Moderator Warning
You’d think that someone who has been warned for personal insults in the past would know not to attack someone outside of the Pit.
This is an official warning for a personal attack / insults outside of the Pit.
If I remember, I will use them less.
Is “legit” Ok? or do we have to spell out legitimate? Alt for alternate?
Ah yes, I do have a hate for smoking. That I wont compromise on. The deaths of 500000 Americans, 50000 of which are non-smokers is something no one should be asked to compromise on. However, in a thread about TV shows, it is best not to dwell on it. A single mention should be all.
I will point out that in Idle Thoughts note, I wasnt specifically mentioned. But yeah, I see one of my posts would have been better as a side issue thread, as Heffalump_and_Roo suggested. Good idea there.
“Legit” is completely accepted. “Alt” is usually only used as a combining word: e.g. : “alt-right”.
Ok. I will work on that. I can’t promise more than that.
OK for Okay?
No, in a thread about a TV show no mention of your pet issue should be all.
Where’s the post saying when and why he was suspended?
Here, sorta, at the top. Basically i was suspended for almost a day.
Just one audience member here~I’ll like to offer that you’re doing the belaboring a thing to death thing re: alternate spelling and grammatical idiosyncrasies. You might want to practice good faith and not push your luck. Capiche?
Here, here!
And, fwiw, when the mods discussed this, your spelling and orthography were not mentioned, DrDeth. I mean, when someone informs you that something you are doing is annoying, it’s usually nice to try to stop doing that thing. But the reason you got a short suspension and mod instructions is due to belaboring points and being off-topic, not your orthography. If you really want to discuss that, I’d suggest starting a new topic.
I hadn’t even noticed that. Now it’s going to drive me nuts.
Of course, I should talk.
I didn’t think that rose to the level of a warning over a mod note, but fair enough. I’ll accept it.
I admit to belaboring points. I will try to improve.
But “contrast and compare” is a totally legitimate debate tactic in GD, has been so for decades, even Moderators use it. It is not "off topic". What_Exit was wrong there. A dozen or so posters made a thread in ATMB to explain it to him.
If you guys really want me to improve, then try to stick to real issues. Belaboring points is a real issue. Fine.
And it would help if sometimes the Mods would admit they are wrong, too. Do not circle the wagons all the time.
What the hell - of course they admit when they’re wrong. I’m surprised you haven’t seen it.
But your fussing about it in a thread about your misbehaviors isn’t a good look.
Except it’s not old stuff. He uses his father all the time, seeming to think since his dad was in WWII, he himself is a expert on all things WWII. And I don’t think any of the posts about his dad are used as making fun of his dad. They are parodies of DrDeth’s overstatements of his fathers service.
As for DrDeth there are different reasons people come to this board. Some like to chat, some for fun, some for the community, some to blow off a little steam, some to debate, and some who bring their personal peccadilloes into every thread they participate in, whether relevant or not, and just can’t let it go. You are the last type. You need to loosen up a bit and not make everything about your personal stuff.
Please listen to the mods, make a couple of adjustments. Who knows, maybe you can have some fun here.
I don’t want to risk derailing the thread on this point, but perhaps a word of clarification. On the face of it, it may seem silly to be annoyed by your refusal to use the article “an” in front of a word beginning with a vowel or a vowel sound. But that isn’t quite the point.
Others have done the same, usually as the result of a typo. But you do it persistently and consistently, along with other idiosyncratic orthography like “enuf”, and most recently, a prolonged argument about “rime” being a fully acceptable contemporary spelling of “rhyme”. It has become a deliberate affectation in your posts, and when others have criticized it, it seems to have only encouraged you to stick to it ever more stubbornly. Do you see a pattern here?
You said that you read the Pit thread about you. Even if you just skimmed it, you would have seen that this particular stubborn feature of your posting style was the cause of widespread, if relatively mild, annoyance. It seems a bit disingenuous to now be claiming complete surprise that it annoys people. It’s not about any one particular aspect of the way you write, it’s about how stubbornly you stick to it despite knowing that it’s a rather silly and annoying oddball affectation.
This not about anyone demanding any degree of formality in posting style. We have skilled and literate writers here who nevertheless like to use informal colloquialisms and slang, often to good effect. It makes their posts effective and often a pleasant read for just that reason. This is the essence of being “skilled”. It’s not at all the same when a usage is just juvenile and seems to be just a deliberate affectation for no reason other than intentional annoyance or to score some kind of point.
Maybe I’m reading too much into your intentions for doing this, but since I was the first to bring up my annoyance in that exhaustive Pit thread, I thought I would try to explain my reasoning.
^^ This.
^^ And this.
Are you referring to yourself in the third person?
Well, I was taken to task on FB from two of my friends. It appears
k" is really rude, and “ok” is kinda rude. That “kk” and Okay" are the correct non rude terms.
And I Googled it, and apparently they are Oll Korrect.
They did say that anyone "my age’ could be excused for using “OK” but never “k”.
So I was bending over backwards to make sure I did not piss anyone off. So, Okay, “OK” is Okay. Gotcha.
DrDeth makes a few points I generally agree with.
He claims he was suspended out of the blue. If it were me, I would prefer a note, warning, or PM before being suspended. Apparently the suspension was only 24 hours so the mods would have time to discuss the appropriate action. That’s not too bad, but I would definitely want a heads up (such as this topic, or a PM to the same effect) before being suspended for, say, a week or more. If it is reasonable to do a temporary topic- or category- ban instead of suspending me from the entire message board, that would be preferable.
If it were me I would prefer a mod note. If disagreements run deep you can’t flesh out the positions without getting nitty gritty. But going into the weeds makes it difficult to see the big picture, and focus will inevitably shift from the main topic to some tangent. Traditionally speaking, it’s the moderator’s job to cut off debators that get sidetracked - that way neither participant is seen as backing down. In traditional settings it is the host/moderator’s job as a neutral party to take the heat for stopping a perfectly good/interesting sub-debate, or removing it to another room. If you put the onus on the individual participant, that can have a chilling effect as deep-seated disagreements naturally invite further arguments.
Personally I don’t think a warning or suspension for hijacking is justified unless moderators are confident the member derails topics intentionally (trolling) or with reckless disregard for the conversation (which implies disrespect for the conversation, i.e. threadshitting).
That being said I see room for improvement on DrDeth’s part,
I think it is generally a jerk move to imply k9bfriender did not read the original post. One might as well allow accusations of threadshitting if this kind of post is acceptable. In my opinion this rude question lowered the quality of the discussion ever so slightly.
Here DrDeth insinuates that Czarcasm “wants to send gun owners to prison” and does not “actually care about the children who are dying”. This does not appear to be a rhetorical question, therefore I believe it is a jerk move that diminishes the quality of the discussion.
Same as above, in response to an unknown poster (the post being replied to seems to have been dissasociated when the topic was split in two). Directly insinuating lack of good faith or reasonable concern for children is, in my opinion, a jerk move.
Even if character attacks are a valid rhetorical strategy, they are unnecessary and unbecoming of a civil debate.
~Max