# Explain please. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 17, 2017, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875 "2017-05-17T22:22:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/41 "2017-05-18T17:48:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So then > \*\*Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread. > \*\* > > This\* is\* a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB. > > This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult. > > Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule. Like “Bone’s Rule” above, I will propose another rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, they often try to generalize it and claim that every instance of doing anything remotely similar must now be against the rules, and that hence the mods are “making up new rules.”🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/42 "2017-05-18T17:59:36Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Like “Bone’s Rule” above, I will propose another rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, they often try to generalize it and claim that every instance of doing anything remotely similar must now be against the rules, and that hence the mods are “making up new rules.”🙂 Because that is generally how it’s been. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/43 "2017-05-18T18:03:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So then > \*\*Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread. > \*\* > > This\* is\* a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB. > > This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult. > > Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule. Ahh, _“Bone’s ‘so I’m wrong’ rule”_ strikes again. Is there something about this statement that is not clear? 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. This is not a new rule. > [@DrDeth](#): > > then this needs to be put somewhere. Like, [here?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=818217): > [@](#): > > Harassing other posters - Bringing up a poster’s history in unrelated threads for the purpose of harassing them is not allowed. Following a poster from thread to thread to mock them about older, off-topic posts could be considered harassment and is potentially sanctionable. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Was then, my usage: “When it appears it’s being used to stalk, or to jab at someone not participating, or to bait someone…”??😕 I try to interpret generously when moderating. I’m not really interested in what the actual purpose was of bringing up Bricker in a thread that he hadn’t participated in, but if I had to draw a conclusion it may be that the purpose was to bait or take a shot at someone. It may not have been your intention, but then it makes me question what was the intention? Rather than try to suss out motivations, a direction to avoid bringing up non-participants in a way that can be interpreted as a shot at them seems appropriate, hence the note. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/44 "2017-05-18T18:04:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > then this needs to be put somewhere. It was put in the thread where you got a mod note. It was clear as day to me what was meant by that note. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about it. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/45 "2017-05-18T18:04:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So then > \*\*Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread. > \*\* > > This\* is\* a new rule because this has been done thousands of times since the start of the SDMB. > > This is really the issue. It wasnt a insult , it wasnt modded as a insult I am sure Bricker wouldnt consider it an insult. > > Thus, Jonathan has made up a brand new rule. Regardless of whether or not it’s true, have you ever considered why it might be that the mods have to make up new rules for you? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/46 "2017-05-18T18:08:49Z")
Ah, again, as usual, the moderators circle the wagons at the least indication of criticism. I’ve been dealing with this place since the AOL days, and that trend has only gotten worse and worse. First, the portion of the Registration Agreement that **Colibri** quoted: “Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever.” Admittedly, written with somewhat of the tongue-in-cheek sassiness for which Uncle Cece was known, it nevertheless asserts that moderators can exclude a poster (or presumably do anything else to moderate the boards) without even having to have a good reason. Think on that. Then from **Colibri** : “Basically, we have the authority to do anything we feel is beneficial to the functioning of the board.” Now, the Reg Agrmt says you can do anything with or without valid reason. Here, the only added qualifier is that you will be doing anything you want as long as you think it’s “beneficial” to how the board operates. “Beneficial” of course, in the minds of the moderator(s) in question. So let’s take a hypothetical, and I’ll raise one from this thread itself which is apposite: Suppose someone complains about **kayaker** having for the umpteenth time raised objection to the use of “literally” to as an intensifier, ignoring the true meaning of the word. The usual fight breaks out (as indeed happened here in slapstick fashion). The moderator who gets the complaint looks around, finds five posts where **kayaker** has raised this issue and proceeds to warn **kayaker** that “the next time you use the word ‘literally’ in a post we will ban you.” Now mind you, according to the registration agreement, this would be a perfectly valid action. The moderator doesn’t even have to explain why (see the Reg Agreement excerpt posted by **Colibri** ). But I would hope that you can see that this action, absent some explanation is not likely to appease the hoi polloi. So which do you think is a better explanation: a) “We can do what we want; see: Reg Agreement”, or b) “we’ve seen too many threads derailed with these complaints, and after considerable discussion among us, we’ve decided to put an end to these spurious attempts to “correct” the usage of words among posters. We’re sorry if that’s a bit heavy-handed seeming, but, really, it’s gotten out of control.” Which, as it turns out, is what eventually happened in response to my comment. Thus, from **IvoryTowerDenizen** : “If multiple threads are being hijacked to continue to debate definitions of a term, and the hijacks are getting in the way of good discussion and debate, then the mods have the authority to rein it in.” And immediately thereafter from **Jonathan Chance** : "Indeed. We have received multiple reports about the whole ‘definition of impeachment’ thing appearing in multiple threads. I acted to prevent another thread disruption and to prevent future such disruptions." Might I simply opine that saying that in the first place, rather than just shutting **BigT** down with a _We can do what we want, as you agreed when you signed up here_ is a better way of handling things. As I said in my post. Which was, contrary to assertions thereafter, quite accurate as to what **Colibri** said, certainly in essence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/47 "2017-05-18T18:08:57Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Regardless of whether or not it’s true, have you ever considered why it might be that the mods have to make up new rules for you? I annoy the hell out of Jonathan, no doubt. Oh well. However, my issue with him making up new rules is not by any means limited to just me. This has been a constant complaint here in ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/48 "2017-05-18T18:09:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because that is generally how it’s been. Of course this is not at all true. The last significant rule change I can find was made in December 2014. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/49 "2017-05-18T18:14:48Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Ah, again, as usual, the moderators circle the wagons at the least indication of criticism. Colibri’s second rule: In any ATMB thread in which more than two mods post, we will be accused of “circling the wagons.”🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/50 "2017-05-18T18:18:13Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Might I simply opine that saying that in the first place, rather than just shutting **BigT** down with a _We can do what we want, as you agreed when you signed up here_ is a better way of handling things. As I said in my post. Which was, contrary to assertions thereafter, quite accurate as to what **Colibri** said, certainly in essence. I think you need to delineate the answers to two separate questions. The first question, paraphrased, is why was a moderation action taken. The second question is, what gives moderators the authority to take such action. Reference to the registration agreement is an answer to the second question, not the first. Your post seems to blur that distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/51 "2017-05-18T18:18:55Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Colibri’s second rule: In any ATMB thread in which more than two mods post, we will be accused of “circling the wagons.”🙂 Only one new rule is allowed per thread. Since I was first, you’ll have to wait for another thread 😛 (see the irony here?) [this is also a joke] ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/52 "2017-05-18T18:20:46Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Of course this is not at all true. > > The last significant rule change I can find was made in December 2014. So, you guys dont enforce unwritten rules? :dubious: This thread here seems to be a example. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/53 "2017-05-18T18:22:29Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Like “Bone’s Rule” above, I will propose another rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, they often try to generalize it and claim that every instance of doing anything remotely similar must now be against the rules, and that hence the mods are “making up new rules.”🙂 And the corollary to that rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, and the poster points out instances where other posters did the same thing, the mods will deny that there is any similarity. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/54 "2017-05-18T18:29:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Only one new rule is allowed per thread. Since I was first, you’ll have to wait for another thread 😛 (see the irony here?) [this is also a joke] You got a chuckle out of me, so yes. I appreciate the levity. My locked thread was a attempt at levity also, which clearly Jonathan did not appreciate. True, humor doesnt come over well in this format. Look, in general you guys do a good job. But once in a while a Mod (JC does this most often, but he’s not alone) does indeed do \* what appears to be\* “making a new rule”. When we question it, there is indeed 'circling the wagons". Doubtless this is due to you Mods keeping your disagreement to the “mod loop” (which one time was forwarded to me, and it opened my eyes quite a bit) and presenting a united front here in public. Altho it seems clear to me that Bone, you were not 100% happy with JCs new note. Still, you are not willing to come out in public and disagree. But I cant fault you for that.\* That just isnt done. \* However it is very very rare that the staff here will ever say “we were wrong”. It does happen, yes. But it is rare. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/55 "2017-05-18T18:30:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And the corollary to that rule: When a poster is modded for a specific instance of doing something, and the poster points out instances where other posters did the same thing, the mods will deny that there is any similarity. Good point. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/56 "2017-05-18T18:38:29Z")
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20216772&posted=1#post20216772](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20216772&posted=1#post20216772) "\*Not necessarily so. If there is a investigation into illegal activity and that investigation is obstructed, then I believe that makes it obstruction of justice even if later it is shown no criminal activity actually occurred. I accept any feedback on this by any of our board’s Legal Eagles like… (name withheld)"\* Now, if I had mentioned\*\* Bricker\*\* there, would that be a violation? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/57 "2017-05-18T18:47:58Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > 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. It _could_ mean President Trump being photographed lying nude on a bed of peaches just like Mena Suvari on the roses in the famous poster for **American Beauty.** ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/58 "2017-05-18T18:57:29Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > 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. What do you mean by the term?😕 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/59 "2017-05-18T19:26:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What do you mean by the term?😕 You did not just post that. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875/60 "2017-05-18T19:27:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What do you mean by the term?😕 Now that’s squaring the circle! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-please/786875.md?page=4)