# I'm sorry, how is this worth a warning? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 13, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386 "2010-03-13T19:59:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/61 "2010-03-14T20:31:30Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > a similar history with Colibri. You’ve accused me of bias in my moderating with regards to you before. This is the first time I have issued you an official warning in almost three years as a moderator. I have also issued you a couple of mod notes in GQ for inappropriate posts or bickering with other posters, while at the same time issuing mod notes or warnings to the other posters involved. If you have instances where you feel I have unfairly targeted you as a moderator, please link to them. Put up or shut up. No more of these insinuations without backing it up. ---
**Author:** ![MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MPB_in_Salt_Lake)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/62 "2010-03-14T20:46:59Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Lissener, you are in a hole right now. I’d advise you to stop digging. > > You are not going to get a positive result by continuing this. Unless you are actively seeking suicide by mod. lissener has a persecution complex that is larger than the Puget Sound; he is not happy unless he can play martyr, and the SDMB is his go-to fix for his sick form of attention whoring. Ignore lissener, and he will surely fade to black… ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/63 "2010-03-14T20:59:23Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Then he went right ahead a couple of days later, and posted the same kind of thread in which he violated **Gary’s** instructions. > > What’s your point? I was answering the accusation that he explicitly stated he intended not to follow the rules. He didn’t–in fact he pretty much did the opposite. The question you just brought up–that of whether he went on to break the rules or not–is a different matter. I’ve already said what I think about that–his thread title seemed descriptive of the link to me, so I wasn’t sure how he could be accused of not describing the link. However, I’d allow for the caveat that his thread title was ambiguous, making it less than perfectly descriptive. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/64 "2010-03-14T21:11:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > “Shining COCK,” is that the one you mean? That doesn’t give an idea what people wilol find if they click on the link. Nobody would guess from the title that the link leads to a picture of a rooster painted on a motorbike. I think it was pretty clear that the photo was going to be of a cock of some kind, that was shiny. Knowing that it was hosted on Flickr, I was near positive that it wasn’t going to be anything NSFW but just the same didn’t click it with anyone else around. As an adult, which we’re all supposed to be, I can use that sort of discretion. If someone isn’t interested in taking the risk of clicking on something that is pretty clearly related to the concept of shining cocks, then they don’t need to participate in the thread, or can wait and come back to it when there have been posts to the thread that might make it more clear what the link might be. > [@Colibri](#): > > Then he went right ahead a couple of days later, and posted the same kind of thread in which he violated **Gary’s** instructions. Was Gary giving helpful instruction, making a request or laying down an explicit rule? He said “would you please” not “you must.” This is a pretty clear example of why ambiguous language is no one’s friend. If mods want compliance with their “instructions” then they need to be put forth as rules to comply with, not just helpful but optional suggestions – no matter who they’re addressing. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/65 "2010-03-14T21:50:03Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Was Gary giving helpful instruction, making a request or laying down an explicit rule? He said “would you please” not “you must.” This is a pretty clear example of why ambiguous language is no one’s friend. If mods want compliance with their “instructions” then they need to be put forth as rules to comply with, not just helpful but optional suggestions – no matter who they’re addressing. Sorry, this is just silly. If a moderator asks you to do something, then you should comply, even if he is polite enough to say please. The idea that by saying “please” we change an instruction to a mere suggestion is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/66 "2010-03-14T22:10:11Z")
I have suspended **lissener** for 30 days. Explanation [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12223864). ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/67 "2010-03-14T22:20:17Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Was Gary giving helpful instruction, making a request or laying down an explicit rule? He said “would you please” not “you must.” This is a pretty clear example of why ambiguous language is no one’s friend. If mods want compliance with their “instructions” then they need to be put forth as rules to comply with, not just helpful but optional suggestions – no matter who they’re addressing. _sigh_ So you’re saying if I issue instructions politely you don’t have to follow them? “Do this” and “Would you please do this” are both moderator instructions. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/68 "2010-03-14T22:21:03Z")
oh my. I’m torn between the complete “moderators are taking yourselves and this board way too seriously” reaction I’m having, and the fact that this site does have better discussions and threads than most of the interweb. I suppose I’ll let it play out, unless Cecil intercedes. It is his site, afterall. ---
**Author:** ![Covered\_In\_Bees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ab992/32.png) [@Covered\_In\_Bees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covered_In_Bees)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/69 "2010-03-14T22:34:49Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > oh my. I’m torn between the complete “moderators are taking yourselves and this board way too seriously” reaction I’m having, and the fact that this site does have better discussions and threads than most of the interweb. I suppose I’ll let it play out, unless Cecil intercedes. It is his site, afterall. I guarantee the quality of discussions here is very closely related to the moderation of this place. If we and the mods take good discussion seriously, I have no problem with them taking their moderatorness seriously. Just because this place is a fun distraction doesn’t mean that there should be anarchy for some reason. You can go to many other places on the internet that aren’t “serious” and thus don’t have shit for moderation and everything that comes with a lack of authority. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/70 "2010-03-14T23:31:23Z")
**Zoe** 1950: I will stay in my seat and be quiet while the teacher is out of the room. **Zoe** 2010: I will not be 'lippy" to Straight Dope Moderators even in About This Message Board. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/71 "2010-03-15T00:20:26Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Note: these were not intended as rhetorical questions. Can I please have clarification? Posting http:// links has never been against the rules, as far as I can tell, which again is why I didn’t understand that to be part of Gary’s admonition, but rather a suggestion appended to his ruling on the descriptive title. If that’s no longer the case, can we have clarification on that point? Thank you. Bull–it was a rule before that stupid “Rickroll” fad showed up here. As a matter of fact, they used that pre-existing rule to say “No rickrolling”. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/72 "2010-03-15T00:43:16Z")
Point of Order: I’d ask this in the “Lissener suspended” thread but the stupid policy (sorry guys, it IS a stupid policy) of insta-locking the thread made it impossible and I don’t want to give him more attention with a third thread, so I’m asking here: I pretty distinctly recall that Lissener wasn’t suspended before, he was banned? Had to make his case to the mods for a second chance, his “suspension” didn’t only last a week/two weeks/a month–any of the usual increments of suspensions and when he came back like a year later, it seemed to be on the “You’re on thin ice” policy that other returned banned people have returned with. While I can’t find the “Lissener banned” thread, here’s the [Lissener reinstated](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=339900) thread…both Tuba and Dex clearly refer to his time away as a “banning” as does [Twickster, here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5355186&postcount=139) 1. What’s up with that–since when was the banning retroactively changed to a suspension? Why? Was it a typo/omission? 2. Since when does someone get a suspension after 6 official warnings following an unbanning? Normally, once you’re “unbanned”, I was under the impression that you get one last chance and that’s it. Note that per the “Lissener suspended” thread, he’s had 22 warnings since some point in 2004. His first banning was around Oct, 2004, Cisco’s right that something seems weird here. ---
**Author:** ![Covered\_In\_Bees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ab992/32.png) [@Covered\_In\_Bees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covered_In_Bees)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/73 "2010-03-15T00:47:27Z")
Here is my take on #1: He was banned before they gave out suspensions. Once they did start in with suspensions, they just have considered what he got a suspension, despite it’s length and that he clearly didn’t deserve to be let back in. So yes it was mostly retroactive, but not in an official sense but more because the terminology was different. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/74 "2010-03-15T00:55:02Z")
They gave suspensions (without the name) before the official suspension system came into play, IIRC. Esprix got “suspended”/banned for like a week or two for posting a funny thread in the Pit, which broke a really moronic rule that had just been invented on someone’s whim a few weeks before–those were always distinguished from a ban as the moderator would say something like “You broke my rule about funny threads in the pit. I’m banning you for a week (two weeks?) and if I’m feeling generous, I’ll allow you back.” (not an actual quote, but captures the flavor). Lissener was banned…none of the “If you come back in a few weeks, hat in hand and apologize, we’ll let you back in” stuff that pre-suspension suspensions had… ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/75 "2010-03-15T01:09:56Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Sorry, this is just silly. If a moderator asks you to do something, then you should comply, even if he is polite enough to say please. The idea that by saying “please” we change an instruction to a mere suggestion is ridiculous. [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:67, topic:532386”] _sigh_ So you’re saying if I issue instructions politely you don’t have to follow them? “Do this” and “Would you please do this” are both moderator instructions. [/quote] I’m saying that if you’re giving an order, then make it an order, don’t use words that turn it into a request. Requests are optional. If you _ask_, you’re not giving instruction which _obligates_ compliance. If you give someone the room to say “no, I won’t” then what you’ve said is by definition \*not \*an order. Kindergarten teachers know that. It’s possible to be both polite and direct. “In future, please do/do not do X…” Then you don’t have loopholes and questions and ambiguities and arguments and confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/76 "2010-03-15T01:28:50Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > 1. What’s up with that–since when was the banning retroactively changed to a suspension? Why? Was it a typo/omission? **lissener** was banned, I believe in late 2004. This was before we went to a system of usually allowing a poster a suspension rather than a banning. He applied for reinstatement after almost a year and was reinstated. I assume that **Gary** referred to this simply as a “suspension” in the announcement thread rather than go into an involved explanation about the banning and unbanning. > [@](#): > > 1. Since when does someone get a suspension after 6 official warnings following an unbanning? Normally, once you’re “unbanned”, I was under the impression that you get one last chance and that’s it. Note that per the “Lissener suspended” thread, he’s had 22 warnings since some point in 2004. His first banning was around Oct, 2004, Cisco’s right that something seems weird here. We place less importance on violations the longer ago they took place. We use something like a sliding “statute of limitations.” Although we would be justified in banning **lissener** now, since in the terms of his reinstatement he agreed to strictly abide by all rules, since his banning/“suspension” was so long ago he is being allowed another chance. Likewise, he has six warnings within the past year, which was the most important factor in deciding to suspend him since they were both recent and occurred within a fairly short time. The other warnings are old, and took place over an extended period of time, so they are of less account. We actually do give people an awful lot of “last chances” around here. You usually have to work at it pretty persistently to get suspended or banned. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/77 "2010-03-15T01:38:02Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > I’m saying that if you’re giving an order, then make it an order, don’t use words that turn it into a request. Requests are optional. If you _ask_, you’re not giving instruction which _obligates_ compliance. If you give someone the room to say “no, I won’t” then what you’ve said is by definition \*not \*an order. Kindergarten teachers know that. It’s possible to be both polite and direct. “In future, please do/do not do X…” Then you don’t have loopholes and questions and ambiguities and arguments and confusion. Sorry, you’re really not making any sense here. I’m not seeing a huge difference in saying “would you please” and “please” (as you advocate). To be perfectly clear, I hereby order you to comply with all moderator instructions, whether or not they are proceeded by “would you please” or “please.”😉 ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/78 "2010-03-15T02:30:07Z")
I still say there’s a legitimate gripe in all this bull. And since it seems to have been ignored, I’ll say it again. You have a rule you want followed. The logical thing to do would be to put that rule in the rules sticky, where people would know it’s a rule. In fact, I’ll argue that, if you don’t, you’re communicating that it really isn’t that important, no matter how many posts and mod notes you give claiming it is. ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/79 "2010-03-15T05:03:52Z")
\ This was lissener’s thread asking a question. He can’t respond. Therefore I’m locking it. Any other questions or comments take it to a new thread, please. \ ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386/80 "2010-03-17T18:50:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The logical thing to do would be to put that rule in the rules sticky, where people would know it’s a rule. You have a good point, **BigT**. It is now in the [sticky](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697028&postcount=9). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sorry-how-is-this-worth-a-warning/532386.md?page=3)