Yes, you are, which is against the rules in GD.
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t know for what? Are you saying that my post was incomprehensible and without explanation? Because it’s not a very long post, and all the relevant information is there.
I didn’t say biggest. I said bigger. As in “bigger than me, who you just called a loser”
Why is that significant? Because it’s a comparison.
He set out the criteria for being a loser. He called me a loser under his criteria. He actually qualifies as a bigger loser under his own criteria.
Please explain what that is. What could I have possibly meant if not what I’ve already said?
No: I’m saying it doesn’t matter for what. There’s not a way you can say those plain words and have them be okay. There’s not a history that will make it okay. There’s not an equation that will make it okay.
There’s a rewording that will make it okay.
I understand your explanation perfectly fine. I just don’t think it matters.
So then from my previous post:
To be clear, you believe the above exchange would merit a warning? If not, why not?
You meant he was a loser.
It doesn’t seem like it needs an explanation to me.
For what?
Are you suggesting I just did it out of the blue? I just, out of the blue, for no reason, decided to call someone a loser? The same as if I had entered a thread, picked a post to reply to, and just said “you’re a loser”?
Edit: Would you warn me for the hypothetical I posted in post #64?
As has been explained to you multiple times, it doesn’t matter.
You seem to think that by continuing to argue you will get a different answer.
I know this thread will be locked soon, as threads which compel moderators to form a blue shield to defend a very silly position usually are, but as a moderator - and that goes to any of you - could you confirm my interpretation of the rules?
Imagine he said “you’re posting on a message board, that makes you 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 I understand you correctly, yes, that would deserve a warning. Because it doesn’t matter what I was replying to, or the context, or what he said, or his own defined criteria for an insult. It only matters that I called him a loser.
Is that correct?
I’ve already answered this in post number five , but here it is another time:
Your example here might be worthy of just a note…but again, that’s not what you said. You just outright called him a loser in your post.
I would be outright calling him a loser in the example I gave too. Is the difference the comma, rather than the period, or the word “too”? Or that I was only saying he was equally a loser, rather than a bigger one?
So if I rephrased it as:
He says “you’re posting on a message board, that makes you a loser” and I replied “you posted on a message board to say that. You’re a loser.” Then is it warning worthy? Since now “You’re a loser” is its own statement following a period, even though it conveys the same idea.
Actually, yes, I think that gets to the heart of it. The fact that it’s a single sentence, after a period, which can be isolated and pointed to in order to say “see! insult! warning!” - that tiny bit of seperation having it be a separate statement is apparently the thing that makes it warning-worthy. I think that analogy works.
After getting warned for that statement, I’d say “but I was just saying that he’s a loser too by his own criteria, pointing out his hypocrisy” and others would be saying “doesn’t matter why you said it, you said “you’re a loser”! it was its own sentence and everything. Nothing else matters! You shouldn’t need an explanation if your statement was clear in the first place!”
This hair is really too thin to split at this point.
You insulted somebody and got a warning. I can’t put it any more clear than that. Unless something different or compelling is posted, this will probably be my last reply to this thread.
Don’t worry, Beef, you’re not going crazy. Your explanation in this thread is the only reasonable interpretation. But you might want to just let this one rest. You’ve had your day in court, and you lost. Sometimes you just get a bad jury… Be glad it’s a minor slap on the wrist.
Thank you, and you’re probably right.
I will sneak in under the wire to say that considering the circumstances (provocation, long-standing poster, and the very mild ‘insult’ at that), a mod note would have, and should have, sufficed.
P.S. I almost never participate in these types of threads and, even less often, do I ‘take sides’. And, when I do, I usually see things in the mod’s favour. In other words, that’s how obvious the inappropriate warning is to me.
I’ve posted here my reasoning on why I think a warning was a bit more deserved.
Sometimes I skim threads like this and just shake my head at the amount of time and effort expended over…what, exactly?
mmm
That helps me understand things better. Thanks. (Thanks also for not pointing out that I missed it first time through!)
It’s a sucker bet. If the warning is rescinded, you get the money. Otherwise you never have to pay out, because you can always claim it just hasn’t happened yet but will eventually.
No, I don’t believe that. Why not? Because I can barely be arsed to have an opinion on what actually happened. Analyzing this event changed just barely enough so that it didn’t happen, enough to form a belief on it? Nope.