying what he said I should have said?
Now I know that he may not have read the whole thread… but isn’t the rule that it is your own fault if you cross a line without having read the whole thread first?
He crossed a line - even without defining “dismissed.” Coming from a mod it certainly carries the threat of official sanction and he has access to the mod loop and influence that I do not.
Assuming this does not disappear into the ether or remain albeit altered I’d like an answer.
Zeke
ETA Titles will not accept coding so I’m sorry for tomndebb not being bolded
I don’t think he meant “dismissed” in the way you seem to think he meant it. It sounds like he meant you wouldn’t be taken seriously by him. Completely different meaning. If he meant he was going to take moderator action against you, he would have indicated it by saying [Moderating] or something similar to make it clear.
Also, even though he isn’t a Pit mod, moderators have authority in all forums, so he can’t get a warning for junior moderating, since he is a moderator.
Are you suggesting that he lacks the composition skills to make clear the distinction between, “or you will be dismissed” and “or I will ignore you”?
I guess I give him more credit than you.
See, I thought that him, having not participated in the thread at all, coming in to incorrectly correct my usage of a cite that he confirmed my usage of and say if I didn’t get my stuff straight I’d be dismissed was, at the very least, a veiled threat.
I also gave him enough credit to assume he’d know that that is how it would be taken - coming from a mod and all.
I am glad, though, that the posts have remained extant and unaltered. That’s something.
Did you read the linked posts and/or the ones from Iandyiii and I preceeding it for context?
If somebody is being warned or banned, the moderators have always used those terms. So you wouldn’t be threatened with any moderator action by being told you’ll be dismissed.
Don’t blame tomndebb is you didn’t understand what he wrote.
He came in, out of the blue, telling me I’d be “dismissed” unless I used the numbers exactly as I had and exactly as he admonished me to I’d say there is some room for question.
Especially given that he has been somewhat heavy-handed in the past.
I also note that I gave him a chance to clarify what he meant and, as of this posting, he has chosen not to.
I give him enough credit to think that he knows the implications of the word “dismissed” coming from one with the power to do just that. He has always shown that he has a better-than-average facility with the language.
Actually, thank you for pointing out in the pit thread you so graciously added me to that he was acting with the full authority of a mod when he threatened to “dismiss” me
Again, I’m giving him enough credit to believe he knew what he was saying and what it implied. Why do you insist that he lacks that capacity?
I’m going to let tomndebb say his piece from here on out. I’m dismissing myself from this thread. If you want to engage me further, you know the way to the Pit. I’m constrained by the rules of this forum as to what I can say to you here.
Only an idiot, or someone with a persecution complex, would see that implication. Right or wrong in his interpretation of your weird rambling, it’s blindingly obvious that what is being used is the extremely common in discussion on this board phrase for ignoring someone’s contributions.
No he wasn’t. He was a poster participating in a debate. His disagreement with you was not a moderation.
When Tom acts as a moderator it is made very clear He puts the word “moderating” in bold to let people know.
Being dismissed isn’t a moderation. No moderator has ever dismissed a poster. They warn, give notes, suspend or ban, but they don’t dismiss. Dismissal isn’t an actual moderator thing.
You’re assuming that when he used the word “dismissed”, he meant “banned”. Much safer to assume that when he used the word “dismissed”, he meant “dismissed”. The word has a perfectly good meaning, and on this board, we expect that everyone will be able to understand English.
And in case there’s any ambiguity, here, I am a moderator, but in this post, I’m just speaking as a poster.
You’re pissed because he said you will be “dismissed,” as in, “caused to leave.” Right?
Others are confused because they think he’s saying you will be “dismissed,” as in, “rejected for serious consideration.” Right?
I can see both readings. However, context points overwhelmingly to the second one.
There is specific language mods use when threatening sanctions. Most of the time they talk about reviewing posting privileges; occasionally they threaten banning, or say something like, “you will not last long” if you keep breaking the rules. I’ve never seen a mod use “dismiss” to threaten sanctions.
Also, Tom posts like that. You’ve read his stuff before, right? He’s fond of telling people that they’re not worth taking seriously, I think that’s a fair representation.
So I can see how you misunderstood initially, but a few moments’ thought should have shown you what was meant, and certainly by now you should see which definition applies.