I didn't threaten anyone, this is not worthy of a correction

Oh, please.

I didn’t threaten anyone’s children. It was just an example.

Copied and posted on ANTMB.

I am not a mod, and I realize you posted this mainly to get their input, but this looks like the comment that drew you a warning:

You didn’t threaten anyone, but you wished harm on their kids. By extension, I would call wishing harm on someone’s kids no different from wishing harm on them.

Here’s the rule from the Pit. I know you posted in IMHO, but I believe the same rules apply across all forums:

As you can see, you can’t wish harm on other posters, even hypothetically, and that probably extends to wishing harm on their families, as well. And you implied you were speaking of people who posted in that thread.

The warning was for personal insults. You called a couple of posters “Jackasses”. That looks like a pretty clear insult to me.

Also, I would agree that you did not threaten anyone’s children. But that’s not what the warning says. The warning states that you wished harm on children, which you clearly said with the words “I hope their kids get attacked by a wild animal and see how it feels.” The moderator is admonishing you for that, not for personally threatening their kids.

This is spelled out very clearly in the Registration Agreement:

You are pretty clearly in violation of that for (1) insults and (2) implying that an individual or group is deserving of harm.

Yeah, sorry russiaan heel. You broke the actual rules despite sitting within the spirit of the rules. Sorry dude, but just suck this one up like demerit points on your license, and hopefully they’ll sorta be absolved if you don’t play up too soon.

I agree with Russian Heel

  1. Jackass is such an incredibly low level insult as to barely qualify. Seriously, it is only a half-step above “meanie.” While I understand the desire for civility this is getting ridiculous. Frankly the moderation of late has taken a disturbing turn toward the banana-republic dictatorial. <----this in no way implies that any of the mods resemble in any way, shape or form a dictator residing in a banana republic (store or nation).

  2. He didn’t actually “wish harm” upon anyone. He used a very common rhetorical technique which I’ll bet everyone on this board has used at one time or another.

If he had said, “I believe it would be beneficial for these people to experience the same situation in order that they better appreciate the position the mother was in and perhaps develop some empathy” it would have amounted to the same thing just a lot more wordy and corporate bullshitty.

I think it strains the limits of credulity to warn someone for what was clearly not meant in an actual “I wish harm upon them” way. It MAY be a violation of the letter of the rule but it is certainly not a violation of the spirit of the rule.

No reasonable person would consider this any more worthy of a warning than Trudeau deserves to be charged with assault.

I guess I just side-door called some posters unreasonable. Unreasonable can be seen as insulting. Cue warning in 3 - 2 - 1 …

This point can be made without expressing in terms of wishing harm on someone and without “corporate bullshitty” terminology.

Examples:

— Is this what you would really want if your own child had been in this situation?

— I can’t believe you’d say this if it had been your own child.

I recieved a warning a while back for suggesting a poster “esadmf”, not thinking for a minute that Miller could figure out what I meant. :smiley:

I deserved that warning, as does the OP here.

Well, let’s see… I have children and I think it was wrong to shoot the gorilla. Somehow though I didn’t feel, reading the post in question, that Russian Heel was wishing harm upon my children. Know why? Because I recognize the device as one that is used daily by members of the English speaking world.

Had he singled out a poster and said that the warning would be justified. Had he said that he was going to attempt to find and gorillafy the children of posters disagreeing with him the warning would be justified.

But he didn’t so it wasn’t. Just my opinion.

Of course you deserved it. Not just for the statement itself but for assuming that Miller was too stupid to do a ten second Google search.

It’s too easy to abuse the ‘wishing harm on others’ rule. It was just piling on by the mod in this case. The rule should be limited to an indirect threat, not figures of speech. I was warned about this once, demanded a retraction, and received one. The retraction wasn’t in any way related to my warning, but I still count it as a victory.

Let’s just get some kind of incivility notes from mods to calm these things down before they go over the edge. OTOH, get over it, it’s just a mod warning, I haven’t seen any indication that dopers get banned for putting a toe over the line once in a blue moon.

I disagree about the level of insult, but let’ say you’re right. That’s a good point because the rules explicitly say that only “medium and high level insults” are forbidden. :roll eyes:

John The simple fact that your esteemed self disagrees with me confirms me in my previously stated opinion.:rolleyes:

That’s enough with the personal cracks.

“No insults” is a rule that can be enforced. “No insults above a certain level” is not. We are not going to compile a list of acceptable insults. I find it pretty easy to communicate without using insults of any severity. If any poster can not then maybe they need to stay in the Pit where it is allowed.

If they used it on the board then they got modded. It’s not allowed and pretty clearly spelled out in the rules. The wording used is almost the same as the example in the rules. He might not literally hope that someone’s children be attacked by wild animals but that is what was posted and it is not allowed.

Requesting clarification:

Bearing in mind that the poster quoted is not a mod, it appears that the above quote is an accurate summary of the official SDMB position? Is that fair to say?

OK, so mods are not going to distinguish between levels of insult.

Given that,

Are mods going to distinguish between levels of family member?

Does a domestic partner count? An uncle? A cousin?

A nonhuman (animal) companion?

I ask because a repeated occurrence on this board is for someone to post about a beloved nonhuman companion and some smug person sails into the thread and says “I love them too…with some fava beans and a nice Chianti! HAHAHAHA!”

…or otherwise exult in the idea of killing the animal companion or others of that species. It’s crass and sophomoric, of course…but it also seems at least as serious a threat to a family member as the abstract hypothetical that was modded here.

It will, no doubt, be argued, that a child is “more important” than a companion animal, but that’s a moot point IF the mods are going to be as general about “family” as they have declared they are about “insult.”

I’m just now seeing this thread, but the point has already been made by others (and particularly the last comment in Loach’s post). It’s pretty plainly against the rules. Make your argument without expressing a wish for harm to come to the people you’re arguing with. I don’t think that’s a particularly difficult thing to avoid.

Three of these things belong together
Three of these things are kind of the same
Can you guess which one of these doesn’t belong here?
Now it’s time to play our game (time to play our game).

It seems to me that the action you’re describing still fits firmly into the “threadshitting” and “being a jerk” categories, and could presumably be modded on those grounds.

That, on the other hand, is a very reasonable grounds on which to mod such behavior.

Would “I got your personal crack right here, pal” be over the line?

While I’m just as much of a fan of SDMB hair-splitting as the next guy (in that, I think we do way too much of it), most of the time I think there’s a kernel of truth to the complaint (and a small minority when I think the mods were wrong).

This time the mods are 100% correct.