This is neither a new precedent, nor about an “implied” insult. The insult was explicit, and that has always been against the rules.
Great! Happy to be corrected. Ignorance fought.
That is exactly how I read it, but then SenorBeef decided to look at posting rate as a comparable metric so he could thereby turn the insult around.
Ergo, he could insult Tangent by saying it’s Tangent’s own criteria of measurement. Thus, Tangent’s own actual intent is kinda irrelevant to SenorBeef’s action.
Which is more likely - that he was conceding that he was a loser, and calling Dajn a loser too; or pointing out the conclusion of the logic to illustrate that the principle (high post/day count = loser) is false?
As others have pointed out, the ratio was not part of Dajn’s logic, and without it, Senorbeef’s post makes no sense. Senorbeef added the ratio in, and in so doing made it possible to claim that Dajn’s logic made Dajn a loser.
But even so, it doesn’t matter which was more likely. Even if he were attempting to say that the logic was bad, he did so in an insulting way.
Just humor me. Which is more likely?
Why would I bother to answer this question? If you want your humor satisfied, I’ve answered it upthread.
Because it could actually lead to a interesting conversation? But whatever, suit yourself.
I have rarely been less convinced of something I’ve read :).
Your grasp of the concept of “context” is…lacking.
This doesn’t refute Miller’s point. He doesn’t have to believe that he is a loser.
Poor mods. How much y’all get paid?
No enough for me. I wouldn’t have the patience.
This post is as bad as “We have pigeon eggs”.
Can’t you accept the Mods aren’t going to budge and just move on?
Keep hammering, they are almost ready to change their minds, I can tell.
Missed it by THAT much …
Well it took 42 replies to the OP for Idle Thoughts to change from saying he’d warn anyone in the given situation (post #2) to saying that it could have been just a note but he mods based on history and here’s some examples from the past few years to finally justify his decision (post #43).
He could have put his eventual reasoning in the original warning - a simple mention that after repeated notes for similar behavior he was finally giving a warning. But he didn’t.
He could have put that in his first reply to the OP here, post #2. But he didn’t.
He could have put that in post #5. But he didn’t.
He could have put that in post #6. But he didn’t.
He could have put that in post #8. But he didn’t.
He could have put that in post #42. But he didn’t.
Finally he explains in post #43 what he had been thinking all along. Never too late I guess.
Who knows what the future holds?
I like SenorBeef just fine, but I don’t give two shits if his warning is rescinded or not. I thought it was interesting to point out that I, and apparently others, agreed with his explanation. While others apparently thought it was equal to this:
That statement and SenorBeef’s do not pass the same logic test for me.
That’s not quite how I see it. If anything, it’s like we have a rule against smashing people’s faces. Dajn came at senorbeef trying to punch him. Senorbeef caught him by the arm and use his momentum to swing him into the wall, smashing Dajn’s face.
Wouldn’t’ve happened without Dajn’s silliness, but Senorbeef still broke the no-smashing-people’s-faces rule.
And the penalty for “smashing people’s face” can be:
Nothing, if no one reports it and a mod doesn’t see it.
A note, as Idle Thoughts admits it could have been in post #43.
Or a warning, as he chose and retroactively justified.
An analogy to physical violence does nothing to advance the conversation about whether or not the modding in this case was appropriate.