Woosh.
Munch didn’t continue the hijack. HE COMMENTED ON YOUR MODERATION. His topic and the topic created by kayaker were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
kayaker: What about Cesario?
Munch: Asking about Cesario is not off topic.
Two completely different statements. One is about how you moderated Cesario. The other is about how you moderated kayaker. You forbade one, but did not forbid the other.
You once told me in a PM that you were the mod that could be reasoned with. Please show us that and admit that you made a mistake.
For his comment on Cesario. Sorry, but no. The point of the mod note was that I wanted to discuss the topic at hand, not a poster who got banned three years ago for other things and for a mod response that was already discussed at great length and then remedied. The gist of Munch’s post was that all of those things were relevant after all, which would’ve required a discussion of why it was or was not on point and reopens the exact tangent I’d just told kayaker to stop posting about. Munch has been here long enough to know you can’t argue with a mod instruction that way. If a mod says something if off-topic, you don’t immediately start arguing that it is on topic. You can send a PM, you can open a new thread, but you don’t continue the hijack by arguing the mod was wrong mid-thread. That’s the same as ignoring the mod note.
I can be reasoned with, but I hope I didn’t suggest to you I was the only mod who could be reasoned with. That said, being reasonable doesn’t mean reversing myself when I think I’m right. It means that I’ll reverse a decision if I’m convinced it was wrong.
Please save “whoosh” for jokes that were obvious.
THANK YOU!
I was thinking the same thing.
Not lately. This warning was bogus, and your “argument” in the thread in which it was issued is pretzel logic mixed with ample portions of “respect mah authoritah”.
It never works in my experience. My youngest brother was a master at annoying people by telling them to calm down.
I don’t think the Cartman quote is any more effective than “calm down” when it comes to convincing people they’re wrong.
I don’t think anyone realized you would warn someone who argued with you about its being a hijack. Even if you intended that, can you see that the instruction was insufficiently clear, if nobody seems to have understood it?
So a cop pulls you over to give you a warning for playing The Munich Kazoo Ensemble’s stirring rendition of the drum solo from Inna Gadda Da Vida on your car stereo. Your response is Wait what, since when was that a rule?, and he then tickets you for ignoring police instructions. Sound fair to you, Marley?
Hypothetically, if my “hijack” was actually a way of pointing out the irony of posters (stormfronters, “out” pedophiles, etc) posting freely while others are slapped for relatively innocuous comments. . .and if that irony were wasted on you (irony often is, and maybe my use of it sucked*). . . in which forum would another poster best comment on the moderation of my “hijack”/“tangent”?
*my use of the word “sucked” is in no way meant to carry any sexual overtones.
Your first instinct was too refer to “a woman” rather than “people” wasn’t it:D ?
How about the fact that I actually agree with BigT? If that doesn’t convince you I don’t know what will.
Come on, **Marley. ** Reverse the warning. It was bullshit and here’s why:
You could have said something along these lines after Munch’s post:
"Moderator note:
I just asked kayaker not to bring up Cesario in this thread. I am now issuing an official instruction. Please do not mention Cesario again in this thread as he is not relevant to the discussion. If anyone else does, they will receive a warning."
This way people get the message and there is no doubt about your instructions. I agree it isn’t reasonable to reverse yourself when you’re right. But it isn’t reasonable to expect people to read your mind on the other side of their computer screen, either. The reasonable thing to do is drop Munch’s warning and make an effort to be more clear in the future. No one’s trying to argue that you don’t have a right to give warnings. All we’re trying to persuade you is that you acted hastily in this case.
I don’t often step up to bat when someone else gets a warning, as they are easy to avoid. I figure that when someone gets a warning, it is usually deserved. But often the case is pretty evident when one is given in error.
Yeah Marley. It’s pretty clear that practically nobody thinks the warning was justified. What’re you going to do? Ban the whole board? 
Marley, I appreciate the responses. And I also appreciate your desire to limit the hijacking in the other thread - there’s certainly been a crackdown on, well, pretty much everything in ATMB lately. However, your ruling is still extremely inconsistent. For years now, the mods have labored to find a way to draw the line between their actions as a moderator and as a regular poster. Your comment to **kayaker **just does not make that distinction, and didn’t register as “moderator instruction”, at least in my view (and apparently, every single person to chime in so far). If there’s precedent for you issuing warnings in this fashion, I haven’t seen it.
The proper forum would be ATMB, but that does not mean it had to occur in the same thread.
Marley, this moderation call is such a WTF to everyone here that you have many people who vastly disagree on every issue all agreeing that they do not understand this warning. I really think you should reconsider.
Bunch of Philistines.
He did.
I agree with this too. It was a pretty obvious joke. I hasten to add that in general, Marley, I find that you’re an excellent mod and poster. You haven’t been in this case. A little less defensiveness would be nice to see, and more consistent with the behaviour that makes me respect you as a mod and poster.
On that point I have to disagree. It did not seem like a joke to me, either.
The thing is, even though there is a way to participate and post here for free, there is a category called “Member” which means that you actually pay money to post here. The posting status that does not pay is “Guest”. So the way I read Anonymous User’s comment was “the Straight Dope should provide a paid membership as compensation”. So I totally understand Marley saying “no, we will not do that”.
A question: how does one find one’s “user infraction history”?