In the BBQ Pit, in a thread titled “Omnibus Trolls R Us Thread”, Colibri posted in reply to someone questioning whether a new poster was a sock or not:
Isn’t attacking one and all pretty much the reason the Pit exists in the first place?
I do not spend a lot of time around the Pit (just enough for a gigar and glass or port now and then) so maybe my impressions are wrong but …
But I would say attacking for a right reason maybe? Look, lets go with the case that this is an honest Newbie with a bad sense of name and timing and some really horrible luck. Do we want the welcome to be “not only were you banned and unbanned but lets go ahead and flame you as well”? Lets face it; outside of clear bots and confirmed socks rarely do we Pit someone for 3 posts basically the same day it all happens.
**Colibri ** didn’t make it a warning or a note or anything; more posting his (?) view and how the Mods may (or not) feel at the moment. In other words “one person to another there could be danger ahead”. Seems reasonable to me.
No, it isn’t. I don’t know why you think indiscriminate attacks on random posters who have done nothing to offend anyone would be a useful function for the Pit.
Here’s the description for the Pit.
As far as I know, no one actually had a beef with the poster in question. They merely made assumptions about him due to his user name. I didn’t say it was against the rules to make the accusation. It was just unfair.
I honestly don’t know why you are making an issue of this, other than the fact that you made a similar accusation without real evidence. How such a long term poster could be so ignorant about the purpose of the Pit is beyond me.
Then you might as well shut that thread down, because it’s purpose is to call out newbies that might be trolls and/or socks.
Is it allowed in the BBQ Pit, or not?
I did no such thing. I said it was a hell of a coincidence, which it was. I even clarified that point by saying that I believe the mods when they said they investigated…but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a hell of a coincidence.
Not after we have investigated and stated that they were not.
Note that I made no objection to the initial accusation. But continuing to reiterate it on the basis of no actual information after we’ve investigated is pretty jerkish.
I said it was allowed. But it’s also allowed for me to say that it’s unfair.
What are you trying to accomplish here, then?
A clarification of whether we can state a belief in The BBQ Pit that someone is sock the moderators state their opinion that she/he isn’t, and an acknowledgement that I did not contradict the mods when I said that it was a hell of a coincidence.
It absolutely seems clear to me. Colibri wasn’t saying, “YOU MAY NOT SAY THIS,” he was saying it was unfair for you to say that.
Saying unfair shit is allowed in the Pit for the most part, and when it’s not, Miller tells you.
When you say “you”, I presume that you weren’t referring to me personally, because nothing I said in that BBQ Pit thread was unfair.
Colibri is not a Pit mod. He gave his opinion. If there is a violation of the rules of the Pit then Miller will make a ruling.
You were a mod you know how this works.
Well, I agree with that, at least. Shut the damn thing down.
Super!
Then wasn’t Colibri junior-modding if he’s not a Pit mod but telling posters how they should post? 
Nah, it’s like when a cop moonlights in a strip club. Even in civvies, they can still toss you out onto the pavement if you get mouthy.
What if they’re not in their civvies anymore?
I should perhaps have been clearer on the nature of the hypothetical moonlighting gig…
Helpful guide:
Bouncer=civvies
Stripper=skivvies
I’d like the Mods to post who the original poster was when they ban a sock. It would be endless entertainment to see who was trying to sneak back in after a cosmic flame-out.