Boo!
As much as I hate to admit it, pseudotriton ruber ruber has a valid complaint that Czarcasm was not posting as a moderator, but as a member, so prr does not deserve a warning for ignoring moderator instructions. Sure, it was an informal recommendation to stop hijacking the thread, but it was informal.
That said, prr’s response was definitely being a jerk.
Regarding prr’s posts in the thread, I thought his first post was a witty way to post his opinion in an opinion thread. DianaG is the one who made the thread about prr. I don’t know if her comments rate to admitting to trolling, but they certainly deserve a comment directing her to take her animosity toward prr to the Pit and keep it out of that thread.
Ellen Cherry misread that situation. While she hasn’t said so in so many words, I think she acknowledges that here.
That said, I don’t think threadshitting was really his violation.
Shot From Guns said:
No one but prr thinks this is about an instruction that prr must start a thread. Prr was suggested to quit hijacking/threadshitting, and start a thread if he felt he must continue complaining about people who do weird things with their pets. There’s a gigantic if that prr seems unable to acknowledge.
His response to Czarcasm was completely over the top.
As I see it (not a mod, so only an opinion, not a recommendation):
-
Ellen Cherry should acknowledge she made a wrong call, and rescind that warning to prr for ignoring moderator instructions.
-
Ellen Cherry should then post an official Mod instruction to prr to not hijack/threadshit, and then post an official warning to prr for being a jerk, improper tone toward another poster, etc.
-
Someone should give at a minimum a Mod instruction to DianaG to stop hijacking the thread to make it about prr. If she has issues with prr, she should report his posts or take him to the pit.
We’re allowed to swear–we’re just not allowed to make personal attacks. “I’ll make threads about what I want,” even with a “fucking” in the middle, no matter how misspelled, is not a personal attack. It’s a somewhat *hostile *response to what’s ostensibly a friendly reminder to keep things appropriate outside of the Pit, but it’s definitely not something that should garner a Warning.
It was (IMO) a mistake for Czarcasm to not stick a < mod reminder > or somthing at the front of his post–I get that he wanted to be low-key and friendly and I appreciate the sentiment, but without the tag, I think it’s confusing. You can be non-official while wearing your “mod hat”.
That said, it seems like a pretty mild mistake to have made.
*Which *was a pretty mild mistake? For **Czar **to forget his mod hat? For **prr **to not understand that **Czar **was wearing his mod hat? For **Ellen **to officially warn **prr **for not realizing that **Czar **was wearing his mod hat?
the word curioser comes to my mind
Well, I am getting the hebbie jebbies…
Cause I see banned people.
pseudotriton ruber ruber has posted that he is going to refrain from posting about pets and mods for a little while. Link.
-
I never said anything about anyone being stupid. I posted my amazement at what pisses people off.
-
Thank you for the education. I had not heard the term before.
-
Who was it that said pointing out someone’s lack of manners is being just as rude, if not more so, than the manner-less one?
We came in fifth?
I’ve been reading along, hearing what you all have to say on the issue. As I said previously, I thought it was clear Czarcasm was acting as a moderator, given that he was commenting on** pseudotriton ruber ruber**'s behavior rather than the subject at hand. I see now that it wasn’t so clear to everyone else.
Czar wasn’t around; I was, and so I was attempting to follow up for him. He and I both are moderators of IMHO.
I am now going to go into our infraction system and rescind the warning to **pseudotriton ruber ruber ** for “Failure to follow a moderator’s instructions” and then issue a new one for “Being a jerk.”
pseudotriton ruber ruber: Please be aware when you receive a PM about this, it is not for a new infraction, but this one from Sunday.
Thanks everyone for your input,
Ellen
Could you specify which post, or which part of which post, I was being a jerk in? Was it for “mouthing off” to Czarcasm? If so, if I had omitted the intensifying adjective, would that still have been mouthing off? Even though all I was doing was refusing to start a Pit thread? If it was my initial post in that thread, though, could you tell me what was wrong with it? I was simply (if very sarcastically) responding to the OP’s request to inform her whether her behavior was nutty or not, but I was civil and on-topic. If it’s just to cover your ass, which is the all-purpose function of the “being a jerk” rule, then no need to specify.
PRR, the bit about “I’m not quite telling you to fellate a cat, but I sorta am” was more than enough to justify a warning in and of itself.
You used the phrase “knickers in a twist” and “get a life.” Those are insulting and dismissive. No, you did not use the exact word “stupid,” but close enough.
Yes, you’ve been so terribly wronged now that someone has pointed out that you were, at best, coming perilously close to breaking a board rule.
Thank you.
Why?
He was asked by another mod, apparently officially, to cool his jets. His only response after that point was an assertion that he would not start a new thread. He did not continue to harass anyone in the thread about how they treated their pets. How is that worthy of a warning?
ISTM that the way things work around here, someone is generally given notice that they’re getting too close to the line, or are pushing over it, and then that gives them an opportunity to step back. **Czar ***sort of *did that, but he didn’t make it clear that he was acting officially. **prr **responded to that post, but he made *no further posts *to the thread that were insulting toward pet owners.
Are we creating a new rule that everyone who posts to a thread has to agree with the OP? Something tells me that would kill this board pretty quickly.
Where did you see that? All I saw was a joke. Let’s look again.
This was in response to **Diana **saying that she was going to talk to her cats for the specific purpose of pissing **prr **off. **prr **is giving her an example of an even *more *ridiculous activity she could do that he would *also *consider to be crazy. He’s not telling her to blow a cat; he’s making an amusing response to someone who made a similarly snipe-ish reponse at him.
That’s horrible. You guys need to get your act together. You should at least be in second.
Once again, I was expressing a personal disbelief. If I insulted anyone, I apologize.
Actually I don’t feel particularly wronged, I made an observation. My apologies if you were offended by my language. Also, if you look back you’ll see that I thanked you for defining a term I didn’t know.
If I broke a board rule, unwittingly or not, I would certainly expect a Moderator to step in and correct me, and no hard feelings.
And now I’m done with the hijack or threadshit or whatever. If you would like the last word on the subject you are welcome to it.
Apologies to the OP and Mods.
[Guest Posting As A Thread Observer]
Valid points on all sides
[/Guest Posting As A Thread Observer]
[Same Guest Posting As A Problem Solver]
Being more explicit with role identification could help
[/Same Guest Posting As A Problem Solver]
These comments:
“BTW, Diana, I also think people who go down on their pets are a little nutso.”
“Feels real good, you shit for brains.”
“I’ll start what I fucken well feel like starting, kay?”
1.) Do you disagree that people who fellate their pets are crazy?
2.) He wasn’t calling anyone in the thread a “shit for brains.” He was asking how it was possible to distinguish between a pet that liked you and a pet that thought you were an idiot, and giving a theoretical internal monologue for a pet that thinks its owner is an idiot but is milking it for treats and scritches, anyway.
3.) Swearing outside of the Pit is not, nor has it ever been, against the rules. If somebody tells you to start a thread, and you don’t want to start the thread, are you not allowed to tell them that you’re not going to start it?
-
you want to me to opine that people who go down on their pets AREN’T a little nutso?
-
I was paraphrasing what a hypothetical DOG might be thinking. I think you’re focussed on the language, which has been permissable in posts since time immemorial, but if I had said, “you human idiot” or “you two-legged piece of dirt” that would have been okay?
-
again, if I had omitted unnecessary but colorful intensifying adjective, would that have been okay? If so, then aren’t you retrofitting a rule of language for the first time to justify a call? Or do you need me to point other exasperated identical uses of that particular adjective (probably spelled differently) that have passed muster previously? And if not, what exactly is jerkish about refusing to obey an order to start a specific thread? I WAS NOT told I was threadshitting, and you have withdrawn that spurious charge, and whatever **Czarcasm **told me, he told me as a poster. So am i required to start threads accordign to other posters’ wishes? If not, then why can’;t I tell them that I am starting the threads I feel like starting?