Moderator issued personal insult.

In this threada few months ago, I called **Czarcasm **a jerk, after a long series of antagonistic posts deliberately designed to get my goat. I was given an official warning for it, . “Jerk” is, apparently, a personal insult.

So, just today a moderator called me a jerk, simply because I requested that **Czarcasm **provide cites for the claims he makes.

So, is that a personal insult against me? Will she receive an official warning for it? Do the same rules apply to mods as they do to me, or is she permitted to get away with this?

My guesses.
No, no, no, yes.

She said this as part of a moderating instruction. If we can’t tell you what you’re doing wrong, how are we supposed to enforce the rules?

“Being a jerk” is defined in our rules; that’s the capacity that Ellen was clearly using it. I think it was understood that you were attempting to do so in the previous thread but that it was in fact intended to insult. Just because there’s a rule against being a jerk doesn’t mean it’s okay to use it as a personal shield of invincibility against the insult rule. Ellen wasn’t doing that; she was acting in an official capacity. I’d argue that you were. That’s how I read the situation.

In this threadPeter Morris came in and started thread-shitting and leveled person insult type remarks toward Czarcasm. He was told by Ellen Cherry

He did not. He made two more posts haranguing Czarcasm. Again Ellen Cherry weighed in in an official capacity…

Undaunted, Peter continues in this post. Then continues in this post. Again **Ellen Cherry **admonishes…

You know, I thought disregarding moderator instructions was grounds for at least a warning. I’m not upset with Ellen, I like her, but I’m pissed that Peter’s threadshitting has been allowed to go on without repercussions.

And so it was. “Being a jerk” is the first in the list of infractions for which official warnings can be issued; mind you, I did not officially warn Peter Morris — nor did I call him a name as an insult. I asked him (politely, I thought) to cease some behavior.

In the earlier thread, I simply pointe3d out Czarcasm’s behaviour. I didn’t say it as an insult, I merely pointed out that he was - in my opinion - breaking board rules with his behaviour. And yet I got warned for it.

You did exactly the same thing I did. If mine was warnable, yours should be too.

I was hoping he would stop.

Merged two threads on the same topic. Ellen’s response in post #8 is in reponse to post #5, which was originally the OP in a separate thread.

(To Peter Morris:)

Oh, boo hoo. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. You engaged in jerkish behavior and got called on it. Get over it and move on.

Some things to consider:

1.) His behavior didn’t meet the criteria of “being a jerk” as they’re defined by the rules.
2.) If you thought he was breaking the rules you should have reported his post instead of calling him a jerk, an action which does violate the “don’t be a jerk” rule.
3.) The moderators, unlike you, are allowed to label someone as a jerk outside the pit as part of their jobs. You won’t see a moderator call someone a jerk when they’re responding as a poster- they’ll do it as a function of their duties as moderators.

This all makes sense to me if I parse it this way:

(1) The golden rule of the SDMB is “Don’t be a jerk.”

(2) Moderators can accuse people of being a jerk, because that is a way of warning them that they are breaking the rules (or are close to breaking the rules). It’s not intended as an insult, because it always has this technical meaning.

(3) Outside the Pit, other people can’t accuse anyone of being a jerk, because:
(a) It would be junior modding, or
(b) It would be intended as an insult.

Given that, it is indeed, “one rule for the mods, another for everyone else,” because warning about breaking the rules is an intrinsic function of mods, and the rest of us should not be junior modding.

This may not help Peter Morris, of course, who may still feel unfairly treated, but that’s life, I guess.

I understand that and you did do it in a nice way but after ignoring your instructions twice a warning would really have been in order. He was changing the tenor of the thread and it was clear by his response to me his goal was to attack Czarcasm as he believed that some paranormal proponents do indeed give those excuses. Just my opinion.

We are also allowed to indicate that we believe someone is trolling in any forum, which regular members are not allowed to do outside the Pit. Since both trolling and being a jerk are official rule violations, we are permitted to use the terms when enforcing the rules.

And you aren’t upset with Czarcasm for repeatedly posting his made-up claims?

That was the real threadshitting, and he’s a serial offender in that regard.

Judge: “It says here that you were pulled over for going 65 mph in a 40 mph zone.”
Accused: “But the officer that pulled me over was going even faster! I want her arrested for speeding!”
Judge: “Riiiiiiight

I disagree. He posted a message with the sole intent to antagonise. He was ignored. He posted exactly the same message. He was ignored. He posted the same message yet again. And then I pointed out his misbehaviour. And this was after repeatedly using hateful language throughout the thread, i.e. comparing anyone who doesn’t share his personal belief system to female genitalia.


Jesus f—ing Christ, Peter, just let it go. It’s not even worth complaining about in the first place; you were NOT mistreated and there is NO double standard at play here.

Why is that every single time I check in on ATMB, you are whining and bitching and moaning about some non-offense against you by the Mods or another member? You have a martyr complex unequaled by anyone other than my mother.

Is it out of bounds to ask for an apology for this?

That is a very nasty accusation to make, and I am genuinely insulted.