I may be too quick to react when witnessing lack of fairness, but a strong sense of justice has been acknowledged to be associated with reason rather than emotion (source).
I have no problem with the mod snark. It’s like when an oncoming cop clocks someone at 10 over the limit, does a for you and me illegal u-turn, and drives 15 or 20 over the limit to catch up with the speeder. That’s the way she goes.
Scuti, it’s not the quickness, but the extremity. This is not the wild west, there is no justice to be served. It was a mod decision, and the mods and admins will handle it.
Whether the users of this board receive this treatment occasionally or on a regular basis is irrelevant. Name calling is a form of verbal abuse.
Calling people stupid is not the same as calling them ‘trolls’ or ‘jerks’ because the latter situation implies breaking certain board rules whereas the former is mere name calling. There may be situations where moderators are entitled to believe some user manifests ignorance; in that case they should civilly (and firmly if necessary) educate him or her. But if moderators resort to name calling, the lesson learned is none other than “people in power always get away with abuse” and/or “abuse of power is not a crime.”
Since extreme behavior is antisocial I don’t think there is anything extreme in my post. I have simply made use of a metaphor to suggest that a moderator’s actions should follow the rules everybody is required to observe. It is my conviction that even if a moderator’s abuse of power is condoned by board users, his or her actions are still wrong, and if my statement is considered extreme and antisocial I must accept the fact what we have radically different opinions on right and wrong.
I never said it was anti-social, but the comparison to the wild west, whether you’ll admit it or not, was extreme and over the top.
Maybe that’s the lesson you learned, but not me.
All right, now I understand. I agree my metaphor was an exaggeration; the overstatement was meant to lay stress on what I perceived as a wrong state of affairs. Since this over-emphasis can indeed be regarded as offensive, I want to point out that my intention was not to insult anyone. I wanted to express my disapproval to a moderator’s name calling and to urge board users not to make allowances for such abuse of power.
Although I speak in good faith, I know I may be wrong. I am willing to learn.
As illustrated in the very first reply, that’s like closing the barn door after all the animals have escaped.
I am not in the mood to talk about cowboys and the like anymore.
Let’s discuss name calling.
There never was any name calling. There is nothing to discuss.
Come on. Smid is making a comical reference to “how stupid” Cusacks’s character in Serendipity is said to be. He even mentions geocities. Surely that confirms it isn’t a serious conversation. It is hard to imagine anyone taking offence if it happened in real life. I don’t think it required any modding at all.
However, in exactly the same manner that Smid saw what was posted as a setup, Chronos sees an obvious punchline present itself because of Smid’s choice of words and the urge to post it can’t be resisted. And in doing so Chronos commits the same error. And again, who cares? It doesn’t require modding either. As if such a thing were possible.
The problem there is that Chronos and Smid performed the same action. Both used a rhetorical question to ask who was stupid, clearly implying it is the person they were replying to.
So, if Chronos didn’t cross the line, neither did Smid and his Warning should be rescinded.
If, in fact, there “wasn’t any name calling,” there very much is something to discuss.
And that’s exactly where you logic fails. Since they are against the rules, being able to call someone a jerk or troll is necessary. However, being stupid is not against the rules, and thus is not necessary.
I’ve not been here quite as long as you, but I have been here 11 years. I cannot recall a single other incident where a mod called another poster stupid. I thus will take advantage of a Doper tradition, and ask the following
Cite?
That’s a fair question. I can’t answer it. It’s is my memory as a thing, but I can’t give a specific year or a mod who did so. You’re free to discount it if you wish.
Yeah, I know. That’s a terrible answer because we now can’t get into a 45-post slap fight over it. What a disappointment to all the lurkers.
I believe today you’re supposed to say “learning disabled” is as “learning disabled” does. 
I agree bad form. Smid’s reply was a play on words that were already expressed. Who would take that as a jab or an insult? It’s hardly a heat seeking missile of nasty word play and the mod’s reply was an unneccessary escalation. Rise above the fracas don’t join it, Chronos Be Best!
Chronos spotted an opportunity for a clever wisecrack and took it. I thought it was great.
How about, in a spirit of reconciliation, mentioning one’s cousin is a preacher and offering his services in presiding over the marriage of a poster’s parents?