Which thread are you reading? He’s avoided several of the primary reasons for this thread’s existence…repeatedly. He selectively ignores users like he enforces rules.
I do agree that the subsequent enforcement of the mod instruction was confusing. After instructing people not to debate the topic of avatars, he warned you for responding to elfkin477’s (pre-mod note) comment calling an earlier post misleading, elbows’ plea for people who like avatars to stop posting about it, and Jonathan Chance and rachelellogram for stating their opinion of avatars (one pro, one against).
While your and elbows’ posts could be arguably construed as “debating” since you were addressing other posters (although I think it’s a stretch, and not at all deserving of a warning), the last two are just bizarre. Both simply voted in a poll and then posted about why they voted the way they did. I don’t think many reasonable people would read the mod note and conclude they were not allowed to even explain their opinions on the topic.
But my larger concern is with the decision to issue the mod note. I’m willing to cut the mods slack on suboptimal enforcement – we all have our days where we misread tone or make some questionable calls, although it would be nice to own up to it and reverse the questionable actions after the fact. I’m much more concerned with what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of one of the SDMB’s main forums and his role as mod thereof.
edit: nevermind, didn’t realize how far the thread had gotten since I opened it.
So, I’m sorry, I guess I’m confused.
Czarcasm was annoyed that people were beginning to argue with each other in the thread when they could be arguing in the ATMB thread.
People in this thread are stating that of course it’s an IMHO poll, and it’s not unusual to vote in the poll then add a post explaining the vote without reading the full thread, so of course they couldn’t have seen the mod note.
But, and this is where I’m getting confused, if you’re arguing with people, the thing the mod doesn’t want you to do, wouldn’t that necessitate reading the whole thread? You know, to see the other opinions you’re arguing against?
Warnings for posts that were just explaining their opinions were probably unnecessary, although I can understand it if they were taking the opportunity to rehash their talking points from the ATMB debate thread.
Yes, there’s that. But also the numerous people who have posted after the fourth warning with remarks not unlike the others who have not been moderated in any way. Hence my “selective and inconsistent enforcement” complaint.
Evidently the rules today was different from yesterday. Which, again, is fine as long as the warnings yesterday are rescinded.
And predicably, Czarcasm still hasn’t attempted to explain this discrepancy.
In my case, it was indeed a mere explanation and not a reiteration of previous points (not that I think that should be a factor, but just clarifying in a matter like I did in that thread.)
Great!
But to make sure I understand, I can post any IMHO-appropriate poll, with whatever boundary conditions I want in the OP regarding discussion and you’ll enforce them from now on? Because the “didn’t read the mod-note” thing is a distant second to my interest in the new rule that the OP has absolute control over the thread thing and the “no discussion in IMHO threads” rule.
Everything Giraffe has said is right on the money, imo.
Three of the Warnings were for posts that contained no quotes, just an explanation for the person’s vote. The other one was for a poster clarifying her (?) original statement.
His 
Dude!
For those playing along at home, these are the posts that received Warnings:
Johnathan Chance got a warning?? He’s one of the most mild mannered and well-behaved people around.
Yeah, Czar’s got one helluva windmill.
Yup. We’re talking unprecedented levels of ineptitude. And what really saddens me is that, not only does he not see it, nor does anyone apparently care who works here.
I’m sure it’s being discussed in the Mod loop. You can’t expect an instant turnaround, especially in the middle of a workday.
It shouldn’t require much more than an instant turnaround considering how asinine the entire thing it. They could at least provide an update along the lines of “we’re discussing this” if they actually are.
Despite this, I was be extremely surprised if we hear anything more about this.
That’s how I’d want to handle it, too, but off-the-cuff decision making is what started this whole thing. Have some patience, let cooler heads prevail.
That actually is a very good point.
I’ll bet there’s some wagon circling going on right now!! Lots and lots of wagons! Being circled!!
There was a more basic flaw in this entire situation that I’ve tried to point out a couple of times in other threads (including the one in question here but fortunately before any mod notes were issued). A poll shouldn’t have been presented as a means of deciding whether or not a group of users could have access to a feature of the board when it wouldn’t have any impact on other users not interested in using it.
Putting the question in a poll keeps making it appear that everyone on the board has something at stake in the request, and invites them to make their opinions known even if it is stipulated that only “yes” or “no” is requested.
I realize it was a user-created poll but IMHO a mod or admin should have weighed in on this issue early in the ATMB thread or the Poll thread to say “by the way a poll is here for informational purposes only, we would like know if anyone voting “no” has a genuine reason they believe their board experience might be changed by this so please post in ATMB, but we aren’t basing any decisions about board changes on the outcome of a poll.” But instead it was left as is as the only option being presented to those in favor of avatars to demonstrate their desire for the feature, with a mod even getting involved to help keep the ground rules established. Pro avatar people were put in a position of having to defend their reasons to a group of uninvolved bystanders, and those in opposition to the idea were invited to speak up about it despite having no actual stake in the question.
In this manner, and again IMHO, the poll was bound to turn into a brew-ha-ha despite the OP’s and mod’s efforts to prevent that.
It was about an equal number of warnings to voters on both sides of the issue. I don’t think it was influenced by Czarcasm’s personal stance on the avatar issue. I think **Rachelellogram **definitely got a surprise warning for basically just showing up at the wrong place at the wrong time and not reading enough to realize the existing notes about commenting in this particular poll and the others are still arguably a little harsh under the circumstances.
The last time “cooler heads prevailed” in a mod-poster dispute where the mod randomly started pulling rules out of their asses, Ed came crashing in and set up all the silly “C*ntgate” rules. So…not entirely optimistic here.