Post # 21: Jonathan Chance
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
The Moderator Clears His Throat
*DrDeth, two things.
Bringing Bricker into this is not best practices. This is a mod note to not do anything similar in the future.
We are NOT going to see you go around and around again about the definition of impeachment. Doing so in the future - in any thread not specifically about the definition of the word - may earn you warnings. Stop it.*"
What does " not do anything similar in the future" mean? Can I say, “this is the sort of legal question Bricker excels at”? Can I mention other poster’s names? What exactly is the issue here? Does this mean other posters cant mention Brickers name? is it just Bricker or is it all posters? If they mention my name in a thread, do I report it? Whose name can be mentioned? Whose name can not? Bricker has indeed weighed in on this issue with a fairly well known public opinion. In fact he publicly made a bet about it. Did he complain about this? I count a good number of threads where Brickers name was brought up on this topic, and not a hint of Mod action.
Ok, this is thread #2, and in both cases, the threads were about impeachment. Why am I now told I cant ask about this? Two whole threads? It is a issue which comes up. It will keep coming up. Do we now have a new rule? bring up a issue twice and that’s it?
Thank you for so helpfully telling us that this was Post #21. Without that piece of information, we’d have no hope of knowing what thread you’re talking about. Now, though, we can simply check every thread on the Board with 21 or more replies.
It only comes up because you bring it up. And it will only keep coming up if you keep bringing it up. Everybody else understands what is meant by impeachment.
As to the first point - If someone hasn’t participated in the thread to that point, mentioning another poster is by itself okay - it’s only the act of taking a shot at that non-participant that would be not okay. Granted, the restriction against personal insults is always in play outside of the Pit, however I would judge more critically if the shot was at a non-participant. So what may be borderline in a back and forth exchange, bringing up another poster sans their prior participation will be examined more critically. I saw your comment about Bricker to be neutral at best.
As to the second point - It’s strange you continue to bring up your non-standard definition of the word impeachment. I see this as a reminder to not bring up unrelated tangents in threads not about the actual definition. That thread did involve discussion of impeachment, though not at the level of minutiae you introduced, thus the reminder.
Indeed. And you have a habit of getting too involved in minutiae and I thought it best to not see this pop up again and again and again.
Also, why bother to PM me if less than 10 minutes later you open an ATMB thread? Did you want a private answer or a public disagreement? I’m OK either way, the duplication seems odd, though.
What the fuck? Since when do mods have the authority to tell a Doper they can’t get “too involved in minutiae”? If he wants to continue pointing out the definition of impeachment that everyone actually uses as a defense against those who want to be pedantic about it, why can’t he?
Literally everyone on this board does it. Stop playing favorites. I already caught you Warning me for something you only gave a Note to someone else over, after you twisted a rule so you could punish me.
If you hate this board and its rules so much, resign.
As a general matter, mods have the authority and often exercise it to direct traffic keeping threads on topic. There is no directive to avoid getting too involved in minutiae, the comment was much more specific in the Note.
This thread isn’t about any particular issue you have with the moderation. If you’d like to discuss that topic feel free to open a separate thread.
Basically, we have the authority to do anything we feel is beneficial to the functioning of the board. When you agreed to the Registration Agreement, you agreed to that.
It seems to me that in the case in hand, the instruction was intended to prevent the thread from being hijacked into ground that had been very well trodden already.
No they don’t.
As Bone said, dragging in some unrelated beef you have is not really relevant to this thread. Stick to the specific issue at hand.
I do not think it does the Board or its moderators much good to assert the idea that moderators can do whatever they want in moderating the Board. That way lies an unhappy chaos. One of the most basic feelings people have is a desire for fairness in the application of rules, etc. As a teacher in high school, I daily had to “moderate” my classroom with an eye towards this tendency in people.
The assertion by Jonathan Chance here that “you have a habit of getting too involved in minutiae” was probably not a well-thought-out statement. I presume that what the moderator is trying to communicate is that people are getting annoyed with the fact that he’s making this same argument that some view as specious in multiple threads where the argument is not germane to the thread. But responding to BigT’s objection to the statement by asserting, in essence, “We can do whatever we damn please, as you should know” is not particularly helpful, in my opinion. I certainly don’t recommend you try to run a classroom with that sort of comment.
