Except that even more ridiculous activity that he suggested she engage in? *It was blowing a cat. *
I think most native English speakers are not really going to be confused on this point. Sure, it’s an upgraded version of the childhood-sibling-driving game “I’m not touching my sister, my hand’s just really really close to her face!” but PRR’s cutesy denial that he didn’t, exactly, tell her to blow a cat won’t hold water with most people, simply because the eye rolling it encourages allows one to see their own optic nerve.
So what you mean to say, pseudotriton ruber ruber, is that: you suggested someone fellate their cat, implied they have shit for brains, and got nasty with someone who was trying to calm you down, and you don’t see how a third party could interpret that as being a jerk?
And if fucken Czarcasm was fucken well trying to calm me down, he could have sent me a fucken PM, and you fucken well know he was fucken trying to fuck with me.
Not at all. He made a reasonable post to suggest you reduce your hostility. As several people noted upthread, the problem was that you didn’t take the hint. Czarcasm didn’t do anything wrong.
Except that he didn’t *tell *her to do it–he said that it would be a good way to piss him off. In my mind, there’s a *world *of difference between “blow a cat” and “if you’re looking for things that would also weird me out, fellating a pet would be pretty high up there.” The former is rude and against the rules. The latter is clever and funny, although crude.
Except that he didn’t do any of those things. I, personally, can quite clearly see his intentions, as I’ve explained them to you after having just skimmed his posts in the thread. I’ll explain again, and I strongly suggest that you go back to the original thread and read along and you’ll see what I mean.
1.) He’s not saying “blow a cat”–he’s making a joke that if she wants to piss him off, there’s an even more ridiculous way of doing it.
2.) He’s not calling anyone in the thread a shit-for-brains; he’s pointing out that a pet could be thinking terrible things about its owner and you’d never know.
3.) He was brusque, but not nasty, with someone who was trying to calm him down. He didn’t make any kind of personal attack against Czar, he just added a vulgar word to his reply for emphasis. He didn’t say, “I’ll start whatever threads I want, you asshole,” for example.
Failing to specify that he was acting as a mod wasn’t wrong, but it certainly does give some mitigating circumstances for prr’s response.
I’ve read it, and I get what you’re saying. But seriously, how many rude remarks does somebody have to make in an IMHO thread about talking to pets before it’s reasonable to moderate that behavior as threadshitting? I think one comment is plenty, depending on what it is. I’d say he acted like a jerk throughout the thread, and not just in the posts that were moderated.
pseudotriton ruber ruber may feel he was simply disagreeing with the OP, which is fair game, but he was consistently nasty throughout the entire thread. I don’t think ‘he didn’t literally mean she should blow her cat’ is an adequate defense for that.
I’ve had it explained to me in the past that threadshitting has a *very specific *definition here: you have to be saying that that topic itself is stupid and not worth discussing. **prr **is *discussing *it–he’s just offering his opinion, as requested by the OP, that she is, in fact, nuts to talk to her cats. He’s *not *saying that the very idea of discussing whether or not talking to your cats is nuts is stupid and pointless.
Is it over the line? Maybe. Certainly worth an official reminder to back off with the hyperbole. But I think it’s definitely close enough that he’d deserve an *official *note that he was *approaching *a Warning, rather than getting a retroactive Warning to replace another Warning that the mod in question has conceded didn’t make sense to give.
Dude, I’m not exactly president of the Czarcasm Fan Club or anything. I’ve clashed with him many times. In this instance, he did nothing wrong. If anything, he gave you a break by trying to calm you down without going all “Mod Hat” on your ass. You repaid his attempted kindness with a figurative knee to the groin.
We have *never *been banned from using swear words in our posts addressed to other users: just personal insults. If that’s now going to be a Warnable offense, it’s a new rule, and it should be documented and applied consistently going forward.
“Don’t be a jerk” is our cardinal rule, but if **prr **was being enough of a jerk to **Czar **to get him warned in that thread, then I’m pretty sure **Czar **was being enough of a jerk to me in the “usual suspects” thread to *also *be warned–and I didn’t even report his posts, because I don’t think he crossed the line.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about that. We often give notes to people to give them a chance to back off before we official warn them, but we don’t always do that, and we don’t have to do it. I think pseudotriton ruber ruber’s behavior in the five posts I quoted (including one where he wasn’t being officially moderated, but was being advised by a moderator that he was out of line) was more than rude enough to deserve a warning, especially since - official moderating or not - he’d already made it clear he had no interest in trying to be civil.
1.) How did he make it clear that he had no interest in trying to be civil?
2.) Are we required to treat mods with special dispensation when they’re not acting as mods? This is directly contrary to what we’ve been told otherwise.
Do I have to keep quoting this misspelling? It hurts. “I’ll start what I fucken well feel like starting, kay?”
It’s not about deference or special anything. Czarcasm made a polite, on-point suggestion that would have been just acceptable if it hadn’t come from a moderator. Rather than starting a Pit thread, or just taking the hint and being less hostile, pseudotriton ruber ruber was rude to Czarcasm the same way he had been rude to other posters.
1.) I know, it really is painful, isn’t it? But the fact remains that using swear words is not and has never been against the rules: only personal insults are. I can fucking say fucking every other fucking word and it’s entirely with the board rules. *All ***prr **said was that he wasn’t going to start a new thread.
2.) Again, what he did was not against the rules, specifically. *Disagreeing *with an OP is not against the rules–telling them *their topic *is stupid and pointless is. If **prr **had continued to post in the thread in a way that was perceived as being a harassment of pet owners, *then *you could make a case for handing out a Warning. But that’s not what happened. He was Warned for saying “I’ll start what I fucken well feel like starting, kay,” ostensibly for disobeyign a mod instruction. When it was made clear that there was no way to twist that definition into sticking, a scrabble was made to find a new one that you could try to cram his post into. But this one doesn’t really work, either.
Seriously, are we making new rules that everybody has to love pets and treat them like people? Or that nobody can ever disagree with any premise raised by an OP?
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate the moderators for the job they do and how much I respect their ability to stay cool with some of the stuff that gets thrown around.
Being a jerk is against the rules regardless of what words you use. I never said the critical issue was (sigh) “fucken.”
Disagreeing with the OP is not against the rules. On the other hand you tell the OP they are crazy three or four times, compare the activity under discussion to oral sex on animals, and make some derisive comments about child substitutes, then you’re into ‘being a jerk’ territory. I do like Gfactor’s defintion of threadshitting - “trolling by metadiscourse” - but I think you’re applying it very narrowly here. This might not meet the strictest definition of threadshitting, but “everyone who disagrees with me is crazy” is not that far from “this topic is stupid.” The only mitigating factor there is that craziness is part of the thread topic.
1.) How is it being a jerk to say that you won’t start a thread? Am I now required to start a thread any time I’m instructed to start a thread by anybody? (If so, Siam Siam deserves a warning here, because he didn’t start the Pit thread; **Cheshire Human **did.) What if I’m just done talking about whatever it is that bothered me in the first place?
2.) He never compared the activity under discussion to oral sex on animals. It was a humorous response to someone who said they were engaging in another activity to piss him off because he thought it was nuts. “If you’re doing X to piss me off because I think it’s crazy, I also think Y (more ridiculous activity) is crazy.” **prr **clearly doesn’t think that the people in the thread fellate their pets, nor is he ordering **Diana **to fellate hers. It’s a joke.
Side note: Thank you very much for your continued patience in hashing this out with me. While we obviously aren’t seeing eye-to-eye, I appreciate your dedication to actually doing your job, instead of just offhandedly dismissing any concerns with a “because I said so.”
“I’ll start what I fucken well feel like starting, kay?”
But the fact remains that using swear words is not and has never been against the rules: only personal insults are. I can fucking say fucking every other fucking word and it’s entirely with the board rules. *All ***prr **said was that he wasn’t going to start a new thread.