Dude, chill. 
I was just riffing off Dex’s Marie Antoinette post. It isn’t necessary for anyone to disrobe in my presence. Unless they model swimsuits for Sports Illustrated. 
nm
Alright, I give up. What did you mean by the quote marks? They made a statement of fact about the board. One that anyone could observe on their own. Why are you trying to imply that they’re attempting to speak “officially”, whether you say “officially” in scare quotes or not? Why would you even begin to compare this to “junior modding”? Is there something wrong with you?
The quote marks meant that, if one reads the definition from a technical, legalistic, pay attention to every jot and tittle, then saying anything about board rules could be perceived as junior modding. And it’s almost impossible to write a definition that distinguishes HELPFUL comments about board rules, from comments that “usurp” [quoting the rules] mod powers.
As the reply goes:
It’s:
Philistine! I’d horse-whip you if I had a horse!
Moderator Note
spinky, this kind of remark is uncalled for in ATMB. Let’s keep it civil.
Colibri
Actually, I could probably make money by threatening to disrobe unless people pay me off.
Hey, I actually did that. I worked as a male stripper for one night; the crowd was yelling “Put it on!Put it on!” I ended up with three hundred bucks, a pair of overalls, and a parka.,
Sorry, but this is just silly. The definition is necessarily imprecise and involves a judgment call – I know that, and you know that. That doesn’t mean it makes sense to point to some hypothetical brain dead mod that might consider any statement about board rules junior modding, and say “see, that’s why it’s hard to define!” You’re basically saying that because you can’t write a foolproof definition for even the stupidest, most judgment-lacking mod, that you may as well not try. Give your staff and your users a bit more credit.
and
No, it simply could not be perceived that way unless you are bending over backwards to invent infractions where none exist, by either the spirit or the letter of the rules. There is no rule that only board staff are allowed to speak of board rules, and it would be absolutely insane for anyone to ever rule that “jdavis appears to be the only person on the board with Admin rights” would constitute trying to make an official statement about the board. This is why I reacted the way I did. It’s utterly baffling that you would even consider such a strange ruling anywhere near the realm of possibility. And frankly, the reason that that’s annoying is that it makes it appears as though you’re willing to entertain the most twisted, confused, counter-productive interpretations of your own rules for the sole purpose of “proving” that certain questions such as “what is junior modding” are just gosh-darned unanswerable, so people should just stop asking.
This whole “what is junior modding” (separate thread, new definition) has been in response to EXACTLY what you’ve said. Except you’ve got it backwards. It’s not I or the mods who are reporting posts under “the most twisted, confused, counter-productive interpretations.” I had a string of REPORTS (four or five over a period of a few days) accusing posters of “junior modding” under “twisted, confused, counter-producive interpretations” of the rules. I’m trying to cut this off for future, by revising the definition so we get less of this, not more.
Sure, people are reporting posts as junior modding when you disagree that they’re junior modding. That’s a call you’ve got to make, and I’m sure it’s annoying to have to make that call all the time, especially when people keep harping on one particular borderline case. That doesn’t mean it makes sense to say “but, but, a severely demented person could hypothetically make the argument that it’s junior modding to use the word don’t in a post, and therefore it is impossible to codify what exactly constitutes junior modding!”