I hear you, storyteller0910…
I actually hesitated to post because I wonder “what’s the point?”, and “why do I care?”, but I decided to go ahead and post because this whole scenario rubs me the wrong way.
I’ll explain.
**prr’s **OP explaining why he’s posting in the first place helped explain his point and made me interested in the thread and its outcome; the rest of his posts after that have made it more and more difficult to care about **prr’s **anger on a personal level. So, I change **prr **to “Poster X” and it makes it a bit easier.
Up front, I will state I have no ax to grind with anyone mentioned in this thread. I recognize a few names, but I don’t know most people’s posting styles, so I don’t support one side or the other just based on the posters alone.
With that said, I think Poster X has a point. There are a couple of issues here.
Czarcasm, I believe, was not doing anything as a moderator. If he was, he would have (or should have) prefaced it by identifying it as a moderator action. As many have pointed out, this can be a bit annoying, may not be required by all, but has, on more than one occasion, been defined and agreed to by the moderation staff on this board. This was to show, under no uncertain terms, how the moderator/poster in question was acting and in what capacity. Mod or poster. Simple. Czarcasm did not, unfortunately, state that his post was in the capacity of a moderator, so by default, it was as a regular poster.
**Poster X’s **response was more than a little abrasive, but I don’t know him or his posting style, so perhaps it wasn’t meant to be. What do I know? I know how I read it, but I’m not Czarcasm, and the post wasn’t meant for me.
Then, Ellen Cherry pops into the thread and decides to be offended and annoyed on behalf of Czarcasm, issues an official warning because she thinks** Poster X** has not only behaved badly, but didn’t follow directions from a mod. Except, as defined by countless threads and posts discussing this, **Czarcasm **was not, by definition, acting as a mod.
Instead of** Ellen Cherry** just retracting the warning and admitting a mistake, she goes through a painful justification post that makes her look terrible. I don’t know her moderating style at all, but from this one example, it would seem that she made a knee-jerk reaction, and will not admit a mistake.
If she would, this nonsense would be over. The fact is, like it or not, Ellen Cherry went overboard, and even if she wanted to give Poster X a warning for being a jerk, it’s too late for that.
Just apologize, Ellen Cherry. Rescind the warning. Chalk it up to experience, and no one will look badly upon you.
One final note: If you want to give an official warning, I believe, based on what I understand about trolling and being a jerk, **DianaG **deserves one for making her admission of trolling. I remember admitting that someone was on my ignore list ***outside ***of the pit, and was given an official warning. OK, I broke a rule. The fact that it is a stupid rule doesn’t make any difference, I was told. Posting that someone is on your ignore list outside of the pit is simply a no-no (which I didn’t know-know). How is **DianaG’s **admission of trolling Poster X appropriate? Is that not breaking a rule, by **DianaG’s **own admission? If Poster X admitted the exact same thing about DianaG, wouldn’t Poster X have received an official warning?
Is this about consistency, poster favoritism, or what?
I don’t think this is difficult. All is required is to be consistent, a little bit of common sense, and a small reduction of ego.
Thanks, man! 
