I agree with this. Expecting moderators to be completely consistent - or even to be unbiased - is unrealistic. People are people.
[Every kid who gets in trouble with a teacher in school has a couple of other kids who did even worse but the teacher didn’t do anything about them because the teacher is picking on me. One of the main lessons that you need to pound home with these kids is that they may be right and they may be wrong but it makes no difference, and their job is to stay out of trouble regardless.]
I wouldn’t expect moderators to reverse decisions on the basis of this type of inconsistency (unless it’s a nominal standard which is so routinely violated that the de facto standard is otherwise).
But I do think the aggrieved are entitled to whine about it a bit, if so inclined.
That’s pretty much the opposite of what’s being said. You got a warning because you a) edited commentary into a quote box that was b) insulting to the person whose quote you were editing. If you’d edited a quote to insert complimentary commentary, you might have gotten a note, because that’s still technically against the rules, but you almost certainly would not have gotten a warning, because you only technically violated the rule. Instead, you got a warning, because you engaged in precisely the kind of behavior that the “no commentary in quotes” rule was instituted to prevent.
That is some serious cognitive dissonance. It really is. Your own example in the link I provided shows what your position was with what I did very, very clearly.
If I had written:
That’s insulting the poster.
But if I write:
That’s insulting the post and is perfectly fine anywhere on the board?
Look, you and the others can stand behind the ruling and call it perfectly justified because the EXACT example you gave years ago was in the pit. That is a weak argument, but sure, I’ll go along with it. But to call what I did insulting the user is nonsense. Utter nonsense.
You strongly indicated in your post 4 years ago the reason for that rule is to prevent deception and to keep people from wondering who said what. There is absolutely nothing in what I did that could be considered insulting the poster unless you consider the 2nd case insulting the user and there is no way it would have deceived anyone unless you want to say putting <snip> in the quote box is deceptive, too.
Would say there have been other posters on this board that have made claims that they felt targeted or particularly watched because of the views they held and offered in discussions on here?
Yes, but like you they failed to produce evidence of such.
We have also had a number of posters who believed they were receiving direct messages from God. Just because several people think the same thing doesn’t mean it’s true.
No. It’s only okay in the Pit, because it’s okay to insult other posters in the Pit. Again, the Pit works by different standards than the rest of the board. You can’t compare rulings on what’s allowed in the Pit to rulings on what’s allowed on the rest of the board.
You really need to understand that my rationale there only applies to postings in the Pit.
There’s two reasons we have the rule about changing people’s posts inside the quote boxes. One reason is we don’t want people making insulting editorial comments to other posters. The second is that we don’t want people attributing things to other posters that the poster never said. In the Pit, the first reason isn’t a concern, because it’s totally okay to insult posters there. That’s what made that specific example only a “technical” violation. In any other forum, it would not be a technical violation, and a warning for that sort of post would be absolute justified.
It could be that all the claims made were nothing but “people believing they were getting direct messages from god”, as you put it. That is certainly a possibility. But at some point you would think someone would check to see if enough of these claims started to add up to something. Maybe they don’t. Maybe all the people making those claims really are just paranoid with a persecution complex.
As I’ve been saying, feel free to continue to stand behind that and carry on as usual. You can deny the views around here have gotten very narrow and there is little opposing views coming in, or you can acknowledge that is happening and say it must be something else driving those views away. Whatever works for you. If you are going to stomp your foot and demand I provide statistical analysis of thousands of posts when I have people like Miller flat out retconning his own post and stance from 4 years ago, you’re nuts. There literally is nothing I can provide that will change the view you and others have around here on what you are doing to opposing views, not when you can plainly see the cognitive dissonance already exhibited.
Some positions aren’t worth wasting time on. Even irrefutable proof of inconsistency and pointing out how mods are not following the own board’s written clarifications are insufficient to convince the willfully myopic.
Again, multiples of zero are still zero. If you get a lot of spurious complaints, and each complaint when examined adds up to nothing, there’s not some mystical pattern of illegitimate complaints that adds up to a legitimate complaint.
Now, you might look for a different explanation for why you’re getting so many spurious complaints. Here’s one: people don’t like getting warned, because it feels bad. A lot of people decide to solve this problem in the same way, i.e., deciding that it’s the mods, not them, that are the problem. That lets them feel anger instead of guilt, and anger feels nicer than guilt.
But that doesn’t mean that the illegitimate complaints add up to a legitimate problem.
There are micro and macro patterns. Maybe I haven’t made that clear. I don’t doubt for a minute you can easily dismiss my claims with barely a waive of your hand. Not sure it is even worth that effort. But I’m not the first, I won’t be the last, and this board will continue to get narrower. Keep dismissing and keep telling yourself how each and everyone of those claims are without merit.
Show some data. You have shown a thimble and admitted it’s half-full even by your standard. You are remarkably like the “facts don’t care about your feelings”-crowd, who again and again show they choose their “facts” based on their feelings.
I didn’t do it inside a quote box. I did it outside one. And I asked, previous, with the post with the formatting, if that would be considered insulting the poster. You said it would be.
Ok. We shall. Since we’re clearly not ever going to satisfy you, and you’ve failed to convince anyone besides yourself you have a point, I think this might as well be closed.
