:smack: Yes, that was supposed to be “attack on the poster, not the post”. Obviously an attack on the post is NOT against the rules.
Inspired by this here ATMB thread, I went and read about half of that thread (which I had only briefly skimmed yesterday), and gave up in utter disgust before reading the rest of it. I suppose that disqualifies me from posting any comment of my own in that trainwreck of a thread, unless I buckle down and trudge through reading the rest of it first. (Note, thought, that I habitually haven’t participated much in GD threads, to be sure.)
So, Colibri, what is the GD-approved phraseology for calling out someone who is so “oblivious to the lives of others” yet still has managed to nearly single-handedly totally pwn that thread and drive it off the rails?
Senegoid, I’m not normally a big fan of the “ignore it and it’ll go away” problem, but the poster you’re talking about did manage to make the whole thread about his repugnant views. Ignoring him would probably have been the best course for everyone.
“Be nice!” Seriously? Since when was this a rule and exactly how is ‘nice’ determined?
I think the moderation just jumped the shark on this board.
I’ve read the three warned posts a few times now and I’m just more confused. What’s not ‘nice’ about saying ‘I’m not surprised by your evasiveness’?
I’m sure it’s just me, of course. But damn, it gets more impossible to understand what you want from us every damn day around here.
I understood, don’t be a jerk. Be ‘nice’, not so much.
Good luck with that!
Rachel Maddow used to do a segment called “John Boehner is bad at his job.” This is “Jonathan Chance is bad at his job.”
“I don’t want to give appropriate warnings for existing posts that violate established board norms, so instead I’ll create some ad hoc rule and issue warnings for posts that you have to squint at to see the violation.”
Terrible.
I’m wondering when the standard in GD and ATMB went from “Attack the post, not the poster” and “Sarcasm and snark are fine” to “No posts that could possibly give someone’s feelings an ouchie.”
We’re grown-ups. Kindergarten rules are just a bad idea for GD and ATMB.
Jonathan: I really think it’s bad precedent to jump into a thread and create a new rule that everyone must follow. It would have been so simple to just issue the appropriate mod note or warning in the first place, and if you think the thread is getting out of hand remind everyone to obey the existing rules. Please give some consideration to taking back the warning you issued to elucidator. The other two, yes, they would have been out of line even without your previous mod note, so they don’t violate my sense of fairness. If you want to knock them down to a mod note, though, I think we’d all be grateful. 
Well, at least I would be-- I feel like I should never have opened this thread in the first place now.
When the mod note is basically “Be nice” why the fuck do you need a list of what is nice or not? Just be a grown up and use a little common sense.
You think “common sense” would clearly tell you what is “nice” during an exchange of opposing ideas on a message board? Or is this a clever joke about how untenable Jonathan Chance’s directive was? Sorry I didn’t catch the sarcasm right off the bat!
The red highlighted parts aren’t “nice” and by the “I haz a 
sad” kindergarten standards JC is enforcing, might be warnable.
Or not.
Who knows?
Some people want to know exactly where the line is so that they can dance around it, “common sense” simply tells you not to go near the line at all.
Untenable? Only if you want it to be.
A proposed solution for future threads like this:
-If there are posts that look problematic, but you don’t want to warn them because they’re not egregious (A VERY GOOD MOD STRATEGY, by the way), give them specific notes.
-Do not change the rules for a thread based on a plethora of on-the-edge posts. That’s obviously confusing and obviously ineffective.
-If you’re finding that your moderation strategy is leading to a lot of warnings, you may not be using an effective moderation strategy. A good strategy entails clear rules and clear enforcement such that relatively few people violate the rules.
-Never call out people en masse. The folks who are violating rules are unlikely to think it applies to them, because obviously they’re not taking the rules so seriously; and the people who aren’t violating rules, the sticklers, are likelier to think it applies to them. In general it lowers the tone of the board for no good effect.
Well, shit. If it’s so obvious, let’s just have the one rule for the whole board. “Be nice.” No, wait. “Don’t be a meanie.” Done! No more rules needed! Let’s close down ATMB.
May as well, though I know that would free up a lot of time for some people.
No, because that just moves the confusion to “what does nice actually mean?”.
If you can’t define what you mean, when you order somebody to not do “something”, it just makes it possible to define what you have forbid, in any way you please, at any time.
Problem solved.
Ok then, YOU explain how common sense dictates, “I’m not surprised by your evasiveness.” Is a warnable offence of the ‘Be Nice’ directive.
It’s beyond silly to my common sense. So, how’s this gonna work? Please explain.
You want me to explain a nonsensical thing? Isn’t going to happen.
Ohhhhhh, you said “fuck,” that’s not nice. And you implied that we weren’t grown ups, I don’t think that’s nice either. Under the new rule, if you’re not nice, you can’t be in Oprah’s Gold Star Club and sit on the carpeted part of the floor.
If people posting were grown ups, and had common sense, there would be no need for a warning in the first place.
And you can’t force anyone to develop common sense. It can’t be done.