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

About This Message Board
41

I didn’t see your Pit thread, and appreciate the compliment there. However, I do take very strong exception to your premise. Reporting threads is not “tattling.” We very much appreciate posters who report problems; that’s the only way so few of us can handle such active forums as these. While it is true that people sometimes report posts that are not really problems because they misunderstand the rules, we would much rather have a few unnecessary reports than have a problem get worse because we were unaware of it. We also prefer that people report posts and allow us to handle it rather than respond and play “junior moderator” themselves. The attitude you express is not helpful to the moderation staff.

I think there should have been a bit more explanation than there was for why people should click the link. While tongue-in-cheek links can be OK, and you don’t have to give away the joke in the explanation, there should be something more to a post than a blind link regardless of the title.

42

This whole kerfuffle goes back to the fundamental concept of what the SDMB is about. And I’m not just talking about the “fighting ignorance” tagline. We’re here to post things and talk about them.

Let’s say I made a post, titled “WANT! Electronic Cat Feeder.” In the body, I post a link like this: “I saw this electronic cat feeder, and decided I really want one. I haven’t seen any others that can be set to dispense a dozen times a day, and it can hold a whole bag of food. They’re way too expensive, but really cool! What do you think?”

People who cared about electronic cat feeders would open the thread, follow the link, agree with me, disagree with me, and have a great cat feeder thread.

If my post was titled “WANT,” on the other hand, and consisted only of a blind link, the moderators would get several people reporting the thread, people who don’t care about cat feeders would be annoyed that their time was wasted, and a lot of people who did care wouldn’t find the thread. As anyone who’s ever worked on a collaborative report with a committee knows, people are much more likely to comment on what someone else writes than they are to create from scratch. You want a good conversation? State your opinion. Say WHY you want something.

There are a million web sites out there where people can repost everything interesting they see. On most of them, the next three responses will be “FIRST!!!11one!!!”, “Thats teh suxxors”, and “kewl.” That’s not what we want the Dope to be.

That’s why I politely asked you, lissener, to describe your links and use descriptive thread titles. I wasn’t mean about it, I didn’t issue a formal warning on your permanent record, and I am not part of a super-secret campaign of moderators to drive you away. If you could perhaps find it within yourself to say, “Sorry, won’t do it again,” instead of telling me you plan to ignore my instructions, we’d get along just fine.

43

As you yourself point out, Colibri, I had posted exactly the same kind of thread before, without any indication that it was a problem. And Gary did not “[ask me to refrain from posting blind links in the future.” At least, not unambiguously. He unambiguously asked me to use more descriptive thread titles, and then ambiguously added what seemed like a suggestion that blind links would net me fewer readers. So your statement of what actually happened is not altogether accurate. As others have agreed in this thread, there’s never been a rule that http:// links were not allowed. To repeat myself, that fact, plus the ambiguity of Gary’s mention of the link as a secondary point in his post, were the basis on which I posted an OP that was, minus one single letter, an exact replica of Gary’s example of a correct post. Both you and twickster, in your responses in this thread, are inaccurately (I won’t go as far as you did and say disingenuously) retroactively rewriting Gary’s post to make it seem like the blind link was his main point–it wasn’t–and that it was unambiguously stated as a rule violation–it wasn’t. That I followed Gary’s example to the very letter (minus an L) is about the only unambiguous item in this situation.

And no, I did not say I would not follow Gary’s instructions. I said that rather than post an anticlimactic thread title, I wouldn’t post one at all. I was, in fact, following his instructions, which can be restated: if you can’t post according to these rules, don’t post at all. That was the point of my response: that I would indeed refrain from posting “WANT” threads in the future. You seem to imply that the only way I could follow Gary’s instructions was to KEEP posting such threads, only with longer titles. How does agreeing not to post a “WANT” thread equal not following his instructions? In effect he offered a choice: my way, or don’t post. I chose the latter. You seem to suggest that my publicly acknowledging that I chose the latter is somehow an offense against this board.

44

I’d like to strongly echo this! I want to make sure people don’t misinterpret what I said above about a bunch of people reporting threads. We want people to report threads. There’s no conceivable way we could keep things running here as smoothly as they do without that “Report this Post” button. We may not always take action on reported posts, and we may not always reply to the person that reported them, but we always read the reports for the forums we moderate, and we’d rather have a half-dozen redundant reports than miss a problem.

45

Come on, lissener. How is this ambiguous?

It’s clear and it’s concise. Your response was also clear:

Now stop yanking my chain. I’m going to make this very simple: Do not post threads titled simply, “WANT” and do not make OPs consisting of a link without a description. Got it?

46

Sorry, edit window closed.

And–

–and when I did choose the former, I used Gary’s example as the template. But exactly. And that got me a warning.

47

So you’re clearly stating that there is a lissener-only rule against using http:// links?

48

You are a liar. I explicitly agreed to follow your instructions. The choice was to post according to your rules, or do not post. I chose the latter. Nowhere did I say I would simply ignore your instructions. Please quote where I said I would ignore your instructions, or you are a liar, plain and simple.

Why is it OK to change the words that someone says in order to object to them? Object to what I actually said, Gary. Creating a false quote is outright lying.

49

Do you see “lissener-only” anywhere in those instructions? I’m telling you to follow the rules and etiquette of the board. Asking you politely doesn’t seem to work, and Colibri’s warning didn’t work either. So I figured I’d boil down all those complicated rules and requests that you don’t seem to understand into one simple sentence. I’ll repeat it for you:

Do not post threads titled simply, “WANT” and do not make OPs consisting of a link without a description.

Is this clear? Is it also clear that I’m getting tired of playing semantic games with you, and if you title a post “DESIRE” and describe the link as “link,” you’ll get warned for it?

You’re dancing on a fine line right now, lissener. You have racked up three warnings in five months. It’s time to play nice.

50

[moderating]
Make that four warnings. Personal insults are not allowed in ATMB.
[/moderating]

Click on the little arrow to the right of the “Originally Posted by” to read the original text of the quote. I quoted you verbatim.

51

The plain fact is that the receptions such threads received in the past, including ZERO moderator comment, led me to believe that it was a bit of harmless fun that some people enjoyed. In the last one, which was also going along swimmingly, GWR came swooping in on a wet blanket and said that threads could not be posted like this. Since the way they were posted was part of the fun, I peevishly agreed not to post such threads in the future. My sin seems to have to have publicly acknowledged that I didn’t want to play the game by the less-fun rules, so I wouldn’t play the game.

When I decided to have another go at it, I followed the new rules, to the letter, as I understood them. Colibri assumed, with no evidence beyond his own prejudice, that rather than trying to salvage a bit of fun from the situation, I was maliciously poking GWR with a stick and deliberately and explicitly flaunting the rules. A thing which, in 10 years. it has never been my habit to do; all the trouble I’ve been in has been due to tone deafness and temper, not deliberate rule breaking. The one time I posted drunk and deliberately trolled, I acknowledged and apologized within minutes.

So Colibri’s presumtion, incorrect, that there was malice, is what really set this off. Gary was a spoilsport, a disappointment but something I could live with. Colibri made it personal and accusatory, and so here we are.

Gary, I won’t apologize for posting the “WANT” thread, because as I said all visible evidence suggested it was a bit of fun that was perfectly acceptable by all parties. I will acknowledge that I skimmed too cavalierly over your instructions, or at least I assumed that since posting http links had NEVER been against the rules that it wasn’t part of your official admonition but more of a suggestions. I will acknowledge that was perhaps shortsighted of me. If I had given it more thought I might at least have asked for clarification. But I won’t apologize; there was no malice or mischief involved, just a bit of humor that I believed was within your parameters.

Colibri, to the extent that this has become a hornet’s nest it is due to your stirring. You are not a mind reader. If you presume malice, you should be prepared to listen to a response to such an accusation. And absent any evidence outside of your own psychic mind, you should consider taking people at their word, rather than ramping up your accusations to include dishonesty, as the only way to maintain the personal nature of your attack without the embarrassment of backing off on it a bit. I’m done with this.

52

You said that I stated that I planned to ignore your instructions. That is a blatant untruth. Hereis the link you pointed me to.

Please show me where I stated I would ignore your instructions. To say that I said this, when in fact I did not, is a blatant falsehood.

Is this the basis of this whole thing? Your misreading of my agreement to not post if I couldn’t post according to your instructions, you misread that as somehow saying that I would be ignoring your instructions? Is that really where all this started? If so, please reread my post again, and see where I in fact agreed to follow your instructions by not posting that kind of OP again.

I withdraw the accusation of lying, if it is indeed based simply on your misreading of my post.

53

Yes. Because it is not a rule. It has never been a rule. But I got an official warning for “breaking” it. If it is a rule, it should be in a sticky. If it is a lissener-only rule, shouldn’t that be stated? If it is NOT a lissener-only rule, nor a RULE rule, but only a suggestion, then we’re right back where we started: why did I get an official warning for “breaking” what is neither a general rule, nor a lissener-only rule?

54

Lissener, are you sincerely saying that, in response to GWR’s note (quoted above in its entirety), that your first sentence in response (quoted above in its entirety) you are stating you probably won’t follow one or both of GWR’s instructions (although you do go on to elaborate on the title portion)? Where in his initial note does GWR say anything like “or don’t post at all”?

55

Lissener said, in paraphrase, “No I won’t. I won’t post descriptive thread titles. So I won’t post these kinds of threads at all.”

There is nothing there about an intent not to follow the rules. Rather, it affirms an intent to follow the rules. Someone who read only the very first sentence might misunderstand, but it is easy to avoid that misunderstanding by being sure to read the whole (reasonably short and rhetorically unified) post.

GWR didn’t say “or don’t post at all,” and neither did Lissener say he was not going to post at all. Rather, he said he’s not going to post these kinds of threads anymore. If he thinks it’s impossible to post this kind of thread while also following the rules, then he rightly thinks the only way to be in compliance with the rules is to refrain from posting this kind of thread.

56

I said, “lissener, will you please do this.” You said, “No, I probably won’t.” I let it go.

You then proceeded to create a new thread that specifically violated what I asked you to do. That’s pretty clear indication of your intent.

Then, after Colibri warned you, explained what you did wrong, and linked back to my original post, you started this thread. I still didn’t rise to your bait.

After several clear explanations of what you did wrong, you proceeded to directly call me a liar (forbidden in ATMB) and get another warning. Your twenty-second warning since 2004, and your sixth in the last ten months.

Now, you’re saying that, despite Colibri’s warning clearly stating that it was for “failure to follow moderator instructions,” you still don’t understand?

I don’t buy your innocent routine, and I strongly recommend that you stop digging this hole any deeper while the moderators discuss your posting status.

57

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?

58

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.

59

I realize that, inevitably, the moderators are very likely “discussing my posting privileges.” So in case I don’t get a chance to say goodbye–this is wholly sincere–if they do decide to ban me, I just wanted to say that over ten years, I’ve gotten a lot out of this place. And I think I’ve put a lot into it. I’ve been pretty bad about not letting my moodswings color my tone here, and for anyone my nearly involuntary sarcasm has offended over the years, I’d like to apologize. I never actually mean to cause offense, but I’m not very good at having an externalized perspective on how my tone may be received by another party. So again, I regret that this particular failing of mine has compromised much of my contribution to this community.

As for the possibility that my calling GWR a liar will finally be what gets me banned, well I probably overstated that. I have little doubt that that was how he read my post. That it clearly did not say what he quoted it as saying, and the thought that he wouldn’t, as a moderator, be called on it, where I, for example, inevitably would’ve been, made the whole situation seem so hopelessly muddled and imbalanced that I allowed my anger to type the word “liar” in my post. Again, said in anger, but the fact remains he put invented words in my mouth in order to justify his moderator action.

The hopelessness of my ever making any leeway in this present situation, coupled with the net-negative tone of my experience here of late, with twickster’s stated dislike of me and her thus-colored moderation where I’m concerned, and a similar history with Colibri, leaves me in a place I never thought I’d find myself. I’m saddened to admit that the thought of a negative finding by a moderator council as regards my posting privileges leaves me feeling, at the moment at least, well kind of apathetic. I have no doubt that, with a positive finding, and a bit of a vacation, that feeling would abate, and I’d be back in CS doing what I could to keep an interesting flow in the conversation.

But if the finding is against me, I just wanted to thank the Dope at large for a very interesting 10 years. And again to apologize for any unintended offenses I may have left in my wake. Among the hundreds, if not thousands, of personalities I’ve interacted with here, there have been only a scant handful that I’ve felt actual malice toward, and toward whom I have ever intended offense. The rest of you, the collaterals, have my apologies.

All that said, I hope this ends up being just a melodramatic little bit of martyrdom, and not an actual goodbye. But whatever the outcome, it’s certainly been real. Keep up the fight; it will take much, much longer than any of us could ever have imagined.

60

No. The “No, I probably won’t,” was specifically in answer to, “Lissener, will you please use descriptive titles?”

The fun part of those threads, for me at least, and I thought from the response, such as it was, for a few others as well, the, “huh, I wonder what cool gadget lissener has unearthed this time?”

To disclose the cool gadget in the title robbed the thread of much of the fun for me, so when he asked me to please use a descriptive title for such threads, my decision was that I would probably just not post that kind of thread anymore. Hence, “No, I probably won’t.”

ETA: What Frylock said.