He specifically asked where we get our authority. Colibri pointed out that we get our authority from the registration agreement we all accepted when we became members of the board.
Well, I certainly do not, making your assertion incorrect.
ETA: unless, of course, you’re using literally the “other” way, meaning “virtually”. We could argue all day about that, however. 
That’s not what he said. He said mods have the authority to do what we need to to benefit the board.
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.
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.
You mean it doesn’t come from God?
C’mon. “Literally” has two meanings, the one that means “not metaphorically,” and the one that works as an intensifier. He was clearly using the–
–okay, I’ll stop.
Who’s this God person, anyways?
Emoluments clause! Lack of joinder! Impeach Miller!
Regards,
Shodan
I literally never use it as an intensifier.
He’s the guy who literally wrote the US constitution.
Just to be clear, you’re not advocating for Miller’s removal, right? 
I am interfering with the investigation by hoping that Miller can let this go.
Regards,
Shodan
Please don’t tempt us to amend this thread!
Wow, that’s an outrageous statement for a mod to make, even ‘in essence’. Could you link me to the thread in which the assertion occurs? (It’s certainly not in this one.)
(post shortened)
Basically, it’s your circus and your monkeys. 'nuff said.
http://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.kTfUsnZ4GlQFPcGQyaJTOQEsCy&pid=15.1
As has been pointed out, that’s not what I said. The question was where we derived our authority from.
You are free to disagree with our actions, or assert that they are wrong or ill considered. But the Registration Agreement does give us wide latitude in making moderation decisions. That’s the point I was making.
So, then you seem to agree with me. "1. Bringing Bricker into this is not best practices. This is a mod note to not do anything similar in the future." There was nothing wrong with mentioning Bricker in this context. In no way was this a shot at Bricker.
**Jonathan has not made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread. Correct? **This mod note then is rescinded, I will assume.
On that second part: 2. 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."
Bricker and i and others were having some fun in a zombie thread with this that Jonathon closed down. We had, indeed, hijacked that zombie completely with a pedantic and silly fun “debate”. I will not do so again. I still dont see what harm we were doing. Obviously this sort of silly fun annoyed JC.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822051&page=2
My personal rule is that when a poster starts a response with “so” and then follows with some conclusion or interpretation it’s almost always not an accurate summation. I don’t know what I would name this rule, but there’s got to be something clever sounding. * “Bone’s ‘so I’m wrong’ rule”?*
Suffice to say I do not agree with you. As I stated, bring up Bricker in that thread where he had not previously been a participant was at best neutral and I am in agreement with the sentiment as I stated in my first post to this thread. It could easily be interpreted as taking a shot at Bricker, or perhaps some kind of stalking. There just isn’t much reason to bring him up specifically that doesn’t conjure up some petty snipe. 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.
As I stated upthread, and will reiterate, 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. Let me know if that’s unclear.
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.
Nope- there have been other times that posts dragging other posters into unrelated threads has been moderated. When it appears it’s being used to stalk, or to jab at someone not participating, or to bait someone, people have been modded and warned for doing that.
You may argue that your usage doesn’t fall into those circumstances, and that’s fine, but it is hardly a new “rule”.
then this needs to be put somewhere.
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 mean Bricker has gone so far as to offer a bet on this and he has been mentioned i count half a dozen times in recent threads about Impeachment.
I dont see the point of the mod note on this issue.