Clarification from Colibri requested

In this GQ thread I received warnings for snark, and for not providing a sufficient level of detail to back up my assertions.

I don’t really care about the snark part so much, I will take it under advisement, although I do wonder why the only other active poster who is also engaging in snark imho, was not warned.

More importantly, given the only active poster, at the top of the thread, specifically asked me for:

Why is Colibri instructing:

When no one in the thread (the op is long gone, there is only one person besides me and lately Colibri) has claimed my instructions as described are in any way wrong or mere assertions?

In fact the other person has generally agreed with all of the suppositions, logic, and reasoning I give, and then ascribed some sort of other reason that I can’t fathom that s/he does not understand, and has begun demanding more detail despite the earlier request to keep it high-level.

What I don’t get is why a moderator is officially jumping in and literally moving the goalposts a poster placed initially and is trying to move him or herself? Why is a moderator providing support for the moving of the goalposts?

I don’t mind if the poster in question asks me for more detail, I can provide it or demur, but to demand it and then get support from a mod that my continued participation in the thread is dependent on the moved goalposts, when the OP has already been answered?

That is new to me, and I would appreciate colibri’s explanation as to why a mod would do that, or better yet, why a mod DID do that in this case.

Sweet Jesus.

From seeing that thread for the first time because of your link, I think you got a warning under the “Dont be a jerk” rule.

IMO, you were being that big of a jerk he should have warned you twice.

There were two warnings.

So neither of the posters wants to address the question here? such as what in my series of posts was not factual? I am more curious what Colibri found as such rather than debating if there was snark in the thread or not.

Its seems clear to me that Colibri was referring to your assertion that the thread was an exam or homework question. You have no evidence of that, so if you wished to continue in the thread, prove it or stop saying it.

That’s a possibility I hadn’t considered, thanks! Maybe. My guess is that is not what Colibri meant, but I will keep an open mind.

Perhaps Colibri will answer and clarify.

Perhaps you should do the same. The OP was satisfied in post #4 with the answer, “yes, but unlikely”. You keep coming back 2 days later, even after you said you would stop. Sometimes it is best just to move on with your life.

This is only tangentially related to the question in the OP, but I have some advice for Internet forum participation, which is to only get huffy and announce, “I’m done with this thread!” if you actually have the moral fortitude and stamina to stay out of the thread afterward. Which, in my experience, is rarely. Making a big “I’m out of here” pronouncement and then continuing to make long multi-paragraph posts for days afterward, just looks silly.

Probably Colibri is Christmas shopping or something.

I am not rushing colibri, I know it is a weekend.

I actually did unsubscribe for a bit, but my email notificatoin of a message crossed. By the time that happened, others had re-entered the thread.

yeah it looks bad, but it is not my habit to unsubscribe, let alone say that a thread is going nowhere. Clearly that conditional circumstance had changed wit the addition of new people in the thread.

Still, no one in this thread or that one has yet to offer a shred of evidence that anything I said was wrong, and now there are others who seem knowledgeable backing me up.

If someone can suggest why I am obligated to repeat myself to mittu requests for details over and over again, when she specifically drew me in in the first place by saying details were not needed, and also when board rules prohibit describing how to commit an illegal act in detail, I’d be obliged.

In the meantime, it’s not my fault that iphones and other devices are vectors for trouble on a wifi network. Don’t shoot the messenger :slight_smile:

I totally agree with you in terms of the factual stuff (except the 14 year old crack), but my take on reading the thread, and warnings, was that you were being slapped for the way you were saying it, rather than the info you were saying. You seemed to be getting angry over the issue, and letting the heat show a bit too much. My opinion was that you at least crossed the line into “mod note” territory. “Mod warning” territory, however, I’m not so sure about. But then, I’m not a mod. I don’t have to decide where to draw that line.

You were not warned for “not providing a sufficient level of detail to back up your assertions.” The first warning was for personal insults; the second was for not following my instructions in continuing to make snarky remarks about other posters after I told you to desist.

After consideration, I should not have restricted the instruction to back up assertions with facts to just you. I should have made that a general reminder of General Questions standards to all participants in the thread.

I was out on the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Count yesterday, so I haven’t had a chance to deal with this until now.

Did you see three french hens?

What precisely are you suggesting that I posted that is not sufficiently factual?

Or are you suggesting I need to write a textbook on basic network security to answer the OP? Do we demand the same when others answer questions in their professional expertise?

If I post a questoin to the same forum asking “what makes my car go, theory, not details”, are you going to instruct whoever answers if I keep parroting “but, but, but…” as mittu did in this thread? If not, then what is the difference here?

And since mittu specifically asked for a broad approach, not details, and my understanding of board rules are that describing in detail how to commit an illegal act are grounds for instant banning, how do you suggest I should have navigated these waters?

Colibri, now you are warning me for a third time, for snark that doesn’t exist. Your snark detector is really fucked up recently dude. Are you sure it didn’t get hacked?

Perception is in the eye of the beholder. If the moderator says that what you wrote came across as snarky, then what you wrote came across as snarky. Whether you intended such is irrelevant. Our words are not always perceived as we intended them; that’s part of the human condition in general, and for sure is part of the internet (lacking tone, body language, etc.) Accept it.

I’m not going to get into the details of the debate. I will merely note that both sides were throwing around accusations that the other was making unsupported assertions. A reminder to stick to facts was appropriate.

Being snarky when telling me you weren’t being snarky in the other thread isn’t exactly convincing.

And yet you decided to mention it only to me. Hmm. Rewrite history much?

Your snark detector is messed up. I hope you get a new one for Christmas.

I acknowledged in this thread that I should have made it a general note.

Your remark above wasn’t intended to be snarky? You believe that to be a polite response?

Since not_alice has been suspended, I’m closing this thread. If anyone else has questions about policy, they can open another thread.