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.
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.
Like, here?:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Of course this is not at all true.
The last significant rule change I can find was made in December 2014.
Colibri’s second rule: In any ATMB thread in which more than two mods post, we will be accused of “circling the wagons.”
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.
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]
So, you guys dont enforce unwritten rules? :dubious:
This thread here seems to be a example.
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
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.
Good point.
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?
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.
What do you mean by the term?
You did not just post that. :smack:
Now that’s squaring the circle!