My thread wasn't a comment on moderation

So please reopen it.

While the subject of my thread was a quote from a moderator made in ATMB, it wasn’t about a ruling or even a current rule. The quote was tomndebb scoffing at the idea of a new rule and I was pitting that ignorant scoffing.

You were pitting and ridiculing the motivation of a ruling. It seems like even finer than normal hair splitting.

Count you blessings that Miller didn’t give you a warning for trolling. That’s hard to achieve in the Pit, but a case could easily be made. Otherwise, yeah the thread was about moderation and your thread was a clear rules violation.

And the rule is: “All comments or complaints about SDMB administration should go in the About This Message Board forum, not in the Pit.” Comments or complaints. The quote from tom was about how he moderates on this MB, so whether you were commenting or scoffing, it was about what tom posted as a moderator, not as a poster:

How is that not about what he does as a moderator? Especially if you go back to post #93 in that thread which is what started the exchange with the other poster and which led to the post you quoted in your Pit thread.

No, it wasn’t the motivation of a ruling. It was tom talking about how he knew some people want a instabanning on racism but what about blah blah blah. I pitted the blah blah blah.

In other words, what he said as a moderator.

So he was making an official staff ruling that political affiliation should be treated the same as race in any toughening up of the rules? Or was he just giving his opinion on how any new rules should work?

As that comment came up in his explanation of his actions as a moderator, I’m hard pressed to figure out how it it’s anything but a pitting of his opinion as a moderator. Whether it is “official doctrine/staff ruling” or not is not relevant. He was speaking a moderator when he made those comments.

He was giving his opinion as a moderator as how he interprets the rules.

He wasn’t interpreting any rule. He was saying that he knew some people would like an instaban on racist posts, ie it’s not currently a rule. He then said he’s never got an explanation for why hating on a political affiliation is not treated the same as racism. Therefore, he is merely giving his opinion on what a new rule should look like. He was not in anyway handing out moderation or posting guidelines.

Again, that he was not handing out posting guidelines, staff ruling etc is not relevant. He was speaking as a moderator about moderation. Having opinions about board culture, how things get handled, user experience etc is also part of the Mod job, not just rules about posting. He was clearly posting in his capacity as a Mod.

Dude. Let this one go. It was clearly commenting on moderation.

That was how I read it as well. It was a good closing and more a case of CarnalK going beyond splitting hairs to trying to split atoms. This wasn’t a case of a Mod being a poster; it was a Mod being a Mod.

He was interpreting the rule about “hate speech”. As I noted, go back to post #93.

But face it, you have a mountain to climb here. You are claiming that tom, in an ATMB thread specifically asking him about his moderator action, is not posting as a moderator.

He was commenting on possible future moderation/rules.

If you want to extend his ATMB Parliamentary Privilege to his opinions and reasoning on proposed rules, that’s your call of course.

You are hanging your argument on an exemption that does not exist.

Go with a comment on moderation, it’s the best interpretation of your thread you can expect.

Well, I read that as tomndebb’s personal view on what rule changes he would prefer. I don’t see why a rule he proposed is part of his moderating duties. Anyone can propose rules.

Well, you were wrong. Most of us have been wrong about something at some time or another. Start an ATMB thread if you need to discuss that particular issue.

Well, no. I’m right. tom was clearly expressing his personal opinion. Y’all have just decided that because he gave his personal opinion in an ATMB thread, it’s covered by “no pitting the administration”. That’s certainly up to the mods to decide, I suppose.

First off the, the context is in a creating a new rule, not defending his own actions. Second, He speaks of “humiliation.” That is not part of a mod’s job. So it sure sounds to me like he’s speaking of his own personal feelings on the matter, not about how he moderates.

It’s also at odds with his own moderation, where he did just warn someone that they were in danger of losing their posting privileges if they continue stating their racist worldview. So that would be threatening to silence them.

I fully understand why CarnalK would think he was speaking for his own personal views only. I get that there is a default that mods are speaking as mods in ATMB, but I see the reason why someone might think otherwise in this case.

And I completely understand his reaction to the statement. It tries to make worldviews into something neutral that are not shaped by active choices. It makes excuses for horrible beliefs and for stating them, ignoring the harm they can cause.

If this is him responding as a mod, then he’s kinda all over the place, and it’s something I’d suggest you guys resolve. Hopefully in the form of “Yes, blatant racism counts as being a jerk and thus gets some sort of mod action.” I was actually proud that this guy’s racism was being treated the way it should be–with a warning that, if he continued, he’d be banned.