Thank you. And would you mind passing that around to all your mod buddies?
megellan01 said:
I certainly see value when handing out mod notes and the like to cite both offenders who are escalating the situation, rather than just one. But if one person steps over the line and the other doesn’t, it’s appropriate to give the warning to the one offending party. Also, given that you misunderstood what the note was about, that should factor into your evaluation of who deserved what.
No, it’s still jerkish, you just think it’s fair to be jerkish in response to what you perceive as jerkishness directed at you.
I think that Eva Luna took a comment that was directed broadly and repeated it in a way that looked like it was directed at you. That might have been a bit much. Your response was IMO much stronger.
If I were running the show, I would take issue with those comments. Those are making the issue about the person, not the topic or their comments. Those read as personal attacks to me. True, not to the level of “you greasy-headed donkey cocksucker”, but still personal attacks.
I understand that you might not have thought so at the time, but my first response to you in the thread explained that I saw a problem. Post 61:
Now while I see from the responses here that most people would not classify her post to me as a personal attack, others acknowledge that I could have taken that way. You seem to, as well:
Or did I misunderstand the above? The fact is that she addressed me by citing my post and attacking me. And if there was any doubt to that, her subsequent post erased it: (emphasis mine)
I had called her on her attack and she admits that not only was she disrespectful, but intentionally so. And she responded to me in that manner before I had addressed her at all. This alone justifies proves that my reading of her post to me as an attack was not without merit. She ADMITS it.
The fact remains that your actions did not quell the situation, did it? You seem to have admitted before (your “Maybe I should have” quote above) that you could have taken other action that would have been more effective in your goal. And I’ll remind you, that I did ask you to correct your course and admonish her. So, you had a second opportunity to do what you claim your goal was. Fact is, you fucked up. I’ll point out that amid all this, I was posting with others with no problem. So the “problem” was not with me in isolation.
I didn’t see that post until you’d attacked her enough times to gain a formal warning for them.
I understand that it could have been taken as an attack, yes. You did take it as one, after all. Do I think it actually qualified as an attack that’s against the rules? No, I don’t.
And you were disrespectful to her. What is your point?
No, they didn’t. And they didn’t quell the situation because you misunderstood what I was telling you. Rather than realizing I was telling you not to be condescending and rude - which you acknowledged you were - you felt I was directing you to avoid the words “wake the fuck up.” So you continued to bring the flavor and here we are. You seem to think this is my fault, and I disagree. I could have been more clear, but I think the situation happened because you interpreted a factual rebuttal that contained a little attitude as a full-on personal attack, and decided that gave you license to not only respond, but increase the hostility. And you were wrong on both counts.
“In isolation?” No. But yes, the situation was caused mostly by you. You were dismissive, you took things too personally, and you went out of your way to increase the hostility. All of that is on you, and this isn’t the first time you’ve been asked to avoid that kind of behavior. If you think someone is attacking you personally, report the post and don’t respond in kind. If you think someone’s being rude to you but hasn’t broken a rule, be the bigger man and just rebut their arguments.
This? I don’t see how it was rude. She did use the word “fuck,” yes, but she was quoting back your own words at you. Other than that, she expressed herself more or less politely. I’m really not seeing why this is anything to get upset about.
But isn’t that what’s important?: 1) I could have, and 2) I did? After that, whatever anyone else thinks is immaterial.
That I was responding, in kind, to her.
All of which clearer moderation would have avoided. I don’t so much as fault you for this at the time, but in hindsight I don’t think you appreciate the role it played.
This is getting annoying. You can’t on the one hand say “I understand that it could have been taken as an attack, yes. You did take it as one, after all”, and have others see how I might have taken it that way, and then say that my take on it was “wrong”. Especially when we have Eva Luna admitting to intentionally being disrespectful. I accept that you don’t agree that it was an attack, but that does not mean that my take on it was “wrong”. Just as my firm belief that it was, in fact, an attack doesn’t mean that someone else’s take on it is “wrong”.
Usually, in instances like this officials look to who threw the first punch. And that was Eva Luna. You* at leas*t seem to acknowledge that as a possibility. I could have seen her getting the admonishment and not me (immediately after her post), but I wasn’t even asking for that. as I said, I would have been fine with the both of being asked to dial it back. Which you admit now, might have been a better course of action.
I do that often. Being in the minority on most subjects I post about, and some of the majority confusing consensus with rightness and that manifesting itself in a sense of righteousness, I find I’m asked to ignore quite a lot. And do. But when I feel an attack is so inappropriate, I feel I should let the offending party know it.
I do find it odd that you admit that I could have well taken her response as an attack and that you might have handles things better, yet it is ALL on me.
My words were addressed to no poster. She quoted me and came after me. But while you and I might disagree on this, in a later post (which I’ve cited recently) she admits to being intentionally disrespectful. This when I hadn’t even made one comment to her in the thread. I was in a discussion with another poster and it was completely civil.
Does it make a difference that you hadn’t directed it to anyone?
Plus, I didn’t see her admitting to being intentionally disrespectful anywhere else. As quoted, what she said just doesn’t seem like anything to get upset about.
You weren’t responding in kind, though. You incorrectly interpreted her post as a personal attack, and in response, you made a post that was an actual personal attack.
Probably so, yes.
Wrong. I can understand your interpretation and still think it’s incorrect. That’s why I asked you to dial back the hostility and didn’t say the same thing to her: I understood you didn’t like the way she addressed you, but I still felt that your post was edging over the line and hers wasn’t. I could have included her in a note as well to indicate that she shouldn’t engage with you either, and I should have told her to avoid suggesting that you were lying, but the bottom line is that you were more hostile than she was, and you were being hostile for essentially no reason.
No, it wasn’t. If we must use those terms, you punched her because you thought she’d punched you. And punch isn’t a great word for this in any event because neither of you broke a rule; I made a note because I felt you were edging in that direction and I was hoping I could forestall it.
Then do so without attacking yourself.
That’s a bad reading of my post. From a moderating standpoint I could have made it clearer what I wanted you to stop doing. Irrespective of that, you’d already been dismissive of her, taken her post personally when it was not necessary to do so, and made the thread more hostile by deliberately inserting personal jibes into your post. That’s what I was trying to moderate in the first place, and it was you who chose to react that way.
Sorry, magellan, Marley could have been more clear in his original note, but you still are in the wrong here.
If a person is attacking you and it is a rules violation, responding in kind is also a rules violation. If it is not a rules violation, escalating is not allowed. If you feel a person is unfairly attacking you, and reporting the post is not enough for you, you can comment that you didn’t feel the personal attack was warranted rather than attack back.
I don’t see that as an admission that her original comment was meant as a personal attack. But even if it was,
you perceived her original comment as an attack. Either it was a legal attack, in which case you escalated, or it was an illegal attack, which you also escalated. Neither of those is appropriate.
Wrong. The moderator is the one making the call on what is a rules violation and what is not. He felt Eva Luna’s remark was not at the level of your remark. The fact that you did is irrelevant to his actions.
Furthermore, you were not required to attack in kind, or escalate the attack. You could have posted something like,
“Wow, where the hell did that venom come from? I didn’t attack you, I will ask you to refrain from attacking me.”
Marley23 said:
I refuse to be the bigger man. I will always be the littler man. That way I win.
Because attacking yourself just adds to the pain. I mean, if you’re already being attacked, don’t help them.
Yes. Or I can give her back what she gave me. Which I did.
It sounds like you and I would have different reaction to someone walking up to us and slapping us in the face. Such is your right. It doesn’t make me wrong for not acting like Gandhi. Even if acting like Gandhi may always be a correct route.
Wrong? :rolleyes: It may be irrelevant to his actions, but not mine. But your comment implies that a mod, just by virtue that he is a mod, is always right. Does every cop act without error? Is every judge always right? Should we just shut up and accept every mod decision as Solomonic? Because that’s the necessary implication from your paragraph above.
And I don’t think it’s too much to expect fairness from the mods. But that estimation is being degraded repeatedly.
I could have. But that was not my only legitimate option. Again, you and Gandhi may have one reaction, but that doesn’t make other options wrong. I don’t think you understand that. And it’s not like I went Jake Lamotta on her. I just dished back her same attitude.
Nobody’s asking you to be Gandhi. They’re asking you to be an adult. As far as the rules of this forum goes, that is the correct route. No one slapped you in the face anyway. You felt someone was disrespecting you online and overreacted.
There are some things even I don’t want to moderate. I’ll settle for magellan01 agreeing to overlook insults and reporting them if he feels they’re against the rules.
Physical assault is a different situation than a conversation on an internet message board. False analogy.
Look, if you want to act like an ass to anyone who acts like an ass to you, that’s your perogative. But that still leaves you acting like an ass, and subject to any disciplinary action due for the level of assiness (assitude? assholery?).
I thought we were discussing his actions. Okay, so we’re discussing your actions. You perceived her response as a rude attack, and replied “in kind”. Marley saw your response as escalation, and called you on it with a Mod Note. You then continued to post attacks, including calling her a weasel. That got you your warning. So after being told to “dial it back”, you did not comply and continued with attacks. That’s your actions, regardless of what Eva Luna was or was not doing.
No, that is not my intention. You have some legitimate gripes about the moderation: Eva Luna’s post was the start of the escalation, and deserved to be part of the original “dial it back” note that was presented. Marley’s mod note was a little vague. Heck, I’d probably accept her saying you were weaseling was a bit much, and if she had been part of the original “dial it back” remark might have been worth further moderator action. But since she wasn’t already told to dial it back, it’s late to come in and retroactively slam her for not complying with an instruction she wasn’t given. And once again, you escalated by calling her a name. Yeah, weasel, not exactly a crushing blow, still the moderators have made it clear that there is a difference between saying “you are doing so-and-so” and saying “you are a so-and-so-er”.
Look, if you had complied with the instruction and pointed out the imbalance and lack of clarity - as this post did - I would be with you. But you didn’t just do that.
My comment was not that the mods are always right. My comment was that Marley moderated the thread by how he perceived the situation. Which what he has said is he saw your remark as a general comment to the board, Eva Luna as repeating your verbage back against the argument you made, then you repeating that verbage back as a direct attack against her. So by his perception, you were the one taking the comment to personal attacks, and he made a mod note to try to prevent the escalation from continuing.
So you questioned his actions, and he’s responded. You pointed out that she was escalating from your perspective, and he’s agreed, but by then she had already received the same action you did - getting a mod note to dial it back - so he didn’t feel going in and telling her to also dial it back would accomplish anything. You’ve also demonstrated your lack of understanding of the original comment, because it was vague, and he’s agreed to work on that.
As I may do again to someone else who I feel is coming after me out of the blue. But within the rules next time. Assuming of course that any moderation offered is clear.
No, it is an analogy. The two situations needn’t be near duplications of each other. The relationship between the two things is the important part, not the severity of either set of items.
That is not correct. As I’ve said (and everyone including Marley thinks his comments could have been clearer), I thought he was objecting to my “wake the fuck up” response to Eva Luna. And from that point on I did not use such language. I’m still astounded that he was referring to “toots”. Unbelievable. So, I did comply to what I thought his objection was.
Just as he is entitled to his take on thing, I’m entitled to mine, and I’m entitled to question and complain about any incident in his moderating. I think he was unfair (I know he doesn’t see it that way), and I’ve been explaining that to him. That’s one of the things this forum is for.
You can admit that these and other such names are dismissive and snide, but you don’t connect snideness with being insulting. Yet you are offended by anything you perceive as a possible slight.
For what purpose would you use snide names in a comment to someone?
