Wait.
Am I supposed to give you a warning for claiming that YOU are lying?
Nope. Not gonna do it. The rabbit hole’s too deep for me.
Although, to back up Colibri…I ain’t buying Tibby’s protestations that it isn’t about Bo, either.
I disagree. But what I find absurd is the notion that referencing his stupid Quarry schtick is wishing violence to another poster. It seems to me like you’re ignoring the very meme that he has been creating. So, the popcorn line was clearly a joke. But so was this.
Gotta say, Miller got this one wrong. I agreed with his last moderation that was questioned, but this one is laughable. ::shrug::
No, I don’t think you are lying, just that you are using a very narrow interpretation as to whether the analogy is related or not.
Off topic, but who else misses Twixster?
No, for my what my reaction will be if he does. It would be … language inappropriate for this forum. So if he says he believes I am lying, just consider the most inappropriate things said, give me the warning, and save me the effort of typing them out, okay?
I’m all about efficiency.
Yes I see the response that got cross posted as I was typing and doing other things at the same time.
And agree with the shrug that follows. It’s done, it does not matter, time to move along.
nm
Well, to say that it’s unrelated would be absurd, because it involves the action that Bo appears to be advocating, and that advocation is what the pit thread is about.
But the prohibition in the pit, as far as I can tell, is against proposing or describing violence against a member of the board. In this case, they’re pretty clearly describing committing violence against a hypothetical person, then joining in with the activity that appears to be advocated by Bo to the casual observer.
I generally agree with the moderators’ decisions, and Miller’s job is harder than most. They’re the sheriff of a particularly rough part of town. But in this case, I think that the warning is due to a misinterpretation of the poster’s intent, and possibly combined with the moderator being fatigued by the whole thread for a multitude of reasons.
If I had a vote, it’d be to erase the warning. I know I don’t have an actual vote, but that’s how I feel. So it goes.
I didn’t call you stupid; I said you were playing stupid. Regardless, Miller thought it was worth a note, which I acknowledged to indicate that I had read and understood it.
The rule is “Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm.” It isn’t just other posters on the board that are off limits.
Technically threatening to lop off the head of a hypothetical person in a movie theater could be against the rules even without any possible connection to another poster.
But even with that, this post was obviously an analogy to the quarry guy, and even at that there were two mod notes first, then a warning against another poster, then finally this warning.
Pro tip: when a mod starts giving out warnings in a thread, that is not the best time to test various interpretations of the rules.
If only the author can know what they really meant by their words, and people only see what they expect to see, then you can’t know what Tibby meant. Only Tibby can know that.
According to your analysis, you’re interpreting Tibby’s “joke” in the same way anyone else would, through your own filter of what you expect to see.
But as far as artistic stories go, cool story, bro.
I’m curious about what your intent was in starting that ATMB thread, considering there was one done previously and linked in the OP of the Pit thread, if it wasn’t to have a rule declared by virtue of consistency with the green font rule, that would force Bo to change his behavior. Since you had already expressed annoyance with Bo’s catchphrase, it doesn’t seem likely that you were trying to get the green font rule lifted for consistency.
Okay, couple of things.
DSeid, I don’t think you’re lying about your intentions in writing that post. However, I also think you and I have very different ideas about how analogies work. Saying that what you wrote is an analogy to Snowboarder’s situation isn’t a matter of intent or interpretation, it’s an objective description of the rhetorical device you employed. That said, I’d rather not dig too deep into the subject of what analogies are and how they work, because your intent isn’t really germane to this thread. You aren’t the guy who pulled a warning, after all.
Tibby, I do think you’re lying when you describe your intentions behind your posts. In fact, up until about post 71 in this thread, I’d mostly written you off as a troll. When you get a warning, and your response is a couple paragraphs about your cock, that doesn’t signal to me that you’re a poster who’s particularly concerned with his reputation on the board, or moderator actions taken against him. Your posts since then have swung me away from “troll” and back towards “colossally tone deaf,” but I’m still about 50/50 on the subject.
As far as the rule about threatening other posters go, the standard has never been, “Is it realistic?” The rule, as written, also prohibits things like, “I hope you get cancer,” which isn’t really something you can even inflict on another person. I generally do not moderate “threats” that are clearly absurd - there was one post in that thread that was something like, “Quarries throw stones at Bo,” that I didn’t specifically moderate for that reason. Of course, the standard for “absurd” is, itself, pretty squidgy, but cutting off people’s heads is a thing that actually happens. While it may be absurd to take that as a literal threat from Tibby, the action itself is not absurd.
“Joke” threats I sometimes let slide, but only if its occurring between two people who are both clearly on the same page, or in the context of a non-acrimonious discussion. Saying, “Get a rope!” after a particularly bad pun, for example, is probably not going to get moderated. A joke threat that’s made between two posters who are already at loggerheads, on the other hand, is probably going to be handled differently.
Crazyhorse, I’m not sure where you got that quote from. The rule in the BBQ Pit is, “Do not threaten harm or wish death on another poster.” You can wish all the cancer you want on Kim Kardashian, and not get into any trouble over it, at least in my forum. Cafe Society might use a different standard.
[Moderating]
There are already enough issues going on in this thread. Let’s not further confuse the issue by bringing in wholly unrelated issues from other ATMB threads, please.
[/Moderating]
OK. I was just trying to find a way to harmonize the conflicting comments you’ve made in this thread.
I saw your post as satire with a social commentary. Satire has a person being satirized. At this point, you’ve now said it wasn’t about Bo or DSeid. If the joke was satire, who was the person being satirized?
If the joke was not satire, what was supposed to be funny about the joke?
That is what I call a “gotcha” moment.
And it will not matter at all.
Well, after these last few threads, I’m convinced Miller needs an assistant, and maybe a secretary. I don’t know about the assistant, but I think Heffalump and Roo would make a great secretary.
I got it from the SDMB registration agreement.
Ah, of course. I was looking for it in the ATMB stickies.
Anyway, in situations like this, the specific forum rule overrides the general board rule.
Maybe the joke wasn’t satire.
There are more classes of jokes than just satire.
Absurd satire, in the vein of Gary Larson’s, The Far Side (though admittedly not as clever). Did you read my 4-panel “cartoon” layout I described earlier? You probably didn’t find it funny, but I did, and I was hoping others would find it funny, too.