I disagree that it inherently “improves” all discussions. And I would submit that it possibly worsens the board as a whole. We’re people and people appraise and discuss aesthetics, even the aesthetics of our fellow humans, all the time. It’s neither inherently bad nor inherently good, but it is something that happens all the time and is unlikely, in the world of humans, to stop anytime soon.
No it wouldn’t have been helpful, because I don’t have any issue with the warning; that’s wolfman’s business, not mine.
Your “noting a hijack” as a moderator, however, and that carries weight. I don’t want to make a crack about someone’s new hairdo or missing eyebrows or facial tattoo and find myself facing a Mod note for “hijacking” the thread. It was ridiculous to note it here and call it out, IMO, and I’d like the Mods to acknowledge that talking about someone’s appearance isn’t out-of-bounds or incorrect in any way, as long as said commentary doesn’t rise to racist, sexist or otherwise abusive levels.
ETA: the real problem with that thread was Leaffan blowing it up into a public disagreement, IMO. If he had just reported the post and let the mods deal with it, instead of trying to junior mod, it wouldn’t have even risen to the level of “hijack”, it just would have been a throw-away comment OR it could have turned into a discussion between Leaffan and wolfman about why they like or don’t like pornstaches. And I seriously doubt a side discussion on that would have drawn a “hijack” note on it’s own, just like any of the hundreds of brief side conversations in hundreds of threads here never do.
I dunno about “unremarkable”. I’d want to know what she looked like, first. That’s pretty much what happened in the thread in question, too.
Then, after I saw that she looked just like the lady from Debbie Does Dallas, yeah, I’d maybe want to make fun of her hair or something. We haven’t done feathered hair in decades, ffs; it would stand out as much as a flapper haircut would.
There’s no group being attacked, tom. It was a comment about one person’s appearance.
It’s not a board rule, it’s a directive for you specifically. I know I’ve made a number of negative comments about the Leafs and what I regard as their privileged position in terms of revenues and special treatment by broadcasters yet perennial substandard performance, and of course there have been no repercussions for those comments.
Good god, man - do not trifle with these matters!
It’s silly – does this mean we can’t trash talk players now? I mean c’mon, Leafan, you know I like you, but this is silly. Pretty much all the pro-sports threads have comments making fun of teams and players.
That being said, the dude DID act like a jerk in his reply. But general back and forth chirping? No, I don’t think that’s something that should be banned.
No, that’s because you kept following him around, talking about the Leafs in threads when in unrelated threads. Especially Phil Kessel, for some reason. (BTW, Kessel says hi!)
Uh… whoosh? Obviously, I was joking about it being a “board rule”, I just thought it was hilarious that Leaffan is still siccing the moderators on people who are mean to the Leafs.
Explain that to the various women who have felt threatened because too many men do not seem able to refrain from commenting on the appearance of women when the topic has nothing to do with appearance.
And dropping a single male into the group about whom irrelevant appearance comments are made does not change the dynamics of the overall situation.
[shrug]
That surely is a nice, narrowly defined group of people; well done.
:rolleyes:
ETA: Also, who are you (or Chronos, for that matter) to tell me what my thread is about?
Your thread can be about whatever you would like it to be. I have made no attempt to dictate how the thread should be determined. We let Creationists, Moon Hoax advocates, Truthers, and all sorts of people start threads, here. 
Sure you did, when you called something irrelevant". Who are you to tell me what’s relevant or not in my thread?
Says moderator right up there by his username.
OPs do not own threads. With some narrow and occasional exceptions, they do not control what can or cannot be posted, or the direction a thread takes.
The Positive Gun News thread calls out that lie. Oh, wait, that’s the thread that exists “With some narrow and occasional exceptions”.
I maintain the position and would like a public acknowledgement that talking about aesthetics is not out of bounds.
Lie? No, that’s why I put in room for exceptions, because the exceptions exist.
The Gun News thread is hardly the only example. There have been other threads where the OP has asked for, and has been granted, a narrow focus. Any thread that says “No spoilers”, for example, would be an exception.
However, the vast majority of threads do not have that exception and OPs do not have control over what’s allowed and what is not. So Positive Gun News thread notwithstanding, OPs do not control their threads.
As my late father would have said, “it don’t hurt you to want. Tell you what…want in one hand, and shit in the other. See which one fills up first.”
In other words, while you’d like a public acknowledgement, it ain’t happening.
Which of those two do you think “look like an understudy in a porn video?” would be?
So…if I’m reading this right, the post about the mustache did not, as you said, violate any rules. The other thing you commented about in that post was the Jr Modding and personal insults.
Sounds to me like the insults and Jr Modding should have been noted, but the original comment shouldn’t have been since, again as you said, it didn’t violate any rules.
If we’re going to note/warn people because they say something that doesn’t rise to the level where it violates board rules, we might as well change the rules.
It’s like a cop pulling someone over and warning them that they’re going 54 in a 55 zone and they’re almost speeding.
As I see it, the problem with commenting on the appearance of women isn’t with commenting on their appearance per se, but with sexualizing them, when the topic has nothing to do with them as sex objects.