Ok, I'll complain about my warning here then

About This Message Board
1

As per Colibri’s instructions, I’m starting this thread to complain about the sole warning I’ve received in my 7 years on the boards.

I’ll also complain about Colibri’s justification for the warning, which is different than the actual reason given for the warning.

At no time did I say or imply that I was going to ignore tomndebb’s instructions. I wasn’t aware that disagreeing with a mod note or instruction was in and of itself cause for a warning, and so far, I haven’t been able to find that anywhere in the rules for the SDMB.

And my protesting tomndebb’s instruction as something I had not done (altered the meaning of a quote) was based on previous emails I had exchanged with Idle Thoughts and twickster, where I was told that any insertion of <snip> into a quote was perfectly fine. It seemed to me that the important thing was that the ellipses indicated that something was missing, and so I followed that protocol when I typed <blah blah blah meaningless drivel>. Is there really any chance at all that another poster believed that the original post I was quoting contained those words? Is there any chance at all that anyone wouldn’t know that they had been inserted by me, just like <snip> is inserted by a poster who doesn’t wish or need to quote an entire post?

Contrary to Colibri’s characterization that I “falsely claimed that you hadn’t violated the rule”, I was explaining that I didn’t think I had, because <snip> was okay; how could any other words in the ellipses somehow be altering a quote?

My response to tomndebb indicates that as far as I knew, I was okay to do what I did, but never even approaches anything resembling a refusal to follow his instructions. At best, it simply lacks obeisance; at worst it argues the point. I thought it was okay to post disagreement with mod warnings in ATMB, but I got warned for doing so.

And, I wasn’t warned for disagreeing with his characterization of my actions (which is all I did), I was warned for “Failure to follow a moderator’s instructions”, which is demonstrably untrue: I never failed to follow tomndebb’s instructions, either in that thread or at any later date. Yet now, thanks to the other ATMB thread on warnings, I find out that mod warnings will never be expunged.

Well, since I didn’t do what I was warned about, I’d like my warning removed.

2

As per Colibri’s instructions, I’m starting this thread to complain about the sole warning I’ve received in my 7 years on the boards.

I’ll also complain about Colibri’s justification for the warning, which is different than the actual reason given for the warning.

At no time did I say or imply that I was going to ignore tomndebb’s instructions. I wasn’t aware that disagreeing with a mod note or instruction was in and of itself cause for a warning, and so far, I haven’t been able to find that anywhere in the rules for the SDMB.

And my protesting tomndebb’s instruction as something I had not done (altered the meaning of a quote) was based on previous emails I had exchanged with Idle Thoughts and twickster, where I was told that any insertion of <snip> into a quote was perfectly fine. It seemed to me that the important thing was that the ellipses indicated that something was missing, and so I followed that protocol when I typed <blah blah blah meaningless drivel>. Is there really any chance at all that another poster believed that the original post I was quoting contained those words? Is there any chance at all that anyone wouldn’t know that they had been inserted by me, just like <snip> is inserted by a poster who doesn’t wish or need to quote an entire post?

Contrary to Colibri’s characterization that I “falsely claimed that you hadn’t violated the rule”, I was explaining that I didn’t think I had, because <snip> was okay; how could any other words in the ellipses somehow be altering a quote?

My response to tomndebb indicates that as far as I knew, I was okay to do what I did, but never even approaches anything resembling a refusal to follow his instructions. At best, it simply lacks obeisance; at worst it argues the point. I thought it was okay to post disagreement with mod warnings in ATMB, but I got warned for doing so.

And, I wasn’t warned for disagreeing with his characterization of my actions (which is all I did), I was warned for “Failure to follow a moderator’s instructions”, which is demonstrably untrue: I never failed to follow tomndebb’s instructions, either in that thread or at any later date. Yet now, thanks to the other ATMB thread on warnings, I find out that mod warnings will never be expunged.

Well, since I didn’t do what I was warned about, I’d like my warning removed.

3

Very sorry. I had multiple windows open and didn’t realize I was posting in this thread.

Post #39 was an error; I did in fact start a new thread to discuss my warning.

ETA: I tried to delete the post, but the edit timer had run out.

4

I did self-report post #39, btw.

5

Might help if you provided a link to the actual thread where you got the warning…

6

For those who wish to know what actually happened, here’sthe warning in question.

My take on it:

  1. You very clearly violated the rule against altering quotes within the quote tags, and you did it deliberately to be insulting to another poster, by changing Ibn Warraq’s post to “<blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel>” and leaving it attributed to him.

  2. Your calling “<blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel>” the equivalent of “<snip>” is nonsensical and absurd. You deliberately mischaracterized your own post.

  3. Complaints about moderation should be taken to ATMB. Your post #228 in particular was in violation of that rule. This was more than a request for clarification; instead you called the warning “bullshit.”

I count at least two definite rules violations by you in that thread, one by altering quote tags, and another for complaining about moderation in other forums than ATMB.

I would say you got off easy. Even if your complaint about the original reason for the warning were correct, you would be potentially liable for two other warnings.

7

I think the OP has a point here. On review, the warning was clearly not issued for the “<blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel>” comment. That drew what appears to be only a note.

The warning came only after the next comment:

As written, the warning appears to be for making an argument Tomndebb deems “nonsense”.

Making a weak argument is not a warnable offense here.

Likewise, Colibri, it is not appropriate to use later comments to justify a previous warning. The warning should stand or fall on the justification given. In this instance, it should fall. If Tom wanted to issue a warning, he should have done it in his mod note about not changing quoted text.

8

You got a warning for arguing with a moderator, after he had already not given you a warning for a potentially warnable offence. The correct response to the Mod note would have been “Sorry, I didn’t know that was against the rules, I won’t do it again”.

That said, I think the warning is a little harsh, and a second Mod note would have been better, along with an instruction to discuss it here. I don’t expect you’ll get the warning removed.

9

I agree that it’s insulting but I can’t see how a reasonable reader would assume that the post quoted included the words “meaningless frothing drivel”. Besides, it can’t be at the same time perceived as an insult and as a mis-attribution.

10

I don’t think it’s being claimed as a “misattribution” but a direct attribution. That’s the nature of the insult. He is insulting the poster by directly claiming that “meaningless frothing drivel” comes out of his mouth.

Pretty direct violation and messing with quotes has always been a huge no-no. Once someone got a gentle note for changing a “your” to “you’re” when quoting my post after I lamented having used the wrong one. She did it to be humorous and as a “favor” and that still got a note not to mess with quotes.

Warning seems fair, especially with the arguing about it.

11

Changing text to a statement saying,

is not snipping, it’s changing the text.

12

This was exactly how I read it. It reminded me of a teacher telling a student to ‘knock it off’ and the kid saying “What? I didn’t do anything” and the teacher saying “If you’re going to act like that, it’s a detention”

Two things.
A)Arguing with a mod shouldn’t be a warnable offense. I believe in questioning authority and if the mods are going to hand out warnings they ought to be able to defend them. Don’t get me wrong. Some warnings are pretty black and white, but some aren’t. Either way, you should always be allowed to argue your case and the ‘mod in question’ should have no problem defending their side. That goes for mod notes as well. I hate hearing “you only got a note, just let it go” or “it’s the only warning you’ve had in X years, don’t worry about it”.

B)I never understood the idea of a poster doing something warnable, getting a note/warning and then apologizing to the mod. Never made sense to me. Happens all the time. If I step over the line and insult another poster, why should I owe the mod an apology?

13

Snowboarder Bo, I think you have achieved what could best be called an infraction portmanteau, the changing of a quote into a direct insult directed at a poster topped off by arguing with the mod’s instructions in the wrong forum. An impressive achievement, but I can’t see that tomndebb or Colibri can take any of the credit for it.

14

I was just going to post that. :slight_smile: Should have been a note, but got a warning for simply disagreeing.

15

It should be argued in this forum, not as a hijack to the thread with the warning.

The apology is basic politeness. The rest is acknowledging that you’ve understood what you’ve done wrong, and accept the note/warning.

If you don’t accept it, linking to a thread in ATMB would be fine.

16

I agree with all of this.

If Snowboarder Bo had received a warning for the <blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel> stuff, it would have been completely justified. Not only did he mangle someone else’s quote in a way that is completely different from a simple ellipsis or a <snip>, but he also managed to skirt the edge of insulting someone in ATMB.

But a warning for simply questioning the original note seems, to me at least, to be rather over the top. At worst, what it deserved was something like, “I’m not going to debate the issue here; take it to ATMB if you want to complain.”

17

This isn’t skirting the edge of an insult. It’s a direct insult.

If Snowboarder Bo has been around for seven years he’s got to have seen this before. It’s always an insult and posters are always told to cut it out. I don’t remember whether warnings are issued every single time, but they should be. If this isn’t a direct insult then the term becomes meaningless.

Recap. Poster issues insult that deserves a warning. Doesn’t get it. Argues that the mod who lets him slide is spewing bullshit. Gets the deserved warning.

And now is whining about a warning?

Bullshit.

18

I was erring on the side of caution, but i tend to agree with you.

But you are wrong here. You have distorted the timeline. The warning came before, not after the call of “bullshit.”

You make it sound like he called the mod’s actions “bullshit” before he got the warning. He did not. This is (i think) what Oakminster was talking about when he said that it’s dishonest to justify a warning based on a person’s post hoc behavior.

19

Look. Don’t you guys know Snowboarder Bo by now?

Let’s go down to the <blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel> in there = lol.

Now <blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel> is acceptable to Snowboarder Bo as a way of saying <snip>.

I don’t see anything wrong with what Snow<blah blah blah meaningless frothing drivel>Bo has done.

20

The two issues aren’t really separated. Snowboarder Bo did one warnable thing, pushed his luck, and got a warning for the entirety of his behavior. I’m okay with that, and I don’t get how anyone could say “Well, of course the drivel thing was warnable, but it’s beyond the pale that he got warned for the second, lesser offense.”

Tomndeb’s remark:

Makes it abundantly clear to me that he’s still warning Bo for the faux-snip, which is the larger issue. “This is a warning to refrain from doing this again” isn’t referring back to “choosing to stake out this position.”