That can’t be correct.
If it is, then I made a mistake and that’s unthinkable. Totally beyond the pale.
I’ll bet you turned them on retroactively.
I searched the vBulletin forums for a bit to see if there was any advice on this but I couldn’t see any. I think you have to be a registered buyer of vB to ask any questions, so maybe JDavis or someone else in the administration could start a thread there asking for tips. I’ve seen them create little hacks for people before if this option doesn’t exist already and this seems like a simple one to do.
Czarcasm, I’d like you to please clarify the nature of my infraction: in what way did I disregard your instructions (or the rule, wherever that rule is) concerning debating in IMHO?
Your relevant comments in this thread:
And in your PM:
So my warning was for debating in IMHO, and for ignoring your specific Moderator Note in the original thread about turning the thread into a gun control debate.
Except I did none of those things.
I didn’t debate in IMHO, and accordingly, I didn’t ignore your Moderator Note. (Actually, I didn’t even see the MN before posting, but as I only expressed an opinion (as in “In My Humble Opinion,” which the forum is titled, you know) without engaging any other thread participant in debate, I was in full compliance with forum rules (where the heck are the rules to IMHO posted, anyway? Been looking for them ever since getting your PM - where does it say no debating in IMHO?) as best as I can tell, and in full compliance with your specific instructions.
I look forward to your retraction of your warning to me. Thanks.
Sorry, that was unclear, I meant ask for advice about turning off comments in a poll thread. I think there is already an option of having the thread bumped when a vote is added, rather than a comment posted.
Deep and immutably in the recessses of Czarcasm’s mind.
The mere notion of having an IMHO thread ‘degenerate’ into a debate is intolerable to him. Here is one, of several, threads wherein he expounds on his “rationale”. In case you choose to look at it, please note that the reservations I expressed in the OP about raising the point no longer apply. I was naive in being so courteous.
Clear and concise. In no way did I say that all debating is forbidden in IMHO, but there is no question that debating the subject of gun control and/or banning belongs in Great Debates.
In post #39, RTFirefly gave the reason he voted the way he did. A little over the top(“Amerika”? Really?), but it was his reason for voting-no problem so far.
Airman Doors, USAF apparently objected with the way he posted, and decided that his need to respond overruled any invective against any debating(or even reporting) other posters in this thread, so he took issue in post #40.
In post #41, RTFirefly responded back instead of doing the obvious, which was reporting the previous post to the Moderator.
In post #42, Airman Doors got in one final lick before I pulled the plug.
In short, RTFirefly isn’t getting the infraction retraction his reaction demands.
Are you a Danny Kaye fan?
Czarcasm, technically they didn’t turn it into a gun control debate. They turned it into a debate over whether RTFirefly was name-calling.
mangeorge said:
That’s a horrible poll question, because “regulated” is so broad as to be meaningless. It covers the gamut from anyone over the age of 10 should be allowed to own anything (including heavy ordinance) to total banning of guns except for law enforcement officers.
tacoloco said:
Maybe it’s not a problem with the moderator, but a problem with the forum rules. Rules say debates on topics like politics, gun ownership and regulation, religion, and such belong in Great Debates.
To me this one word sums up most of the complaints on this board. Panties twisting over semantic details.
Regardless of how or why it was phrased, what Czarcasm intended was very clear in my opinion. He did not want that thread to become a snarky gun control debate. The replies from Airman and RTF were in his opinion steps one and two towards a snarky gun control debate. So he shut it down.
Its possible to quibble for pages about the words used, or the exact rules broken, and if that is your cup of tea then I guess you should go right ahead. But Czarcasm intentions were clear, and in my opinion, anyone claiming otherwise is…incorrect (stronger language omitted)
Its the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. I for one would prefer moderators to act more often using judgement on intention and possible consequences, rather than waiting for black and white infractions because of a culture of pedant sniping.
I think Czarcasm has made the right decision in re-opening the thread and his related administrative actions. I understand and support his will to keep debates out of IMHO, and will myself try to make sure I do not turn IMHO threads into debates. I do wonder about allowing polls in all the other fora, and I am undecided on the issue myself.
Let me clarify-The only debates I have problems with in IMHO are the ones that obviously belong in Great Debates.
In your PM, this was the post you used to justify giving me a warning.
I will consider the original warning retracted.
(And, if I may digresss, what’s over the top about ‘Amerika’ anyway in this context? I was trying to write from the POV of the gun obsessives’ justification for needing unregistered guns, which fundamentally involves a hostile takeover of our country. I wasn’t labeling them as ‘Amerikans’ but as people who were concerned that someone else might take over and turn America into Amerika. Similarly the ‘jack-booted thugs’ that Doors found objectionable: my point was that the extremely pro-gun crowd would be concerned that, after such a takeover, jack-booted thugs might come for their guns. I was clearly NOT implying that pro-gun types themselves were jackbooted thugs. Anyone who drew that implication needs to re-read my freakin’ post. Sheesh.)
I will consider this to be a new and different warning, since this here is the first time this issue has been raised anywhere, or that this post has been associated with a warning to me.
- Please note that the post in question does not in any way violate your Moderator Note about debating gun control. Gun control is not being debated in post #41 of the original thread.*
- There’s no requirement or expectation that posters will report objectionable posts. Such a requirement would be unreasonable, because we don’t always know where the line is. I read Doors’ post, and while it irked me, I had no inkling that it might be over the line of what was acceptable in IMHO.
- That leaves my response itself. Is it, all by itself, over the line by IMHO standards? I was quite cognizant, in writing that post, that I wasn’t in the Pit, and at least in my own eyes, kept well within non-Pit standards.
Am I wrong about that? And (bonus question) are there different standards for what language is too strong for the forum in IMHO than there are in other non-Pit fora such as GD? Because I sure can’t recall a time when saying something like that would draw a warning in GD.
In short, RTFirefly is not only confused by the changing justification for the warning, but still doesn’t see how it has any basis.
*ETA: Remember, this was the justification you gave for your warning: “Failure to follow a moderator’s instructions.” Your instructions were to not debate gun control.
I have no control over your imagination, but in the real world the infraction stands.
Well, he kept the same number of infractions, he just mentally adjusted what the infraction was over.
RTFirefly said:
What is over the top is your characterization of opponents of gun regulation as “gun-nuts” who are afraid of “Amerika” and “jack-booted thugs” coming to take their guns. While it is not, technically, debating the merits of any position on gun regulation, it is certainly editorializing about an opposing position, discounting that position. That is a step beyond justifying your own position and attacking someone else’s. I suppose it’s a semantics game whether that qualifies as “debating gun control”.
Maybe, but I don’t think so. There are plenty of us on both sides. It makes people (like you) think about what “yes” or “no” on regulation would mean.
The other, and very different, question would ask if you think guns should be banned.
I’m really curious, and I’d like to see a count without the debate.
Reviewing the bidding, so we can determine who’s imagining what:
In the PM you sent me to notify me of my warning, you indicated that I was being warned for disobeying your instruction about debating gun control in the original thread. You specifically quoted my post #39 in that thread.
Full text of warning message:
The moderator’s instructions were not to debate gun control in the original thread.
Czarcasm, in post 46 of this thread, you said:
So: per your own words, what I said in the post that was originally cited as my infraction, did not rise to the level of an infraction.
Therefore that infraction not only does not stand, it doesn’t even exist as an infraction.
All that’s left, it seems, is the warning from the nonexistent infraction. An odd state of things, wouldn’t you think?
But then you took that warning, and attached it to another post:
That’s all you have said about my infraction since making post 41 the reason for the warning.
There are only two possibilities I can see here for the infraction:
- The infraction consists of failure to report Doors’ post #40, which seems pretty improbable, or
- it consists of something I said in post 41 - but what? And how does it violate the rules?
What we do know is that I didn’t debate gun control in post 41. At all. What I did in that post was to disagree with Doors’ assessment of my previous post, but I stayed away from gun control altogether:
So the original warning has nothing to do with post 41. I did not commit the infraction you originally warned me for in post 41, and you say post 39 wasn’t a problem in that regard either. But those are my only two posts in that thread.
So, once again: why have I been given a warning? What was my infraction? Is the language in post 41 too strong for non-Pit fora? Because people frequently get more riled up than this in GD, and no one thinks twice. Or is there a different standard for IMHO? And if so, where is this differing standard stated?
The original infraction, whatever it was, took place on March 3. Czarcasm closed the thread that same afternoon, and issued his original warning on March 4. Now it’s the morning of March 6, and I’m still in the dark as to what conduct I’ve been warned for.
This is ridiculous.
Post #46 of this thread is all the clarification I need to provide. If you are still “in the dark”, it’s only because you refuse to flip the light switch.
Fine. Be that way.
mangeorge said:
Fine, I vote for regulation, but the regulation I vote for is that everyone is given a .22 and a box of shells at age 4 provided by the state and they can buy anything they want after that, and their parents can’t say no. That’s regulation. Is that what you had in mind?