This post, which is clearly a personal insult, was reported. You had to have seen it, because you took other mod action in the same thread.
You replied privately, but I’d prefer to have this discussion out in the open. There is precedent on this board that the mere presence of a smiley face does not negate a personal insult. The post was clearly intended to insult me. Failure to enforce the rules when you moderated other things in the thread is selective enforcement, and unfair.
Happy Wednesday, everybody!
that is a joke, not a personal insult. Unless you have considerable interaction with that poster that means you know otherwise.
It would be a good idea to clear up whether the insult rules apply. It’s certainly insulting, but other indirect insults are allowed, making the whole concept pointless, so it’s not clear if this covered or not.
I will tell you out here in the open again what I said in my email to you:
I saw your report for an insult. Both times. I do not consider this an insult; it is a joke based upon your insistence in the thread of the high moral standards of lawyers. I am sure it is not news to you that attorneys are likened to sharks, bottom-dwellers, ambulance chasers, etc. It was a joke. You saw the smiley face.
As for this:
The items I moderated and your report of a purported insult are not equal behaviors. You (and others) were overwhelming the thread by fixating on the suggestion that the suit was solely the result of money-grubbing lawyers. That was derailing the thread, and so I moderated the thread to try and get it back on track.
I believe that I was being very fair: moderating where there was a problem and not moderating where there was none.
I think Ellen Cherry handled that thread perfectly and shouldn’t have done anything differently.
There was a time when “no personal insults” was pretty straightforward: don’t call other posters idiots or assfaces or dickbags outside of the Pit. A subset of posters seems to want it to be reinterpreted to mean “don’t say anything that another poster might find insulting” which I think is an absolutely terrible direction for the board to take, requiring everyone to cater to the most thin-skinned or else risk punishment.
How about if you get offended by something someone says in a thread, instead of running to the mods, you take it up with them in the Pit? That’s kind of what the forum is for. If you’re feeling especially saucy, you can tell them to hush up. 
I believe that you are correct.
Geez, guys, take it easy on him. Some people browse the Dope from work which can be a sensitive situation. Oakminster was so upset by all the mean things people were saying about lawyers that he nearly crashed into the back of an ambulance.
Oakminster, “you lighten the fuck up”
Seriously, that was a damn funny video and hardly something to take personally.
I’d just like to clarify this point:
There is no rule against insulting another Doper by associating him with a jackass by means of a link and a smiley face.
Is that correct?
No, I would not say that is correct, TriPolar. It all depends on the link in question and the context. We don’t make rules that way.
I had to look it up. The guy in the video is a real lawyer. No, really.
As long as some insults are allowed (outside of the Pit) and others are not you’ll continue to face these kind of questions. The post in question was clearly an insult, and I believe would have been interpreted as such if put into words instead of being posted as a link to a video. It’s also funny, and in my book that justifies almost anything. But the current situation leaves us without knowing where the line is drawn. IMHO, if you don’t want personal insults in discussions, all of them should be disallowed.
Disagree. This crybaby thread introduced me to that incredibly asinine lawyer video which got a huge giggle out of me.
It doesn’t work like that. No matter what line we draw the line we are still going to get “questions like this.” We’re not going to rule out all joke insults just because some people may be exceptionally thin-skinned. Context is important. It appeared to me that the link was intended more as a satire on Oakminster’s presumption that all lawyers act ethically than a personal insult directed at him. I agree that Ellen acted correctly (and that Oakminster needs to lighten up).
Had it been a generic comment about lawyers in general, you’d be right. That is not what it was. The comment directly associated me with the video. That turns it from a generic lawyer joke to a personal insult.
How many times as it been stated in this forum that when one is insulted, you report the post rather than responding directly? That’s what I did, with no result. I have no doubt if the situation had been reversed, and I had linked another poster to a clearly offensive video, you’d be all over that.
I don’t disagree with your conclusions in this particular case. I was speaking generally about the rules regarding insults. Perhaps others do not feel as constrained by these rules as I do.
And yes, no matter what you do, these questions will continue, after all this is the Dope. But you knew the job was dangerous when you took it. All of the mods have my sympathy, except when they are modding me (and most of the time even in that case).
So basically, anybody is free to insult me at will and the mods will do nothing.
Have you considered contacting a lawyer over this?
Here’s one: lawyer
I agree with your disagreement on the same grounds.