You’re interpreting “odd in this context” to mean “doesn’t like that you’re using it at all”? That’s… odd.
I’m not sure I agree with @What_Exit’s opinion that the use of BFF in that context was “odd,” I interpreted it to mean “unexpected, and therefore more confusing than it might otherwise have been.”
SHS is a bad example for this thread because her name was already fully spelled out in the OP in question. The reader already knows who SHS is by the time they encounter it.
As for FOIA, many terms like this become words of their own, where the user neither remembers nor cares what the individual letters stand for. In my case, many federal agencies/programs. Someone got mad about DOI once (printed on most academic papers); I’d have to look it up again but doing so is a waste of time.
When I see some weapon name I don’t understand in the Ukraine thread, sometimes (if I’m interested) I’ll look it up. And then I’ll post a link to the wiki article. Insisting that the earlier poster do so as a condition of posting is just going to discourage people from posting.
It’s ok for posts, even OPs, to not be fully accessible to everyone who encounters them. Was the OP in question perfect? By no means. Was it sufficient for anyone who reads a national newspaper to participate? Absolutely. And I would have expected anyone whose sole contribution was a rant about acronyms to have been modded for threadshitting.
I’m interpreting the continued insistence on its oddness, and the level of moderation invoked as a result, as meaning they don’t like it at all in that post.
I don’t disagree with an editorial opinion that the post would have read more strongly and clearly with one or two fewer initialisms, especially clustered so closely together. And that is with the understanding that BFF was used for a purpose. It’s the sort of thing we are cautioned against even for progress notes in med school, and we ain’t the best writers.
But a fairly snarky mod note to communicate editorial opinion on a message board? Setting up a guidance against that style? Not appropriate IMHO.
WE is an incredibly ‘casual’ mod in terms of how he interacts when he has his mod hat on. He’s also incredibly transparent in terms of his willingness to describe the thought process behind his notes, and he’s generally willing to be convinced that he’s wrong.
Unfortunately, some people interpret his casual tone as a sign that he’s not objective enough, and his willingness to engage with complaints as a license to kick dead horses.
It should be noted that he apologized to the OP of that thread several days ago for his tone, and the OP graciously accepted the apology and indicated that they had no problem with the moderation in the first place.
So the horse kicking feels mostly personal at this point.
I disagree. Of course I can only speak for myself, but I think WE is an excellent mod who is doing a lot to make this community a better place. There’s absolutely nothing personal about calling out a mod note that some of us believe was very unreasonable, for all the reasons already given. This is the sort of constructive interaction that ATMB is supposed to be about (if I may be forgiven the use of the initialism! 
)
And allow me to also give a note of appreciation for the efforts made by WE? to make this board a functional place.
Still the apology for the tone persisted in including this:
Which some here agree with and some do not.
That disagreement and discussion regarding it is NOT necroequinoflagalia (NEF) That is WE? having a particular preference of style and an editorial opinion regarding best writing practices.
I am not beating up the respected and appreciated moderator to suggest that such is not a moderator’s role, whatever my agreement or disagreement with the best words choices. There is nothing personal about that opinion. Mods are not editors.
My suggestion is he wear it less often. If he had interacted with the OP as just another poster, slightly befuddled by the array of acronyms, he would have gotten his apology AND would have planted the notion for the rest of us that a spate of acronyms can be confusing. Instead he burst in, both guns blazing, threatening to shut down the entire thread if his demands were not immediately obeyed, resulting in this days-long clusterfuck of a thread. As I hope he’s learned, many of us (including me) hadn’t even noticed the abundance of acronyms, and others figured them out easily from context, while a few had some problems with one or two. A little politeness and a smidge of humility from the Mods is always appreciated.
WE? is a great mod.
That doesn’t make this particular stance great.
And the issue isn’t that particular thread, but the indication that this is how it’s going to be for all their fora.
That’s what this “clusterfuck” is about - objecting to moderation based on faulty premises like MSM being obscure and BFF being odd in context.
No, the Moderation was about the heavy use of acronyms in a single post, some of which were no understandable at first reading. TPM?
Dont try to change what the Moderation was about to suit your debating goals.
Perfectly appropriate. Since when is 'snarky" against the rules? Hell- snark is one of the keynotes of the SDMB.
Remember, this was a NOTE, not a warning.
Are you trying to tell me I don’t know what my own thread is about?
It was about more than that one thread:
I’ve quoted what the moderation was about.
It was also an announcement of a future standard for moderation. This isn’t about just that one thread.
Yes, when your own thread is demonstrably wrong. You are giving What Exit a hard time over a well done mod note, the main point of which “too many acronyms in a single post”. You are changing WHY What Exit made the Note into arguing about each acronym.
No, it was not.
The note said-
"When come back, bring less acronyms.
TPM=apparently Talking Point Menu site.
SHS = Sarah Huckabee Sanders from context
FOIA = Freedom of Information Act after Googling and context.
BFF= I assume Best Friends Forever? Odd in this context.
GOP= pretty common.
MSM=???
So please translate or I will close this thread. Avoid this many obscure acronyms in the future."
Don’t try to change The Mods injunction to a single poster to new rule or guideline.
TPM was the only thing that confused me on first reading.
Now, I attribute that to the fact that the Talking Points Memo link didn’t resolve into a preview. If it did, that would undoubtedly have drawn more attention to the name of the publication being cited, and would have made the context much clearer. The name mashed together in all lower-case letters as talkingpointsmemo in the middle of a link hardly stands out.
Shoeless should have realized that the lack of preview would have made that abbreviation unclear. Talking Points Memo isn’t a particularly well-known publication on the level of, say, NYT or WSJ. (I am hoping that I don’t have to explain what either of those is, as they are among the most well-known news purveyors in the US.) To me, as a reader, that’s the only part of the post that I personally didn’t understand.
Well, those are certainly … words.
No. I’m pointing out that WE?'s own stated reasons don’t hold up to scrutiny.
I meant the second note, that I quoted in my previous post. I consider the two to be part of the same moderation action.
IS it the role of the moderator to note for style preference, in this case to enforce some SD style book guidance regarding avoiding “too many” acronyms in an OP?
I am arguing that it is not, at least not unless extremely egregious (e.g. a wall of text all caps or none and no periods either).
My personal feeling is that it should only be moderated when it leads to a thread being hijacked into a discussion about the acronyms rather than the discussion topic.
In this case, WE?s modnote was the first reply to the OP. So no other hijack had happened yet, and probably wasn’t going to.
Hear, hear!
It was a command to take an unnecessary action not backed by a rule or have the thread closed.
There was nothing confusing about TPM because the URL was posted immediately after its use. It’s not like people’s brains come to a screeching halt the instant they see a few unfamiliar letters. Likewise, hardly anyone would be confused by:
Joe reporter at EPT reports stuff.
elpasotimes.com/fakeURL
Could it be clearer? Sure. Should a mod demand an explanation to keep the thread open? Absolutely not.
Get over the idea that a Nore has to be backed by a specific rule, other than dont be a jerk.