Explain please.

[cochrane]

@DrDeth

What do you mean by the term?

I’m not going to hijack this thread. You can go back to the thread where you were “just having fun” to see what I meant.

[DrDeth]

@cochrane

I’m not going to hijack this thread. You can go back to the thread where you were “just having fun” to see what I meant.

Totally fair, you’re right, no hijack.

Here’s a poll:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=826549

[Telemark]

“I can explain it to you, but I can’t comprehend it for you.”

– Ed Koch

[cochrane]

@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.

BigT told Jonathan Chance:

If you hate this board and its rules so much, resign.

I don’t blame the mods for returning attitude with attitude. A politer post might have been met with a politer reply.

[Fenris]

@DrDeth

What do you mean by the term?

Spock defines impeachment: “Impeachment is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Impeachment is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green.”

[kayaker]

@DSYoungEsq

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.”

Oh my.

I just did a search and found there have been 32 threads I’ve participated in where I’ve used the word “literally”. I spot checked 12 of those threads (the twelve shortest threads) and found my use of the word always in the traditional sense.

But, thanks for introducing me to “apposite”, I’ve been over using “germane”.

[DrDeth]

@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.

I accept your note on this issue, and will refrain from disrupting future threads.

May I link to my poll if confusion comes up in other threads?

[cochrane]

@fenris

spock defines impeachment: “impeachment is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Impeachment is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green.”

lSWYDT

[Jonathan_Chance]

@DrDeth

I accept your note on this issue, and will refrain from disrupting future threads.

May I link to my poll if confusion comes up in other threads?

You know, I’m going to say ‘no’ on that. It would introduce the possibility of a definition-discussion hijack. Be content with your poll.

[John_Mace]

@Colibri

Colibri’s second rule: In any ATMB thread in which more than two mods post, we will be accused of “circling the wagons.”

I’m sure you guys duke it out in your “loop”, but keep in mind we don’t see that. I don’t recall ever seeing two mods disagree in an ATMB thread, but maybe I missed when it happens. Still, I’d bet good money it is extremely rare, if it happens at all. And maybe you guys have a good reason for not arguing in public, but can you not see why that might look like circle the wagons to folks here?

[Fenris]

At one point, at least, (circa 2002-ish) Zotti had a “Mods never EVER disagree in public” policy (and I believe it was “disagree” not “fight”). Someone (JillGat?) and Melin got into it and IIRC it’s part of the reason Melin was fired as a mod (not remotely the whole reason) and I’m pretty sure Dex and Euty got burned by that rule as well.

So, if that rule still exists, that would A) be a stupid rule which would be B) par for the course of silly rules that really don’t need to exist and C) would explain why we don’t ever see mod disagreements in ATMB.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@John_Mace

I don’t recall ever seeing two mods disagree in an ATMB thread, but maybe I missed when it happens.

I depends on what you’d define as “disagreeing”.

1. I mod noted Miller twice, although neither happened in ATMB.

2. Ivory disagrees with the action a mod took in an ATMB here, just a week or two ago. Does that count as “disagreeing” (IMO, it should)?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Without getting into sordid details, we really just express our opinions without a whole lot back channel conversations. Of course mods of the same forum will discuss something and bigger or contentious issues will make it to the loop. But a lot what you see in ATMB is just our own opinions.

It’s not entirely surprising that people who want to be mods and are faced with similar decisions to make See things basically similarly.

[Knowed_Out]

Ever consider the reason Mods don’t like what you’re doing is because you’re being obsessive and annoying?

[Penfeather]

@DrDeth

What do you mean by the term?

It depends what you mean by the term “mean”.

[kayaker]

@Jonathan_Chance

Be content with your poll.

“Viagra stock plummets after message-board misunderstanding.”

[John_Mace]

@Idle_Thoughts

I depends on what you’d define as “disagreeing”.

1. I mod noted Miller twice, although neither happened in ATMB.

Not the same. We’re talking about discussions in ATMB

2. Ivory disagrees with the action a mod took in an ATMB here, just a week or two ago. Does that count as “disagreeing” (IMO, it should)?

But the mod who gave the warning agreed to review it and did rescind it. I’m not seeing a disagreement.

What I would be looking is some sort of back-and-forth argument about the rules. Like I said, I can see why you guys wouldn’t want to do that, but it does lead to a perception of “circle the wagons”.

[kaylasdad99]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

C’mon. “Literally” has two meanings, the one that means “not metaphorically,” and the one that works as an intensifier.

Not in MY vocabulary.

@John_Mace

I literally never use it as an intensifier.

I’m pretty sure the only time I use it that it doesn’t mean “not metaphorically” is when I’m doing a bad imitation of Chris Traeger (the character played by Rob Lowe in Parks and Recreation).

In fact, that might be the only way I do use it (I try to stay away from absolutes, with the caveat that I will indulge myself when one is justified).

[kaylasdad99]

@DrDeth

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.

That strikes me as a difficult conclusion for an observer to reach, especially given your history of demonstrating disdain for an insistence on using the word correctly.

[kaylasdad99]

@Bone

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”?*

@DrDeth

So then
Jonathan HAS made a new rule that you cant mention another poster until they actually post in that specific thread.

@IvoryTowerDenizen

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”.

Hey Bone, your “rule” works!