I’m tired and am going to bed.
DSeid, I sincerely thank you for starting this thread and telling the truth. You didn’t have to, but you did. In my book, that’s being a good fellow. You too are one of my favorite posters.
Frank, no offence, but whenever I see your name in the SDMB, in my mind’s eye I envision Frank Burns from MAS*H. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—he did, after all, have Hot Lips Houlihan as his concubine.
There’s a lot of tortured logic in this thread. Just because an analogy starts with a parallel to a situation does not mean the analogous characters are one on one representations. Generalizations occur to hypothetical situations all the time in conversation. The point of a generalization is to take the actors of the current debate and the current topic out of the conversation, and look at principles.
So from that, I accept that an analogy about someone doing something harmless but annoying is a parallel case to discuss the generalized position of response to that annoying behavior, and examine the nature of bullying. Thus, references to the hypothetical actors of the generalization are not references to any actual people from the topic that spawned the need to examine the hypothetical.
That said, if a moderator finds it necessary to start making notes and warnings in a Pit thread, that should be a clue to back way down from the behavior in question, not riff jokes on the same theme that drew the initial moderation. Miller said lay off the violent imagery. That’s not time to make the same joke again that just got you noted, even if you switch the target to some hypothetical character in a similar position to the original poster. The note was your heads up to leave it alone.
There is definitely something misworded in that statement, besides using “Hollowed” when the appropriate word is “Hallowed”. That could conceivable be an attempt at a play on words.
But the statement in question reads
“Are you going to start making _____?” What goes in the blank?
Currently you have a complex string of clauses that don’t complete the statement.
Of the position (that is Hollowed - the position of Presidential Candidate) and of the Men and Women (Great ones, that occupy said position).
So was your statement intended to be:
“What are you going to start making of …”?
Or was it supposed to be:
“Are you going to start making light of …”?
Or something else?
There’s a word missing to give that sentence sense. As it stands, it doesn’t make any.
bold added
Tibby, I’m trying to make sense of this part of your post in the context of the post in question. If you’re highlighting the absurdity of the people who really do take offense to Bo’s catchphrase, are you mocking DSeid’s post that you’re quoting?
He’s one of the group who was taking offense to Bo’s catchphrase. Were you using Dseid’s post as an example of what you see as the absurdity of DSeid taking offense to exaggerate what he was saying in an attempt to mock it?
Are you further saying that it doesn’t matter what DSeid’s intention was with respect to Bo since you weren’t expounding on his intention but instead exaggerating DSeid’s position to mock it?
I agree with the moderation. There are too many ways to read the parody to know what’s actually meant, but the violent imagery is present regardless of what is meant by it, which might never be fully known.
As an aside, when I think of Bo posting his catchphrase, I picture him doing a slight chuckle. When Tibby posts his parodies, I picture him smirking in smug self-satisfaction that he got one over on the plebes.
It’s posts like this that got you into trouble in the first place.
H&R,
Proving that for both humor and reading comprehension, YMMV. (I believe you are the one who thinks my asking, in this forum, for an explanation of why green fonts were across the line when an automated tic was not, and agreeing with the logic presented once it was explained, was my going “to the mods to force him to change” … what?)
What this action and the responses to it demonstrate is how much what people are primed or expect to see causes them to perceive that which is not there! This is sort of like those threads in which posters expound on how an artist meant this or that in some work of art or literature or cinema and the artist comes in and says “uh no, not all … this meant this, not that, you are completely wrong” and the poster still says that their interpretation is the correct view and that the artist is wrong. Well you know … minus the talent and the art! 
My post was not a direct analogy to SB … it was trying to get at the claim that would define all Pit threads, all complaints about behaviors, as bullying, in a more general sense. Tibby’s post was not about SB; it was a goofy riff on several absurdities in that thread. And for the little it is worth Tibby’s one-off absurdist surrealist riffs in general make me smile (definitely not laugh out loud :)) But some reading read each with their own baggage and thus perceived that which was not there. Like the viewer sure they know more about what the movie went than the director they are clinging to their interpretations come hell or high water and will censor the fuck out of the movie based on their faulty interpretation.
Fine.
I thought it was a pretty mild response after being called stupid, but YMMV.
What kind of trouble do you think Tibby is in?
Oh my … a warning! I argue against it because I think it is wrong, out of general principle, but again, one warning for someone who posts for years and does not routinely get them impacts him how?
He should quake and quiver? Behave contritely for having done nothing wrong? Quit in a huff (or lump and a roo)?
The warning was made and the decision is affirmed. Tibby will likely continue the behavior that earned him no warnings for years and not change behavior in any way, including his humor, which sometimes works and sometimes does not, depending on the reader. At least it does not perpetually annoy!
TLDR.
Heffalump and Roo, I think you’re over-analyzing the situation. More specifically, you’ve over-analyzed it to the point of believing I over-analyzed the Pit thread before posting my jokes. I didn’t. I saw an opportunity for a quick joke and I took it. Period.
I believe the note I received from **Miller **was a stretch, but I can see how, under strict application of the rules, I can be found guilty of that infraction. I knew about the “don’t threaten other posters” rule, but I figured it had to be either a threat made in anger, or something that could be conceivably perceived as a real threat by a rational human being. First of all, I wasn’t angry with Bo (that should be obvious to all). Secondly, the mock-threat was so over the top ridiculous; I don’t see how any rational person could perceive it as a real threat. I asked Bo if he would mind if we lopped off his head.
Technically, that’s not even a mock-threat. I asked him if he would mind, I didn’t say I was going to do it. Does anyone really think that if Bo said, “no, I wouldn’t mind” I’d find him and lop off his head? That’s beyond absurd. I don’t think even an ISIS savage would target someone who overuses catchphrases for their beheadings. If I displayed any real annoyance at Bo in that thread and I made a more realistic threat like, “I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to find you and beat you up”, then yes, that should be given a note, if not a warning.
So, no, that should not have been perceived as a real threat against another poster by any rational person. But, I suppose it could be perceived by overly-sensitive individuals to break the “no violent imagery” rule (is that even a rule?). Did anyone have a mental image of Bo’s severed head in my post? That wasn’t my intention, but maybe so, so I’m not contesting it.
But, then you, and others, appear to be implying that I was so annoyed by Miller’s note that I was plotting and scheming some way to “dance close to the line.” Then, when I finally found a way to do so, I commenced “smirking in smug self-satisfaction that * got one over on the plebes.” I’m not that devious, nor petty.
If I was one of the SDMB troublemakers, I could understand that charge. I have no history of baiting moderators. The closest I came to receiving a note before now, was 10 years ago in this thread, when tomndeb told me to back off when I called someone a dingleberry. And, I did back off and never called anyone a dingleberry again.
The mental image I have of Snowboarder Bo is of [del]Walter[/del] Shaun White (don’t know why, maybe the red hair). The mental image I had of Person B was a woman with a beehive hairdo wearing a big hat. If I were to stretch the scenario into a 4-panel cartoon, it would be something like this:
Panel 1: Woman with big hat sitting in front of me, blocking my view of a movie.
Panel 2: I remove the woman’s hat and use it as a popcorn container. But, the woman’s beehive hairdo is still blocking my view.
Panel 3: I lop the woman’s head off and enjoy the movie.
Panal 4: After the movie, I meet Bo at his quarry and say, “here’s something you can throw in.”
Even cartoon Bo isn’t cartoon Person B.
But, why not ask Bo himself? Subpoena him into this thread and ask him if he perceived my mock-threat as a real threat. Ask him if he and I have any history of animosity toward each other. Ask him if I’ve ever shown any real annoyance toward his “quarry” catchphrase. Ask him if he perceived my mock-threat of Person B as a mock-threat against him. Ask him if he had any violent imagery in his mind when I discussed lopping off Person B’s head.
If you do subpoena Bo, I request Bricker as my mock-attorney and Qadgop the Mercotan as the presiding mock-judge (I imagine him as a level-headed Judge Wapner-type character).
In fact, I think anyone who wants to challenge a note or a warning should be given the opportunity for a mock-trial, instead of the mock-kangaroo court presently in place (it could be a separate board called Doper Court). I also think April Fool’s day should be set aside as “April Anti-mod Day”, where Dopers can levy notes and warnings against moderators. Lastly, I think warnings should be expunged after a year of good behavior, instead of staying on your record “forever.”
What bothers me more than the note or the warning is that some of you think my humor is just “mildly amusing”, instead of rip roaring funny. That hurts.
I feel your pain.
Yes, but that action was noted by a Mod.
Your innuendo is a personal insult, by the allusion to a TV character well-known for their incompetence and stupidity.
You know, I found your posts somewhat amusing and I was with you on the **Bo **argument but now I’m not so certain that it wasn’t deliberate.
That hardly seems likely!
Yes, but a note does not negate the fact that he called me stupid. And his reply to the note was “ok”, not even an apology.
And, sorry but calling someone “stupid” is not in the same league as referring to someone as a goofy TV character.
But, if that’s all it takes to have you reverse your opinion of my deserving a warning, then your conviction of my non-guilt must have been on pretty shaky ground and I would not call you as a witness for my defense in Doper Court.
touche`
This is an atheist board. As we can see, there ain’t much love of God around here. 
Miller, Colibri,
If the poster had used Person X and Person Y (instead of Person A and Person B), would you still feel the warning was justified?
It were the way it are.
If I had to mod this thread I would rip off my clothes in frustration and march right out of the place.
Yes.
People who are contending that the analogy had nothing at all to do with Bo are ignoring the fact that Tibby referred to throwing the head in a quarry. In any case, I think the argument that the analogy was unrelated to Bo’s actions is absurd.
Unrelated? No not unrelated. The general discussion about any Pit criticism being “bullying” was triggered by Bo’s saying that he was being bullied … so there was a connection. A direct analogy to and about Bo … 100% not. And no it is not absurd for me to know what I meant. Nor for Tibby to state that he understood what I meant, even if it was not clear to some of you.
Unless you are saying that I am lying about what I meant. And if you are saying that then just give me my warning now to save us both time …