You had clearly decided that only a mod note was warranted. You then, after i made clear that i would continue responding to **dale **in that thread, decided to change it to a warning.
In the time period between the note and the warning, i broke no rule. You made a retroactive decision to change a moderating call based on your hard-on for me.
I know you’re not going to change your mind on this. I just wanted to highlight an(other) instance of your horrible moderating.
You had clearly decided that only a mod note was warranted. You then, after i made clear that i would continue [doing what you said not to do] in that thread, decided to change it to a warning.
You called another poster a “crybaby”, which is an insult…and to the mod note, you basically said you’re not going to listen to it and you’ll continue to do what you’re doing.
So the warning is for “ignoring mod instruction”.
Are you making it more clear what mhendo said in the OP? Because this post is a little confusing, it almost seems like you’re speaking as mhendo, which I’m pretty sure you aren’t him.
The note stands and is separate from the warning. The warning is for his post after my note and is for “Ignoring mod instructions”.
But, really, it basically comes down to: When you get a mod note saying to stop doing something, saying “Tough, I’m going to keep saying what I like” (I’m paraphrasing, that’s not a direct quote) is not the best idea.
But he has no authority to order me to stop responding to dale in that thread.
He does have the authority to tell me not to insult dale, and if i go back to the thread an insult dale, then he has every right to give me a warning. But it is outside of his purview to make a blanket rule that i’m not allowed to respond to **dale **outside of the Pit.
There are two components to your instruction. One is a valid order, and the other is not.
The valid order is for me not to throw insults outside of the Pit. I have not, since you gave that order, disobeyed it.
The invalid order is to require that any response i make to dale be in the Pit. It simply is not within your authority to give that instruction. You can tell me not to use insults outside the Pit, but you can’t require that i make even non-insulting posts only in the Pit.
Also, even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that both components of your instruction are valid, i still have not disobeyed it. Here is your instruction in full:
So, you told me to knock of the namecalling. Please point out where i have disobeyed this instruction.
And you told me to only talk to **dale **in the Pit. Please point out where i have disobeyed this instruction. Given that i have not spoken to **dale **at all, inside the Pit or out, since your instruction, it’s a bit hard to argue that i have disobeyed the instruction.
Basically, the point of my post was: I will continue to respond to **dale **in this thread if i see fit (something you have no authority to prevent), and if i break the rules in doing so, you will be within your rights to give me a warning.
Please point out where i have ignored your instructions. You don’t get to mind-read; you don’t have the capacity for it.
If i disobey your instructions and insult him again, give me a warning. If all i do is express a willingness to continue engaging with him in the thread, you don’t get to give a warning just because you believe that i will insult him at some time in the future.
ISTM that Idle Thoughts maybe was a bit premature with that warning. Or, maybe the warning wasn’t really for the reason stated.
Responding to a mod instruction by flatly declaring one’s intention to not follow the instruction doesn’t seem like it should be an immediately warnable offense, until the offending poster actually goes and does the forbidden thing. OTOH, one gets the impression that the warning was really just for dissing the moderator.
The post which triggered the warning read: "I’ll say whatever i feel like to dale, in the threads that he starts. If you think it deserves a warning, then give it a warning, but i’m not moving threads just for you.
I think it was the “I’ll say whatever I feel like” that earned the warning. You meant ‘I’ll continue to respond to dale in this thread IF I see fit’ but Idle Thoughts probably took that to mean ‘I’ll respond to dale AS I see fit’. In other words, he thought you were saying you’d insult dale as much as you like, even after he’d asked you to refrain from doing so.
Given the context, I’d say both readings were fair. Maybe the warning should be rescinded and put down to a misunderstanding, but I don’t think Idle Thoughts overstepped his bounds. You didn’t actually insult dale after the initial note but IT’s reading of your last post in that thread (which, to reiterate, I believe to be a fair one even if it wasn’t the one you intended) lead him to reasonably (again, according to his reading) infer that you would insult him outside of the Pit if you felt like it. Ergo, his decision to give you a warning for ignoring his instructions not to insult dale was a reasonable one from his POV.
I’m not sure I agree with his decision, but I wouldn’t call it bullshit.
He’s a mod, there’s nothing stopping him. I think you indicated an anticipatory breach of his instructions, so I don’t see why you’re surprised he ended up warning you.
Come on, now, you’ve been around long enough to have seen the mods do exactly that on multiple occasions: telling people to stay out of a specific person’s threads, or not to post in a particular forum, or not to post in particular types of threads.
That’s not a valid conclusion. Your post was a clear violation of the “no insults” rule. Sometimes moderators opt to let a definite rule violation go with just a note, as a cop who’s clocked you speeding will give a warning instead of a ticket.
I will point out as well that your second post included another rule violation as well, that is, disputing moderation outside of ATMB, even aside from ignoring a moderator instruction. So you’ve committed at least three warnable rules violations and only received a single warning.
Actually, if i can pick a nit, it wasn’t a flat declaration to not follow the instruction. I never said, “I’m going to insult him again no matter what you say.” I said i would speak to him in whatever manner i chose.
For the rest, though, i think you are exactly right on all counts. If he at least had the guts to admit the motive that you raise in your last sentence, that would be a start.
In my experience, such instructions have been arrived at after long and persistent patterns of posting, and have been discussed among the moderator group, rather than just being the spur-of-the-moment edict of one particular jackbooted individual.
Again, if he had issued the warning first time around, i might argue that it was a lame warning, but at least it would have the virtue of honest moderating, which is not what is happening now.
I simply do not see, as a matter of basic logic, how one can receive a warning for ignoring moderator instructions when one has not, in fact, ignored even a single component of those instructions. All of his instructions related to my interactions with dale. Even if, per Ethilrist’s post, we assume that he had the right to order me to only respond to **dale **in the Pit, i have not disobeyed even that part of the instructions.
I’m not seeing a way to reasonably interpret this exchange:
…as anything other than you saying, “I’m going to keep insulting him, and I don’t care what you do about it.” I’m sure that’s not what you meant to say, but I don’t think you can fault Idle Thoughts for taking your words at face value.
Idle Thoughts was spot on. If you’d pulled that in Great Debates I’d have dinged you twice.
Trying to nitpick your way around it just makes it all the more evident that you deserved the warning. Take your lumps and move on.
As far as moderators not having authority to tell you not to direct a post at another poster? I’d say he was correct in his actions. There have been times I’ve certainly told people to knock it off and stop arguing or take it to the Pit. Keeping a thread on track can require that.