Is this really worth a warning?

The guy called me a loser because I had a high post count, suggesting I have nothing better to do than sit and post all day. I checked his history, and it turns out we have a nearly identical post per day rate, and he exceeds me slightly. So I point out that he actually posts more per day than I do, so by his own standards, he’s a bigger loser.

His behavior is clearly much more aggressive than mine. I was only responding to point out the ironic error of his own insult. Even if you perceive that to be an insult in terms of violating the rules, there’s no way that a member of generally long and good standing goes right to a warning for such an incredibly mild retort after being insulted. I’ve seen mod notes for much more aggressive, clear insults from more problematic posters.

Idle Thoughts has a personal beef with me for mostly off-board communication we’ve had. It may be relevant.

Yes, it was worth a warning.

As I said in the PM, when someone calls you a name on these boards, you don’t call them one right back. You were calling him a loser too, in that post. You have been here long enough to know you should report the post and/or Pit them if someone starts insulting you, not insult them back.

As I also said in the PM, it’s not personal, I would have warned anyone there who was calling names instead of reporting the post or going to the Pit with it.
I don’t have any personal beef with you at all, actually… I’m sorry you feel that way, but it’s not correct. You got warned for name calling, just like he did.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see SenorBeef’s post as name calling. The other poster was the one claiming that a high post count makes you a loser. I don’t believe SenorBeef believes that having a high post count makes you a loser, so I don’t believe he was insulting the other poster. He merely echoed the other poster’s own words back.

Eta: if he’d put quotation marks around “loser”, would that have still deserved a warning?

Okay, so just to be clear, if he had said “anyone who posts more than 4 times a day is a loser, so you’re a loser”, and I said “well, you post 4.65 times a day, so I guess by your own standards, you’re a loser”, I’d get a warning?

Edit: Yes, the above poster is correct. I’m not genuinely calling the guy a loser, since the thing he did (post 4.65 times a day) does not make one a loser in my view nor in any reasonable person’s. I was only pointing out his hypocrisy using his own words.

You’d get a note, at the very least, but not sure about a warning…
…but your post said:

Which pretty much calls him a loser, clear cut. Thus, a warning for insults.

Yes, I probably would have warned for that too.
As tempting as it is to reply back to anyone who is insulting you on here, a person should really just report the post or take it to the Pit.

“Turns out [by your own logic] you’re the bigger loser.”

I thought that much was obvious. For me to actually be saying “you’re a loser because you post 4.65 times a day”, I’d have to actually think that was something a loser would do, which I obviously don’t. So the only possible way I would be saying such a thing is to say “you tried to insult me, but by your own logic you’ve insulted yourself more”

It doesn’t really matter what you meant, it’s not what you said, I’m sorry. You insulted someone and I felt you very well should have knew better by then, so I warned you. It’s not me having a bad day or night and it’s not anything personal…I would have warned anyone there. What you said is a clear insult.
If you meant to mean it like all of your “would this get a warning?” examples, then you should have reworded it a bit better before posting it.

There’s no other way I could’ve meant it except the way I’m explaining it.

Just my opinion, but in most cases, I don’t think you’d like it if mods gave warnings based on what they thought you meant, rather than what you actually wrote.

Just a thought. Woudn’t “Tone it down. No warning issued.” have achieved the same result without burdening a long-time poster with an official warning on his record? Seems kind of harsh for a relatively minor infraction.

This thread is why I wouldn’t want to be a mod.

It is sad that any regular poster gets a warning for responding to a sock and troll, especially when they are banned soon after. I think the warning should be lifted, I doubt Senor would repeat the mistake.

Personally, I approve of the hard and fast line rather than all this messing around.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully understand what Senorbeef was doing. And I do not think that the “by your logic” one should be moderated at all.

My first warning was because a mod interpreted what I said not the way I meant it. The person I said it towards said they understood what I meant. In fact, it was a “by your logic” post without specifically mentioning such. So I do understand how it feels.

But I still think a hard line on this rule is a lot better than all this waffling back and forth, where people think they can come in and explain what they meant. Sure, not all rules can be moderated this way, but I think you should take advantage of it when you can.

Because bright line rules are the easiest to follow

Ding-Ding-Ding! We have a winner.

You know, a good poster has a responsibility to not rise to the obvious bait.

There’s a fairly simply heuristic here: Anywhere but the Pit, if you’re about to hit “Submit” on a post stating anything resembling “You are <unflattering thing>”, you are almost certainly about to violate one of the few bright-line rules in this forum: “No personal insults”.

But we do unwise things in the heat of the moment. That’s what warnings for: to help us remember not to do the same unwise thing in the next heated moment.

I don’t see a problem here.

I don’t have any personal beef with you, and I think the warning was justified. You’ve been around plenty long enough to know not to insult another poster. You called another poster a loser. If you meant something different, you should have written something different.

It’s not up to posters to decide who’s a sock or a troll. Report them, and let the mods deal with them.

The warning serves to ensure that he and others don’t repeat the mistake. If he doesn’t, there won’t be repercussions.

I’ve seen examples of mods posting 4 or 5 links to the “warnings” members have received in the “Mikey has been banned” type threads. Often I look at those warnings and I wonder how in the heck that behavior resulted in a warning vs. a mod note vs. any activity at all. If this warning is justified on the pretense that it was necessary to correct unwanted behavior, I’m not buying it. That it is justified as it warns others not to do the same thing is equally weak. When a long term poster obviously isn’t a troublemaker he shouldn’t be treated like one.

But is it a SenorBeef?

Here are some future strategies for you, SenorBeef, that will allow you to skate close to the (very vaguely defined) line without quite crossing it.

Instead of saying “Turns out you’re the bigger loser,” you should say something like “In any scenario where being a loser is determined by how often you post to this message board, I would posit that YOU are the bigger loser.”

Or you could try adding a disclaimer at the end, something like “Oh and mods, before you issue the warning to me, the above is meant in good fun and I obviously don’t mean all that. No hard feelings?” It’s like a magic get-out-of-jail-free card!