# Ok, I'll complain about my warning here then **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 2, 2012, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427 "2012-09-02T08:13:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/21 "2012-09-02T17:19:23Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I think the OP has a point here. On review, the warning was clearly not issued for the “\” 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. Sure it is, when the argument is about a mod note. The poster in question has been here long enough to know you don’t do that in the thread where you got a warning. You open a thread in ATMB specifically about that warning. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/22 "2012-09-02T17:52:34Z")
This situation is exactly analogous to a cop pulling you over for speeding, telling you he’s letting you off with just a warning, then you arguing with him that you weren’t speeding. And it’s exactly the result you would expect if you tried that. Ticket. Suck it up and don’t argue with the cop who just let you slide. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/23 "2012-09-02T18:37:30Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > This situation is exactly analogous to a cop pulling you over for speeding, telling you he’s letting you off with just a warning, then you arguing with him that you weren’t speeding. And it’s exactly the result you would expect if you tried that. Ticket. Especially if you also have a broken headlight and an expired registration.😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/24 "2012-09-02T18:44:05Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > This situation is exactly analogous to a cop pulling you over for speeding, telling you he’s letting you off with just a warning, then you arguing with him that you weren’t speeding. And it’s exactly the result you would expect if you tried that. Ticket. Nailed it! ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/25 "2012-09-02T21:09:33Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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 \ 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 \. 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 \ is inserted by a poster who doesn’t wish or need to quote an entire post? There is a difference between “\” and “\”. One is a simple indication that text was removed. The other is an editorial remark about the content that was removed. It is expected to indicate content was removed, but editorializing on content inside the quote tag is verboten. You might could have gotten away with “\”, but it probably would have drawn a note for being too close to editorializing. “\” might have passed muster. > [@](#): > > 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 \ was okay; how could any other words in the ellipses somehow be altering a quote? But you had violated the rule, so it was a false claim. At best, you didn’t understand how you violated the rule. > [@](#): > > 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. I agree with you here, but you should have taken your discussion to ATMB, and not posted it in that thread. Still, I’m not sure how “I don’t think I did anything wrong” makes the original offense change to a Warning. > [@Joey\_P](#): > > 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. If you take it to ATMB, or do it via PM, correct. But hijacking a thread to argue an act of moderation is a Warnable offense. > [@](#): > > 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”. I do agree that even Mod Notes should be defendable, and posters should have the right to question them. However, the point often becomes a protracted debate over whether the fuzzy gray line is over here or over there, when the consequences of a mod note are very small. The cost/benefit analysis suggests that arguing that point isn’t going to make any headway, just continue to foster resentment. Saying “hey, I didn’t think this was what you thought,” and trying to clarify why it drew a note is one thing. Staking out a 3+ page defense over a rules violation that didn’t even draw a Warning on your record seems either pigheaded or else intended as an excuse to bitch about the mods rather than effect any change. > [@](#): > > 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? You don’t _owe_ the mod an apology. But it’s one of the things of polite society that we acknowledge our wrongdoings. So when you you say “I’m sorry,” that is what you are doing, whether you really mean “I shouldn’t have done that” or just “I wish I hadn’t been caught doing that”. You can, of course, omit any direct response and continue participation in the thread but comply with the rules. But the subtext there is that you’re not admitting that you did anything wrong. That subtext can color perception of future actions, in that thread and elsewhere. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > 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.” But why is **tomndebb** changing his ruling on the previous incident? **Snowboarder Bo** didn’t repeat the infraction, nor did he state that he wouldn’t comply in the future. He argued that what he did wasn’t an infraction, but that’s not itself wrong. The issue seems to be explained in **tomndebb** ’s remark in post 229: > [@](#): > > I’ll take that under consideration. OTOH, it looks to me that you used your “disagreement” to simply claim that you were not going to follow the rules with a _soupçon_ of getting in another personal jab at another poster. But I don’t see how he get’s that out of > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I did not do so, any more than “\” is distorting or mangling anything. There’s no claim he wishes to violate the rules, merely the statement that he does not feel that he did violate the rules. There is no indication at all of another jab at **Ibn Warraq**. So I don’t see where Tom’s perception arises. My take - escalating the original Note to a Warning because he questioned the ruling was incorrect, but a Warning could have been dropped for arguing the point in GD. Seems like a wash to me, and I think **Colibri** ’s point is that if the mods were to reevaluate the incident, they would do so _en toto_, and not just the one call. Ergo, the original infraction might be interpreted as an intentional jab rather than as a misunderstanding of how quote editing works, and then apply the rule about arguing moderation in GD as well, and **Snowboarder Bo** could come out with two Warnings instead of one, even if the Warnings are listed for something different. Of course, swapping the Warning to arguing the point in GD rather than failing to follow moderator instructions might help the sticklers feel better. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/26 "2012-09-02T21:51:24Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Seems like a wash to me, and I think **Colibri** ’s point is that if the mods were to reevaluate the incident, they would do so _en toto_, and not just the one call. That’s my opinion. Asking for a review would mean reviewing all the circumstances involved. Based on my evaluation, the OP could at best hope for changing the reason for the warning, and at worst could end up with an additional warning. The reason for the warning has little practical effect. If it comes to the point where someone has accumulated enough warnings for us to be discussing a suspension or banning, we’ll generally review the warnings individually. (At least I do.) Since the OP actually committed multiple infractions in the thread, it’s going to be evaluated pretty much the same regardless of what reason is listed. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/27 "2012-09-02T22:22:40Z")
So this is what, twice where **Snowboarder Bo** acts like a jerk and then complains about being called on it? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/28 "2012-09-02T23:55:15Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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. Sorry. I misunderstood the sequence. Oh, wait. I said I was sorry because I was in the wrong. I’ll start a new thread instead. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/29 "2012-09-03T00:03:32Z")
Let’s go to the Snowboarder Bo posts and yawn. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/30 "2012-09-03T04:02:57Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Especially if you also have a broken headlight and an expired registration.😉 I didn’t want to carry the analogy _too_ far… ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/31 "2012-09-03T04:03:08Z")
“Marvelous Marv” Throneberry whacked a rare triple in a game against the Cubs during the NY Mets’ epically bad inaugural season. He chugged into third to the cheers of the Met fans, who were unaccustomed to see him (or any Met player) run the bases. Cubs first baseman Ernie Banks strolled over to the first base umpire. “He didn’t touch first base, you know,” Banks said. Banks called for the ball, stepped on first base, and the umpire called Throneberry out at first. Manager Casey Stengel stormed out of the dugout to dispute the call, but one of the Met coaches held him back. "Don’t bother, Casey, he said. “He missed second too.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/32 "2012-09-03T09:24:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. I don’t really have an opinion on the larger issue at hand, but I fail to understand how including a \ instead of the original text is an insult, or even bordering on one, especially under SDMB rules. I thought we’re allowed to call bullshit on posts, as long as we lay off the poster. If **Bo** had just quoted the text in question, and under it written “Meaningless frothing drivel”, no one would be arguing that he’d issued an insult to the poster. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/33 "2012-09-03T13:46:33Z")
We’ve had a very long standing rule that you are NOT ALLOWED to change the text inside a quote box. If you want to make comments about the text, you do that outside the quote box, never inside. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_is_the_new_Analog)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/34 "2012-09-03T17:06:42Z")
What about adding formatting, such as using bold or italics on a phrase in the quote, to specify which part you want to refer to? I’ve seen that done lots of times with no warnings. I’ve even seen moderators do that. Is it considered ok? Is it ok as long as we add a “emphasis mine” statement after the quote? -D/a ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/35 "2012-09-03T17:16:22Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > For those who wish to know what actually happened, [here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15283796&postcount=225)the warning in question. > 2. Your calling “\” the equivalent of “\” is nonsensical and absurd. Ever since the "Quotes are sooper-dooper sancrosanct rule was created to “protect” a butthurt guy who was going to sue, this has _always_ been the rule. There are no exceptions. Putting _ANYTHING_ into someone else’s quote beyond the absolutely neutral “snip” or elipses has been utterly verboten. Sorry, totally fair warning and you got off lightly, IMHO, as paranoid as they are about quote boxes\* \*Which is a stupid thing to be paranoid about, but them’s the (stupid, hyper-overeactive) rule and there’s nothing ambiguous about them. “Snip” fine “Snip stupid stuff” not. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/36 "2012-09-03T17:19:43Z")
> [@Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](#): > > What about adding formatting, such as using bold or italics on a phrase in the quote, to specify which part you want to refer to? I’ve seen that done lots of times with no warnings. I’ve even seen moderators do that. Is it considered ok? Is it ok as long as we add a “emphasis mine” statement after the quote? > > -D/a Not a mod, but yes, as long as you put “emphasis mine” or “bolding mine” or whatever, that’s been ok too. Any sort of personal opinion, comment, editorializing inside a textbox is a no-no. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/37 "2012-09-03T17:51:16Z")
> [@Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](#): > > What about adding formatting, such as using bold or italics on a phrase in the quote, to specify which part you want to refer to? I’ve seen that done lots of times with no warnings. I’ve even seen moderators do that. Is it considered ok? Is it ok as long as we add a “emphasis mine” statement after the quote? > > -D/a [Here’s the rule in full:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048) > [@](#): > > Can I modify other poster’s quotes? > Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges. > > This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached. > > Text inside [QUOTE] tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the [QUOTE] tags.[/QUOTE] I would say that adding bolding or italics for emphasis fall within “normal editorial rules,” although it would be good to mention that the emphasis was added by you. What **Snowboarder Bo** did was quite specifically a rule violation, which he would have known if he had bothered to read the rules before he made his complaint. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/38 "2012-09-03T20:09:05Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Ever since the "Quotes are sooper-dooper sancrosanct rule was created to “protect” a butthurt guy who was going to sue, this has _always_ been the rule. There are no exceptions. Putting _ANYTHING_ into someone else’s quote beyond the absolutely neutral “snip” or elipses has been utterly verboten. I’m not sure it’s fair to say it was instituted to “protect” that guy, since, iirc, he was immediately banned for threatening to sue. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/39 "2012-09-03T22:05:25Z")
The rule makes a lot of sense. The board has some hard and easily enforceable rules that provide a minimum baseline for discourse. One concept is that you don’t insult other posters directly: outside of the pit, that’s a hijack. Here’s an example: P1: Ron Paul ran a marathon in 1 hour, 45 minutes. P2: You are a liar. If P2 said that P1 is incorrect, that would be topical. Instead, he’s shifted the debate to one on P1’s character. That takes the thread off the point in an inflammatory manner. The character assessment might be accurate. But that conversation belongs somewhere else. Another baseline rule is that you don’t distort your opponent’s position, then attack the distortion. Now that’s a hard rule to enforce. But the quote box manifestation is straightforward. The reader knows that if it’s in the quote box, it may have been taken out of context, but at least the words are accurate, subject to sanction by the person doing the quoting. Of course every rule, no matter how sensible, has its downside. In this case, these rules limit the self-expression of some of the precious snowflakes on this board. This is unfortunate, up to a point. On balance, I believe this to be a good rule. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e4f/32.png) [@Digital\_is\_the\_new\_Analog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_is_the_new_Analog)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427/40 "2012-09-03T22:20:13Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > [Here’s the rule in full:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048) > > I would say that adding bolding or italics for emphasis fall within “normal editorial rules,” although it would be good to mention that the emphasis was added by you. > > What **Snowboarder Bo** did was quite specifically a rule violation, which he would have known if he had bothered to read the rules before he made his complaint. Thanks. I suspected that was the case, but [del]was too lazy to check[/del] wasn’t sure. -D/a [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-ill-complain-about-my-warning-here-then/633427.md?page=3)