I thought I cited a specific instance of a lack of clarity. But maybe I’m wrong. I thought the issue was as much that the topic was a forum violation as that it was a hijack of the topic. The thread was spawning a heated religious debate in an IMHO thread. Was it just because that it wasn’t on topic of suggested readings? When I read the thread, all the moderator mentions in explanations is the hijacking, not the forum violation. But I got the impression the forum violation was the more salient point.
Where the OP didn’t think it was a hijack from the topic at all.
Skald the Rhymer said:
Now to be fair, I think tomndebb made a valiant effort at explaining in that thread, but certain people did not walk away from the original warning with a clear understanding.
And like I said, Silverstreak Wonder has been repeating numerous times that mods are trying to stifle viewpoints, which arguable comes as much from his own predisposition as anything by the mods.
Hmmm, several of the threads seem to be more about the role of moderators than about understanding what the moderators were saying. Maybe this isn’t as big of an issue as I thought.
Hm, I think it’s also possible we’re using terminology slightly differently – in my mind (as a mod), a warning is an official rebuke for rule-breaking, a rebuke that goes on the poster’s “permanent record.” A history of collecting warnings can lead to suspension, and, in some cases, banning, so warnings absolutely should be clear and specific. As the system currently works, the PM/email communicating the warning to the person who got it will point to a specific post and cite a specific rule – I thought you were concerned about people reading along in the thread not being clear about whether a warning was issued and for what.
If, though, you’re using the word “warning” in a more generalized sense (or if the mod uses it too loosely, as Czarcasm admits he did in that case), what you’re saying isn’t what I actually responded to above.