I have some bad news about your draft number…
Yes, he did.
This poster also got a warning for insulting him before banning, for the record, so again, there is nothing personal here.
However…
That only came later. He was on his last warning in the post to SenorBeef’s case. His banning came from the above insult (where I, again, modded both posters).
The warning will stand, I’m sorry.
Yes, it could have easily gone with a mod note too, which…pretty much all warnings could. But in this case, I chose a warning, because as I’ve already said, SenorBeef has been around for a long time and should know better and a huge problem here is obviously “What I wrote is not what I meant, this is what I meant”. His post came off much more harsh than he seemed to have meant it. It’s easy to say “Well, anyone reading it would have gotten what I meant here”, but not everyone agrees with that, so what is best is to say what you meant first and give a little pause before letting yourself reply with what could be something you’d possibly get a note or warning over.
TL;DR version: A warning works here too and hopefully will make it so next time one will choose their words better or make it clearer what they really mean.
I figured I’d make a few other points in this topic so that it doesn’t seem like the mod really is picking on someone who some see isn’t usually a troublemaker and to explain my reasoning.
First, I mod based on history of posts on the board. If a poster has had a history, even a small one, of insults or name calling or thread shitting, or even just already getting many mod notes, then I’m going to be more apt to give them a warning instead of a note. Whereas if a poster hasn’t had any notes (that I can remember) or warnings, then I’m going to think “eh, a note will work fine, they aren’t usually a trouble maker”.
The thing is, SenorBeef does have a bit of a history of not holding back and seemingly impulsively posting and getting into it with other posters easily outside of the Pit. I would know/remember it, because I’ve been the one to have to note him for it each time. You want to see a better backbone to the warning he got now? Well, okay…
Here’s one time I had to tell him to report the post instead of taking it out or dealing his own dressing down of said poster (which is much like what happened in this recent case). You don’t dole out the insults or chastising yourself, you report the post and let the mod do it, because that’s what moderators are for.
Okay, so that happened…and then this happened. I had to tell SB and another poster to take stuff to the Pit since it was getting too heated for the Game Room. So he’s been told at least once before to use the report function to report posts he has a problem with…and on another occasion to take it to the Pit and not start heated or insulting posts in other forums.
And yet, here it is again, as recently as just last week. Third time he gets a note, from me and in the Game Room and for something that is related to “SenorBeef sometimes seems to have a slight problem keeping his temper and not replying to people who piss him off”.
Now yes, that is three mod notes in three years, which…those are spaced far apart…
…but I still remember them and it still makes a history that a poster has of–instead of taking it to the Pit or reporting the posts–wading into the topic and delivering a tongue-lashing of his own.
I remembered that I had noted SB at least three times in the past for the same thing, so nobody can argue that he didn’t already know full well NOT to do it. He should have easily known by today to report the post or take it to the Pit, because he’s been told about it three times, by myself.
So when I saw the “You’re the bigger loser” post, I figured “well, enough is enough…he’s going to finally get a warning for that”. Here I figured that “poster insults another poster” (whether they are thought of as or turn out to be a troll or not) was a pretty clear cut case of someone deserving a warning, but quite a few replies in here have seemed to say “SB didn’t deserve it”. Well, in my opinion, he did…because he’s been told about it three times before over the course of the last three years. I finally figured I’d make it a warning now instead of his fourth note.
Anyway, it’s not personal, unless you think a history of deserved notes is personal. If it was really personal, however, I would have probably found thin reasons to make them all warnings, all this time…but instead just stuck with notes to him all of the years. Not this time, though, I’m sorry.
I have nothing against you, SenorBeef, but you deserved that warning and next time all you have to do is make it a little more clear what you meant to say in the first place rather than try to explain it after the fact.
Do you appreciate the difference between saying “I guess that makes you a fucking cunt” vs “You do realise you just insulted yourself”, right?
Bullshit warning.
Sure you can trot out precise reasons why it technically was a warning but when you are finished any reasonable person is just going to roll their eyes and think “oh for fucks sake”.
Officious rubbish and lacking in common sense.
Like many conversations that my wife has with me where I’m supposed to infer her meaning, your meaning didn’t come though. Obvious to you does not mean obvious to everyone.
:rolleyes:
Oh for fuck’s sake.
I’ll bet a nickle SenorBeef gets his way and gets his warning removed.
Says the dude who has a beef with Beef.
Best poster name/post content ever.
Sure officer, I was speeding but the car in front of me was going faster!
You’re would be wise to bet no more than a nickel on that.
Sure, but then five cents, are we on?
Seriously, what other meaning could it have had? Construct me a way to interpret what I said that isn’t in line with my explanation.
The guy said “[his post count] proves that he’s a fucking loser” - now the interpretation I’m going with here is “he has nothing better to do but sit here and post all day and rack up 30,000 [actually 24] posts”
Now, obviously, 24,000 posts over 15 years isn’t that many posts per day. So I checked his posts per day, and it turned out it was basically identical (slightly exceeded) mine. So if I’m a loser for posting 4 times a day, he’s a loser for posting 4 times a day too, right? And his posts per day actually exceeds mine slightly, so by his own logic, he’s the bigger loser.
My post literally consists of:
His number of posts/posts per day
My posts/posts per day
Me saying that his posts per day exceed mine (“4.65>4.62”)
“Turns out” meaning “upon examination of these facts”
“you’re the bigger loser” meaning “by your own standards of posting on a message board a lot means you’re a loser, you post more, so you’re a bigger loser”
This isn’t some tortured interpretation I’m coming up with. This is literally the only way you can construe my words. No other interpretation makes sense.
Otherwise, what, you’re just saying I posted his post count on random, compared his post count per day to mine at random for no reason, and then said “turn out” and then I just randomly said OH HEY YOU’RE A LOSER and it had nothing to do with all of the words preceeding that in the post? That I just totally out of the blue decided to call him a loser for no reason?
Imagine he said “you’re posting on a message board, you’re a loser” and I said “well, uh, you’re posting on a message board to post that, so then obviously you’re a loser too”, would that be worth a warning? If not, what’s the fucking difference?
Am I nuts? Can people really not see the difference between someone saying “you’re a [insert insult here]” out of the blue, and someone else saying “you did this thing, you’re a [insert insult here]” and someone saying back "well, you’re doing the very same thing you insulted me for, so I guess you’re a [insert insult here]?
I consider myself reasonable. And I’m rolling my eyes and thinking, “oh, for fuck’s sake” at SeñorBeef’s “explanation.”
When you wrote, "Turns out you’re the biggest loser, you could have meant, “You’re the biggest loser.”
Now, that may not be an interpretation that stands up to 300 words of analysis involving division to two decimal places, but there’s a good argument that posts should clearly not be insulting even when that level of analysis is not applied.
You wrote, “Turns out you’re the biggest loser.” Can you see how, lacking a careful analysis of your math and its implications, it appears that you’re calling him a loser?
If you can see that, then you can write more carefully going forward. If you can’t see that, then perhaps you should make far more drastic changes to your writing in order to stay more entirely within the safe zone.
I’m calling him a loser for what, posting 4.65 times a day to a message board? When my own post per day rate is 4.62? When I didn’t introduce the idea that posting to a message board and having a high post count makes you a loser? And I just happened to use the word “loser” as an insult, just coincidentally, and it had nothing to do with the fact that he had called me a loser for having a lot of posts in the very post I’m replying to?
How does that possibly make sense?
I don’t know for what. For what doesn’t matter. Do you get that?
The first law of holes, or the law of holes, is an adage which states that “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.
It could have meant its plain meaning.