I'm sorry, how is this worth a warning?

I started a thread titled WANT and linked to a cuckoo clock designed after a scene in The Shining. I’ve done these threads before, with no moderator intervention.

Gary Wombat Robinson changed the title of the thread to “WANT: Shining Clock,” and instructed me to, in future, use more descriptive thread titles. Titles. A moderation I found egregiously heavy handed; surely there are more important things that require moderator intervention? This strikes me as a particularly “activist” moderation; if the thread is too vague for people to want to read, that’s a self-policing thing: it will fade into oblivion unread.

Anyway, a couple other people responded to the thread by saying they’d read the title as “Shining Cock.” I thought this was pretty funny, and for some reason I did a google image search of the phrase, with some vague idea of contributing it to the thread.

Then I thought it would be funnier to start a new thread, with the “mistaken” title, and include the link there. Kind of a, “Let’s see who notices the difference” kind of thing.

I can accept that Colibri didn’t find it as funny as I did, but I explicitly followed Gary Wombat Robinson’s instructions, and his example, the the very letter. Well, give or take an “L.” The “joke,” such as it was, was to make a funny specifically within GWR’s rules.

Again, I get that Colibri didn’t find it as funny as I did. I don’t think I’d’ve been terribly miffed if he’d closed it as perhaps *too *mundane and pointless. But part of the “joke” was that I was, indeed, very closely following GWR’s specific instructions.

So why the official warning?

No you did not follow his instructions. Here is his original note:

Emphasis mine. Gary instructed you to describe what your links are about, rather than posting a blind link.

I also note your response to Gary in the original thread:

Emphasis mine. Here you indicate that you understood Gary’s instruction not to post blind links. You also indicate, since you are refusing to follow his instructions, you will refrain from posting this kind of thread until the issue is clarified. But rather than ask for clarification in ATMB, instead you went ahead and posted a new thread that didn’t follow his instructions.

IMO, this was not intended as a “joke.” You disagreed with Gary’s instructions, so you posted a new thread that deliberately ignored them. Hence the warning.

I have no opinion of the other thread and the warning, but having descriptive thread titles has been a rule for quite a long time, and one I wholeheartedly support. They’ve been editing titles to make them descriptive for years, if not since day one.

Can I vote that posters who keep poking the mods with the “Am I over the line yet < poke >? No? How bout now? < poke>” and who point-blank say that the rules don’t apply to them get insta-banned? Especially if they’ve already been banned once and are (theoretically) on a short leash. Because I would have recommended banning right after the first “No, I won’t” response to a totally reasonable mod request.

Hmm. Well, your “IMO” is incorrect. It was absolutely intended as a joke. When, in ten years here, have I ever posted such an egregiously trolling post? When have I ever deliberately poked a mod with a stick? Never.

My point that I wouldn’t start OPs like that in the future should’ve been a clue: I was rather posting a thread according to his instructions, modeled after his correction.

Or are you saying that, among, what, 80,000 members, I’m the only one who’d not allowed to post links starting with “http://”?

I followed GWR’s instructions by following his example. From his example, I took it that the main objection was the title. There have been THOUSANDS of links posted “raw” in dope threads, with just the URL. It’s never been against any kind of rule to do so.

Come on, lissener. I asked you nicely to follow the rules. Rules that were posted in the MPSIMS sticky in 2008 and in the SDMB FAQ in 2006. You responded by stating that you were not going to follow my instructions, and then proceeded to start a thread in which (guess what?) you didn’t follow them. You sort of followed one of them, but completely ignored the one you deemed less important.

And now you declare that you would never “poke a mod with a stick”?

Of course you got a warning. What did you expect?

Are you telling me that you’ve never noticed me (or the other mods, or the other Dopers) asking people to please describe links? Ah, well.

Anybody got a link to a website that sells big “Look at me look at me” placards?

No, actually, I haven’t. Certainly not to the degree that it’s a warnable offense.

But in this instance: are you saying I wouldn’t have received a warning if I had typed the words twice? “Shining Cock” in the title, and “Shining Cock” in the post?

One of the first things you see when you come into the forum is a stickied post about descriptive titles. Btw- I don’t think the title of this thread was descriptive enough. I didn’t know WHAT you thought wasn’t worth a warning. Rule of thumb: Readers shouldn’t have to read the post at all.

So . . . if framed like this, it would have been clearer that it was a joke? Serious question; I’m actually, perhaps naively, surprised that my post even approached being worthy of a warning.

WANT: Shining Cock
[INDENT]Shining Cock[/INDENT]

Sorry, this is just being disingenuous. It’s already been pointed out that you did NOT follow Gary’s instructions, and that from your response to him in your original thread you understood what those instructions were.

You also said you would not post any more such threads until you had received clarification on what was allowed. Then you went ahead and posted the same kind of thread. It really is not possible to take your post as an innocent and well-meaning “joke” after you had expressed strong disagreement with Gary’s original instructions. It’s pretty obvious that you did this to deliberately poke at him.

You’re not going to get any traction here by deliberately misrepresenting the circumstances of the warning, or claiming that your thread was just in fun.

Maybe this:

WANT: Shining Cock - This is a joke. Also, cock.

For what it’s worth, it’s not disingenuous at all. I glossed over the part about the post, probably because that’s never been a rule before, at anytime for anyone; there have been thousands of such links posted here. Do a search. What I came away with was “WANT” is not acceptable as a thread title, while “WANT: Shining Clock” was. Period. My fault for glossing over the bit about the link, but as I said that seemed peripheral because it’s not a rule. If it’s now a unique rule for me alone, please say so explicitly to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

And I very much did NOT post the same kind of thread: I amended my thread title EXACTLY as Gary had done. EXACTLY. I was disappointed that Gary’s ruling made it impossible for me to post a thread with nothing more than WANT in the title, because I’d thought that was harmless fun. And I said I would not post any more such threads, and I haven’t. And I won’t.

And “obvious” aside, your mindreading has failed you. There was no poke intended of any kind. It was nothing more than a pun, on Gary’s revised title, in reference to a funny misreading.

And if you want to call me a liar, Colibri, please do so less disingenuously. I have a temper, and a wonted tone of sarcasm, but I have never lied in any post I have made here. We’re left with two alternatives: I’m speaking in good faith, meaning what I say; or I have the bizarre, unmitigated gall to start a thread based entirely on a lie, and you’re a mindreader. Occam suggests the former, which in this case happens to be true.

Sorry, I’m not buying this. You protested Gary’s request to describe links in the original thread. You were certainly aware of it.

Let’s just say that your posts are not consistent with the facts of the matter.

Again, I took his admonition about the title as reiterating an existing rule. I did not take the mention of the link in the same light. It didn’t even really register. On reflection, that’s probably because of two things: first, it’s not a rule, and never has been. Second, it seemed to me that his mention of the link carried its own consequence: that some people would not click on it. It seemed to me that he was pointing out to me that if I posted blind links, I was limiting my potential readership. Not that it was a rule. Again, in retrospect, it would’ve been smarter of me to err on the side of caution.

Nonetheless, if that is now a rule, it’s a rule specifically for me only, and no one else. Which, again, contrbuted to my impression that it was not part of Gary’s specific admonitions. If someone is going to put into place a doper-specific rule, that no one else out of 80,000 members has to follow, I’d’ve assumed it would be done more explicitly, rather than as a followup comment in mod ruling that was more explicitly, mainly, about a specific rule violation.

Now, is that in fact a rule that only I must follow? Again, not being sure if that’s the case, posting a blind link still does not seem like a rule violation, so much as a self-policing practice likely to reduce one’s readership, which is how I took Gary’s mention of it.

DON’T WANT: Shining Wit.

Give it up – yes, it was blatantly 100% obvious that it was a joke…but you’ll never get what you want out of this, so just let it go.

Yah you right. After ten years, you’d think . . . I was contemplating what custom label I would put under my name? the best one I could think of was, “Will Never Learn.”

I agree, that would be quite accurate.

Lissner, I know it’s tough but reall ‘sorry, won’t do it again’ is a response that will get you far in life.

I second instating a ‘don’t poke a Mod with a stick’ suspension rule.